Evidence, please.

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Evidence, please.

Quote:
Evidence should be:

 

  • Consistent
  • Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predicatively)
  • Empirically testable and falsifiable
  • Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  • Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  • Progressive (refines previous theories)
  • Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Wikipedia

 Your personal opinions, revelations, visions and warm fuzzy feelings are not evidence. They meet none of the basic criteria.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: "My point

jcgadfly wrote:

 "My point is, why do you DISBELIEVE every single event claim ever made in the history of the human species?"

Because unique, non-repeatable experiences aren't beneficial to anyone other than the person experiencing them.

Now, if you experienced something and could tell me how you did it and I could get the same result you did that would make your results more substantial to me.

 If the universe isn't made of nails why is the only solution you offer a hammer named "God"?

Brilliantly put.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, Lion

Lion IRC wrote:

Reading some of the skeptics above, I see its very easy to simply dismiss another persons DIRECT evidence...miracle, hearing a voice, seeing a ghost, etc.

 

But my point isnt - "oh, please you gotta believe me."   (My individual, single, personal sensory experience)

 

My point is, why do you DISBELIEVE every single event claim ever made in the history of the human species?

 

And you dismiss them ALL for the same reason in every case - namely, because you didnt have the exact same experience yourself, and/or you expect to be able to summon up identical experience/evidence on command.

 

It's a category error. Naturalism/empiricism reminds me of that Abraham Maslow remark..."when the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail"

 

The universe isn't made of nails.

 

 

 

Your sense organs evolved to sense changes in the material environment rendering you utterly unable to perceive or even define anything that could be called supernatural. However, as readers and movie-goers will attest, we were all born with the ability to create multiple alternative realities/personal relationships (which are always material) inside our heads.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Having exactly the same

Having exactly the same experience myself would only demonstrate that the experience was subjectively just as the first person described, it would not prove that it wasn't some form of illusion or hallucination. 

It would still need separate, objective evidence for the reality of what seemed to have happened, especially if there was anything unusual or unnatural about it.

No-one is questioning what people felt they had seen or experienced. Only their interpretation of it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not bothered by being called an animal

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

For the time being we're stuck with the term "God". The term covers a lot of territory, but it's still needed to explain things to others. Now---in our study we find the term "Way" is also used as the meaning of God. So-my "Way" to relate to others is through "Humanism", that's an acute observation of yours. BUT, if we converse with one who says he's a humanist and point out that what they believe in is "Christianity", they'll deny it. To solve the worlds problems one needs to understand Humanism from animal ism. The worlds problem is "animal ism", change that and we have a different world. That's all JC was representative of. He's the victim of the dark age botch job, and in turn so was/is everyone else. Civilization operates on animal entity/traits, change to humanism and all systems collapse. Civilizations and religions cannot exist without authority structures, as those same are derived from animal traits. Authority structures are not from humanism. Consider carefully- there's only two possible directions that the world operates on in it's relations with others, and you now know what that is. There can be no other "Ways". Now you're trapped-- if you wish to complain about the world and it's condition you have to give up the animal to change it. If you opt to remain using the animal then you remain at fault the same as others. Each one has to make up their own mind. When enough folk have made that decision the systems begin to fail. That is what is referred to in the book as "tribulation". What will one decide? Which "Way" to go? Keeping things as they are won't solve the problem(s). But, does one want to change to destroy the system to make the change.

  

 

 

The problem with your idea is that there are those who call themselves "Christian Humanists" who don't consider God and humanism equivalent.

It also seems like you are bothered with being called an animal because you think humans are something special. I hate to disappoint you but we're not. We have some things that we do better than other animals and we have some things that we suck at compared to other animals. 

The "way" you need to go is the one that will help you and the rest of the species.  No extra BS required.

Our studies showed us Christianity "is" humanism. JC got a bad rap. The past atrocities by religion weren't done because of Christianity, they were done because they didn't understand it. If JC would never have been they would have done the same,. they were doing as they've always done. We agree that religion is the problem that is expressed here on this site. But--could (I'm asking for thought) it be that there is a right one-or one that would be OK, or the right one needs to be found.

We find it hard to understand how an intelligent one can be without any belief. It seems that belief is formed automatically.

If one is to use the term "human" it has to mean something. We find it a way to relate to others. It is a twin to "humane".

Not to be condemning-- But it seems to me that what is proposed by Atheists is that material sciences will eventually lead to a solving of the problems. I agree, but material sciences will only solve material problems. All the science that we've gone through so far hasn't gotten us any closer to a solution.

Yes- we have some things that we suck at compared to animals. That's because we can reason to go farther then they. Our reasoning can be used to our own detriment.

Our problems extend from the values we apply in one's relations with others. The problems we have as a species cannot be solved by material means.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Vastet

Lion IRC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
(I can't demand the right to direct, personal observation of costly experiments - I have to rely on the honesty of scientists and what gets reported.)
Untrue. There are multiple ways to directly observe. 1: You do it yourself. 2: You become an expert in a field and do it yourself in the lab with the big bucks. 3: You fund the experiment. 4: You know someone. 5: You get a position in the lab, i.e. cleaner, and review the data whenever the opportunity arises. I'm sure there's more.

 

In other words, seek and ye shall find.

In the meantime, accept that other peoples observations may ACTUALLY be true.

No, that is not the way it works.

When there is a dispute about the nature of reality in human observation there is only ONE tool all humans have to settle those disputes. Scientific method. Even in science when something is postulated it remains a claim until scrutiny from outside sources through peer review confirm the claim through testing and falsification.

Ethics require one not to fear one's claims being kicked around and thrashed. If the claim is shot down, then the ethical thing to do is to scrap the claim and move on.

It is why we have air flight. It is why we have put man on the moon. It is why both you and I know what DNA is.

Religion does not have that same high standard. Religion's only requirement is to rely on credulity, gap filling, and conformation bias.

God belief exists, not because invisible brains exist. It exists merely because of the imagination of humans because of our natural evolutionary flaw of gap filling as a default. God belief exists because we are falsely attempting to re create our parents in super hero form.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:We find it

Old Seer wrote:

We find it hard to understand how an intelligent one can be without any belief. It seems that belief is formed automatically.

Which shows a lack of understanding of modern science.

What is formed 'automatically' are intuitions, which encode what seem to be useful interpretations and reactions to frequently encountered situations, so that we can react more quickly and directly without having to think about it every time. It is really an aspect of learning. 'Beliefs' are more consciously formed and held.

All an intelligent person needs is a set of 'working assumptions' which should be open to adjustment and augmentation as life experience grows.

Science is not 'material', which is a term way past its 'use-by' date in this context, rather it is 'natural', as distinct from the 'supernatural'. The only restriction is that whatever we study must have some reasonably consistent detectable effect on what can be perceived by our senses or our minds, preferably backed up by use of some kind of instrumentation, so as to get past the flaws in our unaided mental and physical perceptions.

Science studies all that can be consistently studied. The rest, such as truly 'one-off' phenomena, can only be largely the subject of speculation.

We only have access to natural means, but that includes the application of physical, psychological, sociological, and more abstract techniques of analysis such as complex systems theory, information theory. We study both matter and energy and their interrelationships, the forces acting on matter particles, the patterns of interactions, from both the simplest systems up to the most complex, such as Life.

What is restrictively 'material' about Mathematics and Logic? Or Information and Communication Theory?

What is 'material' about studying the way people interact and behave, from the individual level to the broadest collective, social level? What do you think is missing that is not addressed by observing and recording what people do and say, both in normal life and in test situations, and analysing the information so gathered for significant patterns and correlations? What 'immaterial' information do you think is being missed, that would help us understand better our "relations with others"?

 

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Christianity' isQuote:the

'Christianity' is

Quote:

the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

it is NOT "humanism":

Quote:

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

JC, if he existed, definitely believed in a supernatural, divine being, and the importance of such belief.

We do NOT need the God word to explain anything, we only 'need' it when talking about a subset of human beliefs and actions, ie , those associated with particular religions.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Bob

BobSpence wrote:

'Christianity' is

Quote:

the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

it is NOT "humanism":

Quote:

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

JC, if he existed, definitely believed in a supernatural, divine being, and the importance of such belief.

 

 

A spiritual man is taught by the father. He did not believe in a higher power of supernatural. He is an exact copy of what formed him. (not physically). What formed him is exactly the same thing that form you and me. We have no difference in each other. He is no different than anyone else. He has nothing more then you or I. The formation of his person cannot be any different then anyone else. He merely represents the set of charateristics from only one side. he also has an animal; side. That is evident when he drove the money changers out of the temple. What formed him is what formed us all. Bob, you're victim of old age Euro thinking. What-ever we possess as a personal makeup is passed down from previous generations--he is no different. Her was not formed by any spirituaL forces out in space some where. He came from exactly where we came from. Don't expect people that write dictionaries to understand him---they don't. If they did-they would be telling you waht we're telling you. He represents what a proper human being is supposed to be, nothing more, nothing less.

(smiley)

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:BobSpence

Old Seer wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

'Christianity' is

Quote:

the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

it is NOT "humanism":

Quote:

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

JC, if he existed, definitely believed in a supernatural, divine being, and the importance of such belief. 

A spiritual man is taught by the father. He did not believe in a higher power of supernatural. He is an exact copy of what formed him. (not physically). What formed him is exactly the same thing that form you and me. We have no difference in each other. He is no different than anyone else. He has nothing more then you or I. The formation of his person cannot be any different then anyone else. He merely represents the set of charateristics from only one side. he also has an animal; side. That is evident when he drove the money changers out of the temple. What formed him is what formed us all. Bob, you're victim of old age Euro thinking. What-ever we possess as a personal makeup is passed down from previous generations--he is no different. Her was not formed by any spirituaL forces out in space some where. He came from exactly where we came from. Don't expect people that write dictionaries to understand him---they don't. If they did-they would be telling you waht we're telling you. He represents what a proper human being is supposed to be, nothing more, nothing less.

(smiley)

No-one is an "exact copy" of any other person.

We are all different to varying degrees, both physically and in our minds. 

What is it that you claim 'formed' him and us??

Do you still believe in the primitive ideas of 'spirit' and/or 'essence'? 

How do you come to such confident conclusions on the nature and ideas of the very sketchily and not consistently described person referred to in the those ancient writings? A 'proper' human being? By what standard, or are saying JC is the standard? By what criteria did you come to that conclusion?

One of the real essential features of humans that has allowed both our highest achievements and our most nasty actions is our variety, is the FACT that our nature is less strictly governed by inherited instinct than other creatures, allowing our societies to explore far more options for the structures of our societies. There is NO 'ideal' or 'proper' human character. We need many types in a rich and productive society.

We share many characteristics with the rest of the animal world. We share a sense of fairness with animals at least 'down to' dogs and other social creatures. 

We share a sense of death and the significance of the remains of others of our kind with elephants.

You make an artificial and somewhat crude distinction between the 'animal' and 'human' sides of our nature. Our similarities and differences with our animal ancestors is far more subtle and complex than you seem to portray.

A key distinction which does not seem to be shared to any significant degree with the rest of the animal world is the development of a recordable symbolic language - a complex symbolic language and writing as a way to record it and pass on complex ideas, allowing the continuing development of culture and knowledge.

When you say "European", are you distinguishing those ideas from Oriental or Eastern ideas? Perhaps African? Which have their own sets of misconceptions.

You seem to be the victim of a whole bunch of personal misconceptions, mired in a limited understanding of just about everything.

Reputable dictionaries record what people generally understand by the words. You really need to invent new words or phrases to describe your very idiosyncratic and personal re-interpretations of those words, if you genuinely desire to be understood. Or at least make it clear they are your personal ideas, not claim they are THE 'true' meanings of those words.

Keep trying. You may yet come up with something genuinely interesting and/or insightful. "Out of the mouths of babes", as they say...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
In "your" idea of things.

You yourself are proof of what we're saying. What version of "Human" do you wish to use. we have only one. That means that the other 5 can be used to dispute anything, and leave ours out. Human to us is-love, kindness, caring, charity, helpfulness etc. Animal is , domination, predatorism, self importance, and general sociopathology,. One can choose which of these to use to relate to others yes/no. No one is created with any spiritual difference then any one else. Everyone has the very same inner makeup.

JC is no different. You have the precepts of Christianity whether you accept it or not. It seems to me with all this brain work and study going on here you all would have figured this out for yourselves by now.

Give your proposal on what the worlds problems extend from, and the solution.

We say-- It's animal mentality--the solution, put away the animal and resort to the "human"/"humane".

If you say there is only a human animal, you have no solution, and you are also saying there isn't any possible.

Can you find any other personal characteristics then animal or human to relate to others by/with. If so, what are they? If you want strictly neutrals then we're a tiny brained garden slug.

If you wish to use dictionary terms, understand that dictionaries reflect common thought. Common thought can be and more often is terribly wrong.

The dictionary definition given is by those who claim to be humanists is merely their idea of it. The dictionary merely forwards their description. Why not use ours. Ours works.

Hypothetically-if there are a total of 100 attributes that make us what we are, then all have the 100. That is the sameness we express. JC cannot be any different. What makes the difference is which of these is used in prominence. Personage is personage, no one has any more then anyone else.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
to old seer...

Yoshua bin Yoseph if he existed at all was a pathetic little madman whose greatest accomplishment seems to have been annoying enough people to get himself lynched. He did nothing of importance,  he said nothing that had not been said before. He represents nothing more than 'palid incompetence on a stick'.

The fact that some opportunistic followers chose to expand on his useless life and tawdry end notwithstanding.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You yourself

Old Seer wrote:

You yourself are proof of what we're saying. What version of "Human" do you wish to use. we have only one. That means that the other 5 can be used to dispute anything, and leave ours out. Human to us is-love, kindness, caring, charity, helpfulness etc. Animal is , domination, predatorism, self importance, and general sociopathology,. One can choose which of these to use to relate to others yes/no. No one is created with any spiritual difference then any one else. Everyone has the very same inner makeup.

JC is no different. You have the precepts of Christianity whether you accept it or not. It seems to me with all this brain work and study going on here you all would have figured this out for yourselves by now.

Give your proposal on what the worlds problems extend from, and the solution.

We say-- It's animal mentality--the solution, put away the animal and resort to the "human"/"humane".

If you say there is only a human animal, you have no solution, and you are also saying there isn't any possible.

Can you find any other personal characteristics then animal or human to relate to others by/with. If so, what are they? If you want strictly neutrals then we're a tiny brained garden slug.

If you wish to use dictionary terms, understand that dictionaries reflect common thought. Common thought can be and more often is terribly wrong.

The dictionary definition given is by those who claim to be humanists is merely their idea of it. The dictionary merely forwards their description. Why not use ours. Ours works.

Hypothetically-if there are a total of 100 attributes that make us what we are, then all have the 100. That is the sameness we express. JC cannot be any different. What makes the difference is which of these is used in prominence. Personage is personage, no one has any more then anyone else.

I'm sorry, it may be the fact that English is my second language, but I find what you write very difficult to follow.  I find it to lack focus, relevance or any sort of basis.  I hope it is a shortcoming on my end, anyone else can back me up on this.

Bob has already addressed this, but I need to ask, where does the arbitrary animal/human distinction come from, is it a personal philosophy, some sort of new age thing?  Who is the WE you keep referring to?  Do you mean we as chiristians? we as humans? we as (insert your new age flavor of christianity)?

Now to address your... points?

We are all most definitely not made of the same stuff "spiritually".  I'm not sure what you mean by spirituality, but if you mean character traits (derived from the context) then this is likely the one aspect that we differ the most.  Our ability to control instincts, focus and retain information is what accounts for the obvious variety.

JC at best was a good public speaker and at worst didn't exist, all this spiritual half talk and new age metaphors make my BS sense tingle so much they tickle.

Dictionaries don't reflect common thought, they attempt to list the complete set of definition for a given term.  One may misinterpret a term, or use the incorrect definition RELATIVE TO THE CONTEXT.  A reputable dictionary should be the ultimate authority for any given meaning for a word.  

You have to define the terms debated ahead of time, otherwise you can just keep moving the goal posts.  You also have to have some common epistemic paradigm, such as Bob is attempting to set, otherwise you cannot coherently exchange information (communicate).  A dictionary is a good reference for presetting such necessary fundamental conditions. 

Lastly you mention that JC, be him the son of god, is fundamentally of the same building blocks, "spiritually" as any one of us.  He just chose to use his "human" traits more so then his "animal" traits.  If that's so, does that mean that any other human, choosing the same "human" traits will become the next JC? Or, since JC was not perfect, does that mean that someone could, in theory, be holier then JC?  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You yourself

Old Seer wrote:

You yourself are proof of what we're saying. What version of "Human" do you wish to use. we have only one. That means that the other 5 can be used to dispute anything, and leave ours out. Human to us is-love, kindness, caring, charity, helpfulness etc. Animal is , domination, predatorism, self importance, and general sociopathology,. One can choose which of these to use to relate to others yes/no. No one is created with any spiritual difference then any one else. Everyone has the very same inner makeup.

You have yet to to justify any of these claims.

"Human" also includes levels of cruelty and persecution beyond what animals are intellectually equipped to devise and inflict. 

"Human" encompasses a range, a continuum, a complex set of characteristics varying in strength of manifestation in any individual. There is no magic set of 5 or 6 "versions". You can label the negative aspects "animal' if you like, but that is neither useful or accurate.

We are not "created". We each grow from a fusion of characteristics from two individuals. What is your evidence for this unchanging 'spiritual' essence?

Just making such claims is empty.

Quote:

JC is no different. You have the precepts of Christianity whether you accept it or not. It seems to me with all this brain work and study going on here you all would have figured this out for yourselves by now.

Give your proposal on what the worlds problems extend from, and the solution.

What's with this fixation on the ill-defined figure of JC?

There are many individuals, throughout history, who have had far more meaningful things to say on the human condition. I personally see vastly more understanding of humanity, our faults and achievements, in the works of William Shakespeare, just to name one.

We have many, many precepts put forward over the millennia. What are your grounds for gravitating to the Jesus figure?

What about Siddhārtha Gautama, on whose teachings Buddhism is based? I don't agree with all his ideas, but he definitely deserves as much or more consideration than JC, if you feel you must hark back to some ancient teacher as the basis of your views.

Our problems largely seem to arise from our clever but finite and falllble human minds leading us to develop a world-spanning civilization way too complex for the those same minds to manage, minds of creatures which evolved in small groups on the African savannah to manage.

There is no guarantee that there is a solution. If there is, it is unlikely to be from the simplistic pronouncements of a figure who lived in an era where people had no conception of the scale and complexity of the world of conflicting societies we confront today.

Quote:

We say-- It's animal mentality--the solution, put away the animal and resort to the "human"/"humane".

If you say there is only a human animal, you have no solution, and you are also saying there isn't any possible.

Can you find any other personal characteristics then animal or human to relate to others by/with. If so, what are they? If you want strictly neutrals then we're a tiny brained garden slug.

If you wish to use dictionary terms, understand that dictionaries reflect common thought. Common thought can be and more often is terribly wrong.

The dictionary definition given is by those who claim to be humanists is merely their idea of it. The dictionary merely forwards their description. Why not use ours. Ours works.

Hypothetically-if there are a total of 100 attributes that make us what we are, then all have the 100. That is the sameness we express. JC cannot be any different. What makes the difference is which of these is used in prominence. Personage is personage, no one has any more then anyone else.

I find little point in categorising our personal characteristics into 'animal' or 'human'. Too imprecise and subjective. You seem obsessed with labelling things.

Some characteristics we only share with our closest relatives, the primates. Although there is strong evidence that dolphins have high order intelligences as well, comparable to primates, or higher in some cases. Others we seem to share with other social animals. Then we get down to more basic traits we share with most or all other living creatures.

We are human, and we are animals. What do mean by "only"? I did not say those terms fully describe us.

You keep missing the point of how the attributes we share with animals are manifest in us to different degrees, some to enormously different levels, especially with regard to our mental capacity, but not only that. It does not require 'neutrality' to distinguish us from a garden slug, just a more accurate account of the different way those common attributes are manifest in different species.

Dictionaries are only "wrong" if their account does not accurately describe what common usage IS. It is a separate issue, of no concern to the dictionary compilers, whether the ideas attached to a particular term accurately match reality or not, or whether the particular philosophy that a word refers to 'works' or not.

You have not defined your version anywhere near adequately for us to assess if it has anything to offer, let alone to demonstrate that it 'works'.

What makes your idea of "humanism" more useful or accurate than others who identify with the same term?

If we all have the same set of attributes, that does not make us identical. We manifest all the various attributes of "humanity", general intelligence, empathy, compassion, prejudice, etc, to different degrees. Then we have different life experiences, which further modify what defines each individual.

Your claim of this underlying 'sameness' is meaningless. We are both similar and different to each other, and we change over our lifetime. If you cannot grasp that, you have a lot to learn. Some are definitely more capable, more fully human, that others.

You still have not answered most of the questions I raised in earlier posts.

You keep making these empty claims without backup, and naked assertions that your ideas 'work'.

I can assure you my world-view 'works' also. How would you go about demonstrating that yours works as well or better? I have been developing mine for nearly 60 years. And observed from close-up many cultures, from East to West. What are your credentials?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You yourself are proof

Quote:
You yourself are proof of what we're saying. What version of "Human" do you wish to use. we have only one. That means that the other 5 can be used to dispute anything, and leave ours out. Human to us is-love, kindness, caring, charity, helpfulness etc. Animal is , domination, predatorism, self importance, and general sociopathology,. One can choose which of these to use to relate to others yes/no. No one is created with any spiritual difference then any one else. Everyone has the very same inner makeup.

Once again your stupid argument that holding your particular brand of Jesus fan-dom will solve the world's problems.

The problem is that the bible is not a PHD clinical psychology textbook in human behavior. Nor does it explain evolution in natural terms. Which is why you do not understand that humans throughout the species evolution have always done good and bad.

Being good or being bad does not depend on belief in Jesus, or Allah or Thor or Vishnu.  Which is why there is so much stupid fucking conflict in the world. Because humans like you see yourselves above nature instead of part of nature. Once you understand how stupid your tribalistic book is, and understand that invisible friends are not needed to understand that humans are the same, you will continue to add to the bullshit tribalism of our species.

WE DO NOT NEED JESUS to do good or bad. Evolution and human psychology explain good behavior and bad behavior.

War is about resources.

Crime for money is about greed or poverty.

Crimes of sex are about power and control.

All of those things have ALWAYS HAPPAN will continue even when Christianity in the future becomes a dead myth like Apollo.

None of those natural human actions are caused or allowed by a magic man with a magic wand. None of those things are caused by a man with a pitchfork re-arranging the neurons in your brain.

Observation of those things by science and study of psychology and human history help humanity reduce the harm those bad things can have on all humans. No magic needed, no invisible friend needed. That is how you reduce the impact on humans. Study and observation, not a fucking book of myth.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Bob, Bob

BobSpence wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

You yourself are proof of what we're saying. What version of "Human" do you wish to use. we have only one. That means that the other 5 can be used to dispute anything, and leave ours out. Human to us is-love, kindness, caring, charity, helpfulness etc. Animal is , domination, predatorism, self importance, and general sociopathology,. One can choose which of these to use to relate to others yes/no. No one is created with any spiritual difference then any one else. Everyone has the very same inner makeup.

You have yet to to justify any of these claims.

"Human" also includes levels of cruelty and persecution beyond what animals are intellectually equipped to devise and inflict. 

"Human" encompasses a range, a continuum, a complex set of characteristics varying in strength of manifestation in any individual. There is no magic set of 5 or 6 "versions". You can label the negative aspects "animal' if you like, but that is neither useful or accurate.

Wd are not "created". We each grow from a fusion of characteristics from two individuals. What is your evidence for this unchanging 'spiritual' essence?

Just making such claims is empty.

Quote:

JC is no different. You have the precepts of Christianity whether you accept it or not. It seems to me with all this brain work and study going on here you all would have figured this out for yourselves by now.

Give your proposal on what the worlds problems extend from, and the solution.

What's with this fixation on the ill-defined figure of JC?

There are many individuals, throughout history, who have had far more meaningful things to say on the human condition. I personally see vastly more understanding of humanity, our faults and achievements, in the works of William Shakespeare, just to name one.

We have many, many precepts put forward over the millennia. What are your grounds for gravitating to the Jesus figure?

What about Siddhārtha Gautama, on whose teachings Buddhism is based? I don't agree with all his ideas, but he definitely deserves as much or more consideration than JC, if you feel you must hark back to some ancient teacher as the basis of your views.

Our problems largely seem to arise from our clever but finite and falllble human minds leading us to develop a world-spanning civilization way too complex for the those same minds to manage, minds of creatures which evolved in small groups on the African savannah to manage.

There is no guarantee that there is a solution. If there is, it is unlikely to be from the simplistic pronouncements of a figure who lived in an era where people had no conception of the scale and complexity of the world of conflicting societies we confront today.

Quote:

We say-- It's animal mentality--the solution, put away the animal and resort to the "human"/"humane".

If you say there is only a human animal, you have no solution, and you are also saying there isn't any possible.

Can you find any other personal characteristics then animal or human to relate to others by/with. If so, what are they? If you want strictly neutrals then we're a tiny brained garden slug.

If you wish to use dictionary terms, understand that dictionaries reflect common thought. Common thought can be and more often is terribly wrong.

The dictionary definition given is by those who claim to be humanists is merely their idea of it. The dictionary merely forwards their description. Why not use ours. Ours works.

Hypothetically-if there are a total of 100 attributes that make us what we are, then all have the 100. That is the sameness we express. JC cannot be any different. What makes the difference is which of these is used in prominence. Personage is personage, no one has any more then anyone else.

I find little point in categorising our personal characteristics into 'animal' or 'human'. Too imprecise and subjective. You seem obsessed with labelling things.

Some characteristics we only share with our closest relatives, the primates. Although there is strong evidence that dolphins have high order intelligences as well, comparable to primates, or higher in some cases. Others we seem to share with other social animals. Then we get down to more basic traits we share with most or all other living creatures.

We are human, and we are animals. What do mean by "only"? I did not say those terms fully describe us.

You keep missing the point of how the attributes we share with animals are manifest in us to different degrees, some to enormously different levels, especially with regard to our mental capacity, but not only that. It does not require 'neutrality' to distinguish us from a garden slug, just a more accurate account of the different way those common attributes are manifest in different species.

Dictionaries are only "wrong" if their account does not accurately describe what common usage IS. It is a separate issue, of no concern to the dictionary compilers, whether the ideas attached to a particular term accurately match reality or not, or whether the particular philosophy that a word refers to 'works' or not.

You have not defined your version anywhere near adequately for us to assess if it has anything to offer, let alone to demonstrate that it 'works'.

What makes your idea of "humanism" more useful or accurate than others who identify with the same term?

If we all have the same set of attributes, that does not make us identical. We manifest all the various attributes of "humanity", general intelligence, empathy, compassion, prejudice, etc, to different degrees. Then we have different life experiences, which further modify what defines each individual.

Your claim of this underlying 'sameness' is meaningless. We are both similar and different to each other, and we change over our lifetime. If you cannot grasp that, you have a lot to learn. Some are definitely more capable, more fully human, that others.

You still have not answered most of the questions I raised in earlier posts.

You keep making these empty claims without backup, and naked assertions that your ideas 'work'.

I can assure you my world-view 'works' also. How would you go about demonstrating that yours works as well or better? I have been developing mine for nearly 60 years. And observed from close-up many cultures, from East to West. What are your credentials?

I know your smarter then this. Your extensive knowledge of things material is superb. How can it be that you fall down on mental things. If you apply the same methods to understand what I'm saying you'll find we're right.  We don't deal in assuptions except to set course. After the assumptions one encounters fact--if they look and study.

On one hand you mention "human" knowledge, on another you point out human ignorance. At the same time you claim to be a human animal. If so-- then is there "animal knowledge and or animal ignorance. You want it both ways---as with us at one time when we started off in 1985. In our experiences in life and with others we find ourselves correct. There is Human and there is animal, no one is making it up. It is simple observation that proves us correct.

My goodness Bob-- the definition of Human is your good side. Did I not say that human is ones--kindness, caring, love, etc--that's a good guy.

Do some observing of yourself and others - you'll find we have no empty claims. You mean you can't understand the difference in treating others with kindness as being different then treating them with contempt. \

What do you mean without back up--- The evidence of yourself is backup. Are you an empty claim, you are no different then us' Are you saying that you person has different contents then all others.

My credentials are--being part of a study and search for bible meaning with persons with excellent backgrounds in their fields. My input was to submit questions for their review and analysis. I am submitting to you the results. I didn't do all this on my own. They invited me into their circle, I accepted.

My input started off with biblical creation. Being a physicist (of some degree anyways) Biblical creation if material didn't make sense so I determined it to relate to something spiritual. But "if" it's spiritual then what does it mean. That's where they come in.

If-you were as scientific as you claim (I say you are) I would expect you would do as they. Or you can go by the dictionary constructed by common knowledge and get nowhere. Or-you have to settle for "one" usage of the term "human" and go with that. It' can't be all 6 or 8 usages. Or- you can choose one that fits your ideology. We've encountered that only one works to solve the "human" problem, and that is---human is the opposite of animal. If not--human goes nowhere. Then there in no such thing as a Human problem. Or- there's no such thing as an "animal" problem. Other then that--there's no problem.

Or you can say that the dark age idiots that interpreted the book are idiots and let it go at that. Or-you can dig in and find out why they are idiots. If you do that you'll find more then what you're looking for--we did.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The bible is just a

The bible is just a collection of writings by people who were not the best informed, even in the age when they were writing.

There is no particular reason to "interpret" it, to find deeper meaning in it, we have by now many far better documents and sources of knowledge about "Life, the Universe, and Everything", to quote the late great Douglas Adams.

If you see the bible in any other way, and your only 'credentials' are being part of a group studying the bible, I am singularly unimpressed. 

To know reality, you must study reality, not just the ideas of a group of people living  a few thousand years ago. You are studying myth, not truth.

Reality is vastly more complex than could be encompassed in the words of the bible, even if any of it were accurate.

It is hardly a mystery why the stories don't make sense, they are merely the result of uninformed human imagination.

My experience contradicts just about aspect of your claims. You still haven't described what you base your claims on. That is what I mean by 'back-up', at a minimum. Proper argument, explaining why you have come to these conclusions. It is way insufficient to simply refer to the bible and what you perceive of the nature of humanity. 

Physics is grossly inadequate to explain and understand human thought and culture, maybe that is part of your problem. Although of course it is essential to get some idea of the origin and early development of the Universe, and the nature of matter and energy.

We can employ several usages of any word, in different contexts.

I have, apparently, a far better grasp than you of 'mental things'. Neuroscience and psychology is making great strides in revealing to us the mechanisms of thought, the workings  of our brains.

Humans have both knowledge about things, and are simultaneously ignorant about much. There is no contradiction there. We are animal, and human. One is not the opposite of the other. We add our human qualities to our underlying animal nature, and different degrees of each can manifest in any given activity.

I'm sorry, you have nothing to offer me, we are on such different 'tracks', such different outlooks, it seems we are doomed to talk past each other.

You still haven't answered such basic questions as why you decided that the bible is where you will find truth. And just what is your criterion for judging that your ideas 'work'. Its beginning to sound like 'confirmation bias'. IOW, you are seeing things through the filters of your own assumptions and beliefs, and recognizing what seems consistent with your ideas, and not noticing that which conflicts.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:My credentials

Quote:
My credentials are--being part of a study and search for bible meaning with persons with excellent backgrounds in their fields. My input was to submit questions for their review and analysis. I am submitting to you the results. I didn't do all this on my own. They invited me into their circle, I accepted.

A "bible study" isn't shit. And I don't care if it were Pat Robertson or Billy Graham, they are not scientists nor psychologists, or academic historians. They are apologists. The are merely recruiters for their club. If the people you say are "experts" are of that ilk, which you know they are, their "degree" is not in anything near being credible like scientific method. And their "study" in the form of a questionaire does not constitute replication or falsification or independent review.

Selling a myth is not "study" it is merely preying on the credulous and gullible through marketing.

There are fans of Star Wars who know every line of every movie and collect comic books. They can be "experts" in that series and know every actor and collect every bubble gum card. But they are not scientists or psychologists or evolutionary biologists. Even they are not nutty enough to say "The force is real".

You are merely a recruiter and an apologist. Your are nothing but an apologist trying to peddle a magic man with a magic wand.

There are lagit historians who study hieroglyphics but do not believe the sun is a god and not trying to claim that Osirus was real. They are simply historians who tell us what the ancient Egyptians used to believe.

Nothing in your posts indicates anything but the fact that people are capable of believing false things. Don't feel bad, you are in good company with all the other fans of all the other magic men claims humans make.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Start from page 1.

BobSpence wrote:

The bible is just a collection of writings by people who were not the best informed, even in the age when they were writing.

There is no particular reason to "interpret" it, to find deeper meaning in it, we have by now many far better documents and sources of knowledge about "Life, the Universe, and Everything", to quote the late great Douglas Adams.

If you see the bible in any other way, and your only 'credentials' are being part of a group studying the bible, I am singularly unimpressed. 

To know reality, you must study reality, not just the ideas of a group of people living  a few thousand years ago. You are studying myth, not truth.

Reality is vastly more complex than could be encompassed in the words of the bible, even if any of it were accurate.

It is hardly a mystery why the stories don't make sense, they are merely the result of uninformed human imagination.

My experience contradicts just about aspect of your claims. You still haven't described what you base your claims on. That is what I mean by 'back-up', at a minimum. Proper argument, explaining why you have come to these conclusions. It is way insufficient to simply refer to the bible and what you perceive of the nature of humanity. 

Physics is grossly inadequate to explain and understand human thought and culture, maybe that is part of your problem. Although of course it is essential to get some idea of the origin and early development of the Universe, and the nature of matter and energy.

We can employ several usages of any word, in different contexts.

I have, apparently, a far better grasp than you of 'mental things'. Neuroscience and psychology is making great strides in revealing to us the mechanisms of thought, the workings  of our brains.

Humans have both knowledge about things, and are simultaneously ignorant about much. There is no contradiction there. We are animal, and human. One is not the opposite of the other. We add our human qualities to our underlying animal nature, and different degrees of each can manifest in any given activity.

I'm sorry, you have nothing to offer me, we are on such different 'tracks', such different outlooks, it seems we are doomed to talk past each other.

You still haven't answered such basic questions as why you decided that the bible is where you will find truth. And just what is your criterion for judging that your ideas 'work'. Its beginning to sound like 'confirmation bias'. IOW, you are seeing things through the filters of your own assumptions and beliefs, and recognizing what seems consistent with your ideas, and not noticing that which conflicts.

 

It'll take you about 2 years to get the idea.

I can find truth in the bible because ancient people knew it. It was they that discovered truth, The truth they found was truth about themselves. The truth is what Adam is. That's proper man.

So-you wish to be an animal without any nerve to comprehend a new thing. And you all here want to solve problems with what you know. The problem was solved thousands of years ago.

You want human and animal to be the same, to me it's obvious they are not the same. And you want to solve people's problems with a human animal concept. That's what the problem is- a misunderstanding of what "human" is. Then you are stuck with what you have, we're past that. Then we will let it get to you via the grapevine. As the saying goes--what goes around comes around. It will be coming around. Keep you eye on the masses, they will ultimately decide. So- as far as you are concerned our Psycho guy is wrong. Well according to him he learned something new that wasn't in his academics. He's amazed at what we uncovered---and now he helps people with it. He's retired now but still helps people. You can't tell him he's wrong because what he learned works for people. Apparently we are to intelligent for the world. And now I'm sure you will smear the fact that we are intelligent. Ok- do your animal thing. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:My

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
My credentials are--being part of a study and search for bible meaning with persons with excellent backgrounds in their fields. My input was to submit questions for their review and analysis. I am submitting to you the results. I didn't do all this on my own. They invited me into their circle, I accepted.

A "bible study" isn't shit. And I don't care if it were Pat Robertson or Billy Graham, they are not scientists nor psychologists, or academic historians. They are apologists. The are merely recruiters for their club. If the people you say are "experts" are of that ilk, which you know they are, their "degree" is not in anything near being credible like scientific method. And their "study" in the form of a questionaire does not constitute replication or falsification or independent review.

Selling a myth is not "study" it is merely preying on the credulous and gullible through marketing.

There are fans of Star Wars who know every line of every movie and collect comic books. They can be "experts" in that series and know every actor and collect every bubble gum card. But they are not scientists or psychologists or evolutionary biologists. Even they are not nutty enough to say "The force is real".

You are merely a recruiter and an apologist. Your are nothing but an apologist trying to peddle a magic man with a magic wand.

There are lagit historians who study hieroglyphics but do not believe the sun is a god and not trying to claim that Osirus was real. They are simply historians who tell us what the ancient Egyptians used to believe.

Nothing in your posts indicates anything but the fact that people are capable of believing false things. Don't feel bad, you are in good company with all the other fans of all the other magic men claims humans make.

 

 

 

Thank you for being rude--and animalistic. Regardless. You have what we gave you. Every day from now on you will encounter _"you". You won't avoid it. So, our 20 to 30 guys are wrong and you are right.

We are not trying to peddle anything. We only wish to show you what has been found. The psyhco guy says ---you are all victims of your own imagination.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Hey, Old Seer.  Put up or

Hey, Old Seer.  Put up or shut up.  You haven't made any firm claims.  You sound like the story line for the RPG game of the week.  "20-30 extremely intelligent people have congregated to read an ancient book and find it's secrets... blah blah, animal side versus human side, blah blah wolf spirit from my native american ancestors... blah blah magic shield... " wtf? am I the only one that thinks this guy is a freaking joke.  I have met people stoned out of their minds that made more sense then you.  You start with that spiritual talk it sounds like you are asking for donations for your hydroponics setup.  

So here is my question.  In plain English.  What is it that you are claiming? please refrain from any metaphors and wasteful words.  Thank you.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
We are simply relaying to you

Ktulu wrote:

Hey, Old Seer.  Put up or shut up.  You haven't made any firm claims.  You sound like the story line for the RPG game of the week.  "20-30 extremely intelligent people have congregated to read an ancient book and find it's secrets... blah blah, animal side versus human side, blah blah wolf spirit from my native american ancestors... blah blah magic shield... " wtf? am I the only one that thinks this guy is a freaking joke.  I have met people stoned out of their minds that made more sense then you.  You start with that spiritual talk it sounds like you are asking for donations for your hydroponics setup.  

So here is my question.  In plain English.  What is it that you are claiming? please refrain from any metaphors and wasteful words.  Thank you.

 

what we have found. We need no donations, we do not compete, we simply give to you.

We are saying that the problems of the world are mental, and there are two mental directions. One is the problem. We are not trying to convince you of anything. We leave it to you to decide. The animal mentality is the problem. Change to human and we have a different world. The proof of what we say is within you. There is no physical proof, as your being in itself is the proof. All, of your posts prove our point. You have a choice to treat others humanly or as if you are an animal.

We do not deal in magic. People are living facts, no magic needed.

Of course we don't make sense to you, we are from something different that people are unaccustomed to--we know that. But- it is our duty to relay the information, and that's what I've done. regardless of outcome. Things here are as expected.

It will take a bit to understand us--we also know that. Our intentions are not to make monkeys out of anyone. I endeavored to treat you all in a humane manner as advised by the others. We are scholars too. I have done what they asked me to do. The findings from our studies compel us to be "human" and leave the animal in the cage.

The psycho guy has analyzed all of you. We know you. But he also says---give them time. All the info you need to be peaceful in the world has been given you.

Your Atheism solves nothing, and you all are  a problem no different then those you refer to as Christians. The "guys" will be checking back now and then to see if there's been any improvement in your personalities. I predict that there won't be.

Plain English is, one is either man or one is animal. No one can be both at the same time. At any given moment one has to be one or the other. We all contain both, but can only portray one at a time.

We encounter the same as you from those that say they are Christian. To them we are biblically unsound.  The info is posted.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:what we have

Old Seer wrote:

what we have found. We need no donations, we do not compete, we simply give to you.

We are saying that the problems of the world are mental, and there are two mental directions. One is the problem. We are not trying to convince you of anything. We leave it to you to decide. The animal mentality is the problem. Change to human and we have a different world. The proof of what we say is within you. There is no physical proof, as your being in itself is the proof. All, of your posts prove our point. You have a choice to treat others humanly or as if you are an animal.

We do not deal in magic. People are living facts, no magic needed.

Of course we don't make sense to you, we are from something different that people are unaccustomed to--we know that. But- it is our duty to relay the information, and that's what I've done. regardless of outcome. Things here are as expected.

It will take a bit to understand us--we also know that. Our intentions are not to make monkeys out of anyone. I endeavored to treat you all in a humane manner as advised by the others. We are scholars too. I have done what they asked me to do. The findings from our studies compel us to be "human" and leave the animal in the cage.

The psycho guy has analyzed all of you. We know you. But he also says---give them time. All the info you need to be peaceful in the world has been given you.

Your Atheism solves nothing, and you all are  a problem no different then those you refer to as Christians. The "guys" will be checking back now and then to see if there's been any improvement in your personalities. I predict that there won't be.

Plain English is, one is either man or one is animal. No one can be both at the same time. At any given moment one has to be one or the other. We all contain both, but can only portray one at a time.

We encounter the same as you from those that say they are Christian. To them we are biblically unsound.  The info is posted.

Ok, thank you... (having second glass of wine, a rare occurrence for me).  Allow me to reiterate how I understand your claims to be up to now.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

1) You are part of a Bible study group composed of 20-30 individuals.  At least one is a physicist and one is psycho (I'm assuming you mean psychologist and not the common reference to the mental disorder that is psychosis).

2) You have uncovered some truth, said truth can be summarized as:

     a) all people, including JC, are spiritually the same (by spiritually you mean fundamental character traits)

     b) there are good character traits (you call those human) and bad character traits (you call those animal)

3) Your group somehow monitors us... not even sure what to make of that... I'll leave it alone.

4) Your main goal is to spread the word, and let everyone know of those epiphanies.

Did I forget anything?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, very good.

Ktulu wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

what we have found. We need no donations, we do not compete, we simply give to you.

We are saying that the problems of the world are mental, and there are two mental directions. One is the problem. We are not trying to convince you of anything. We leave it to you to decide. The animal mentality is the problem. Change to human and we have a different world. The proof of what we say is within you. There is no physical proof, as your being in itself is the proof. All, of your posts prove our point. You have a choice to treat others humanly or as if you are an animal.

We do not deal in magic. People are living facts, no magic needed.

Of course we don't make sense to you, we are from something different that people are unaccustomed to--we know that. But- it is our duty to relay the information, and that's what I've done. regardless of outcome. Things here are as expected.

It will take a bit to understand us--we also know that. Our intentions are not to make monkeys out of anyone. I endeavored to treat you all in a humane manner as advised by the others. We are scholars too. I have done what they asked me to do. The findings from our studies compel us to be "human" and leave the animal in the cage.

The psycho guy has analyzed all of you. We know you. But he also says---give them time. All the info you need to be peaceful in the world has been given you.

Your Atheism solves nothing, and you all are  a problem no different then those you refer to as Christians. The "guys" will be checking back now and then to see if there's been any improvement in your personalities. I predict that there won't be.

Plain English is, one is either man or one is animal. No one can be both at the same time. At any given moment one has to be one or the other. We all contain both, but can only portray one at a time.

We encounter the same as you from those that say they are Christian. To them we are biblically unsound.  The info is posted.

Ok, thank you... (having second glass of wine, a rare occurrence for me).  Allow me to reiterate how I understand your claims to be up to now.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

1) You are part of a Bible study group composed of 20-30 individuals.  At least one is a physicist and one is psycho (I'm assuming you mean psychologist and not the common reference to the mental disorder that is psychosis).

2) You have uncovered some truth, said truth can be summarized as:

     a) all people, including JC, are spiritually the same (by spiritually you mean fundamental character traits)

     b) there are good character traits (you call those human) and bad character traits (you call those animal)

3) Your group somehow monitors us... not even sure what to make of that... I'll leave it alone.

4) Your main goal is to spread the word, and let everyone know of those epiphanies.

Did I forget anything?

The bible refers to this as -things hidden from the foundation of the world. We found them. You don't think they would be lost forever do you. The day came when a few did. As a matter of fact -I've just been informed that they went against the rules and added another mind bender. I think that's 3 now.

No, you didn't forget anything--well maybe something, I said maybe.

Here's another biblical passage that applies--I will confound the wisdom of the wise and make fools out of the scholars.

They're not monitoring you, they're watching me. But they can't miss you all either. The psycho guy advises me on what he see's. He sees that some of you are receptive.

We are obligated to inform others. We have no choice. (The parable of the ten talents)

I've been commended on my patience to remain human. Maybe I'll get a citation---no, we don't get citations.

Another passage---it's so simple a child can write it down.

Now you can keep the human animal idea, we don't criticize it. We merely know that can't be.

Here's the simplicity of it. We say, the problem with the world is the values by which we regard each other, and those values are animal values. If you change to human values the world changes. (not the planet) There's more to it then that but that's the partial tally of it. And, it is the animal values that produces the world as it is today. If you use the human animal concept nothing can be solved. In the human animal concept the animal wins every time. The animal is domineering and aggressive, the human isn't. In this case the animal has the advantage.

They say I'm done here and that there is enough info for you all to use--if you choose to use it. we won't be disappointed if you don't, rejection goes with the job. They have a new assignment for me. The bean counter keeps track of things so we don't spend time duplicating things.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Plain English is, one

Quote:
Plain English is, one is either man or one is animal. No one can be both at the same time

You know nothing about evolution and this absurd comic book statement based on a fictional character clearly displays your willful ignorance of nature and biology and evolution.

We are animals, we simply have evolved to have more complex brains capable of deeper thought.

Your gang mentality of "my god is the one true god" reflects the poo flinging lesser brains in mammals display in their alpha male mentality. When "animals" do it it is understandable because they don't have human brains. When humans do it, like you, it pisses me off. You are not special and your fiction is not special. You are merely one of 7 billion.

We do not need Jesus to be good or do good. You need fiction to make yourself feel superior to others. You are the one debasing humans by saying they have to be co-dependent and need a daddy.

When you us the word "animal" in reference to humans, that is calling them scum. Not all humans are "scum".

When science uses the word "animal" it is merely description of one reflection of DNA that all life is made of, even plants. Do you think plants are "scum" because they don't have brains?

You are the one perpetuating needless human division by teaching them labels are important and "faith" which only values gap filling and credulity.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Funny how there isn't a

Funny how there isn't a single human behaviour which has failed to be found in other animals, yet he believes humans aren't animals.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Don't make eye contact and back away...slowly.

He lost me when he started in on the 'group speak'... He's a loon.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Then how does one

Vastet wrote:
Funny how there isn't a single human behaviour which has failed to be found in other animals, yet he believes humans aren't animals.

Account for the usage of the term "humane". The term can mean a conscious choice to treating someone as a human. That implies they are separate willful directions. If they are the same the choice cannot be made. Humane belongs within the human concept.

A garden slug with observation can be seen to have little or no humanity. The same humanity as we have can be observed in what is named "dog". Different species have different levels or applications of humanity. A bacteria very likely has none, unless a brain cam be found, and even at that how would one determine if it has a humanity. It's only a matter of how one wants to apply the term. You favor yours, we favor ours. If you don't do research on this subject then you have no valid means of criticism, just conjecture or opinion. You have to start where we did.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That some people think there

That some people think there is a difference, and created terminology to describe their belief in such a difference, is not sufficient to conclude there is a difference. The fact is that humans don't do anything unique to life.
We are in fact very good at copying other life. But nothing we've accomplished is significantly removed from the accomplishments of other life forms. We're just good at egotism and arrogance, and assuming there's something special about us. Well the evidence doesn't back that up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You can

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Plain English is, one is either man or one is animal. No one can be both at the same time

You know nothing about evolution and this absurd comic book statement based on a fictional character clearly displays your willful ignorance of nature and biology and evolution.

We are animals, we simply have evolved to have more complex brains capable of deeper thought.

Your gang mentality of "my god is the one true god" reflects the poo flinging lesser brains in mammals display in their alpha male mentality. When "animals" do it it is understandable because they don't have human brains. When humans do it, like you, it pisses me off. You are not special and your fiction is not special. You are merely one of 7 billion.

We do not need Jesus to be good or do good. You need fiction to make yourself feel superior to others. You are the one debasing humans by saying they have to be co-dependent and need a daddy.

When you us the word "animal" in reference to humans, that is calling them scum. Not all humans are "scum".

When science uses the word "animal" it is merely description of one reflection of DNA that all life is made of, even plants. Do you think plants are "scum" because they don't have brains?

You are the one perpetuating needless human division by teaching them labels are important and "faith" which only values gap filling and credulity.

 

 

 

 

 

refrain from the "God" thing. We don't see how any such thing exists.

Scientist have been known to be wrong---repeatedly.

I can't help you if you don't understand. I don,t see where I'm smarter than any one here. If we can figure it out you can.

In the final tally it's not going to be what you or we know or think. It ultimately will be decided by the masses. We've seen that it has gone to many places world wide  so governments and religions cannot retract it. We find that it is growing on it's own--as intended.

Superiority is an animal trait. We try our best to refrain from such practices. We can willfully override the animal if we wish, so can all of you.

As far as we know plants have no mentality. They cannot opt to be human or inhuman.

JC "Is" the good in all. That's what he represents. You're not going to get along without it, unless you want to be just animal and throw out human. That would make you a dangerous person. If there were no civil government would you go out of control. You'd be free to do and be as you wish. Civil government is what controls animal behavior in the attempt to keep people from becoming harmful. What will you do when government is gone--it is going away in due time.

When this is over there will be less then a billion left. (the love of the greater number will turn cold, the hand of every man will be against his brother, and by the hand of man will man's blood be shed). That's Armageddon . It is right behind us.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Superiority is an

Quote:
Superiority is an animal trait. We try our best to refrain from such practices. We can willfully override the animal if we wish, so can all of you.

Self delusion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You guys

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
Superiority is an animal trait. We try our best to refrain from such practices. We can willfully override the animal if we wish, so can all of you.
Self delusion.

are smarter then this. You want us to prove everything we say but yet, we don't require you to prove anything you say or claim because we know you can't prove anything. The whole world is deluded except for you guys. Not hardly. The Pope has the same problem. Your attitudes proves us correct. If you want to be purposely negative it's you choice. Lets see "who" solves the problem, you guys, or us guys. The head benders here are laughing . Anyway I'm done here. Have other fish to fry.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I've had it....

Old Seer wrote:

refrain from the "God" thing. We don't see how any such thing exists.

Who is 'we'??? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Do you claim to represent a larger group, if so, identify them.

Quote:
Scientist have been known to be wrong---repeatedly.

When has a theologian ever been right?

Quote:
I can't help you if you don't understand. I don,t see where I'm smarter than any one here. If we can figure it out you can.

Again... who is 'we'???? And I've yet to see anything you have figured out... just parroting back silly theistic babble.

Quote:
In the final tally it's not going to be what you or we know or think. It ultimately will be decided by the masses. We've seen that it has gone to many places world wide  so governments and religions cannot retract it. We find that it is growing on it's own--as intended.

Appeal to popularity? It has grown? What exactly is 'it'? I'm seeing delusional behavior here...

Quote:
Superiority is an animal trait. We try our best to refrain from such practices. We can willfully override the animal if we wish, so can all of you.

You are just playing at semantics, and badly.

Quote:
As far as we know plants have no mentality. They cannot opt to be human or inhuman.

Right... irrelevant but right.

Quote:
JC "Is" the good in all. That's what he represents. You're not going to get along without it, unless you want to be just animal and throw out human. That would make you a dangerous person. If there were no civil government would you go out of control. You'd be free to do and be as you wish. Civil government is what controls animal behavior in the attempt to keep people from becoming harmful. What will you do when government is gone--it is going away in due time.

No 'JC' is a pathetic fictional figure, a cardboard cutout representing a scapegoat.

Quote:
When this is over there will be less then a billion left. (the love of the greater number will turn cold, the hand of every man will be against his brother, and by the hand of man will man's blood be shed). That's Armageddon . It is right behind us.

Now I get it... you are an 'end times' freak. One of Campings flock? Is that the 'we' you are babbling about?
Let's get back to the OP... offer evidence of what you claim. Real evidence. Quit making baseless and frankly silly claims and statements unless you can back them up with EVIDENCE.

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:BobSpence

Old Seer wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

The bible is just a collection of writings by people who were not the best informed, even in the age when they were writing.

There is no particular reason to "interpret" it, to find deeper meaning in it, we have by now many far better documents and sources of knowledge about "Life, the Universe, and Everything", to quote the late great Douglas Adams.

If you see the bible in any other way, and your only 'credentials' are being part of a group studying the bible, I am singularly unimpressed. 

To know reality, you must study reality, not just the ideas of a group of people living  a few thousand years ago. You are studying myth, not truth.

Reality is vastly more complex than could be encompassed in the words of the bible, even if any of it were accurate.

It is hardly a mystery why the stories don't make sense, they are merely the result of uninformed human imagination.

My experience contradicts just about aspect of your claims. You still haven't described what you base your claims on. That is what I mean by 'back-up', at a minimum. Proper argument, explaining why you have come to these conclusions. It is way insufficient to simply refer to the bible and what you perceive of the nature of humanity. 

Physics is grossly inadequate to explain and understand human thought and culture, maybe that is part of your problem. Although of course it is essential to get some idea of the origin and early development of the Universe, and the nature of matter and energy.

We can employ several usages of any word, in different contexts.

I have, apparently, a far better grasp than you of 'mental things'. Neuroscience and psychology is making great strides in revealing to us the mechanisms of thought, the workings  of our brains.

Humans have both knowledge about things, and are simultaneously ignorant about much. There is no contradiction there. We are animal, and human. One is not the opposite of the other. We add our human qualities to our underlying animal nature, and different degrees of each can manifest in any given activity.

I'm sorry, you have nothing to offer me, we are on such different 'tracks', such different outlooks, it seems we are doomed to talk past each other.

You still haven't answered such basic questions as why you decided that the bible is where you will find truth. And just what is your criterion for judging that your ideas 'work'. Its beginning to sound like 'confirmation bias'. IOW, you are seeing things through the filters of your own assumptions and beliefs, and recognizing what seems consistent with your ideas, and not noticing that which conflicts.

 

It'll take you about 2 years to get the idea.

I can find truth in the bible because ancient people knew it. It was they that discovered truth, The truth they found was truth about themselves. The truth is what Adam is. That's proper man.

That is all imaginary nonsense. Clearly you have no proper basis for these claims. 'Truth' has to be demonstrated by evidence, not by the sort of 'study' process you appear to be following.

Quote:

So-you wish to be an animal without any nerve to comprehend a new thing. And you all here want to solve problems with what you know. The problem was solved thousands of years ago.

You want human and animal to be the same, to me it's obvious they are not the same. And you want to solve people's problems with a human animal concept. That's what the problem is- a misunderstanding of what "human" is. Then you are stuck with what you have, we're past that. Then we will let it get to you via the grapevine. As the saying goes--what goes around comes around. It will be coming around. Keep you eye on the masses, they will ultimately decide. So- as far as you are concerned our Psycho guy is wrong. Well according to him he learned something new that wasn't in his academics. He's amazed at what we uncovered---and now he helps people with it. He's retired now but still helps people. You can't tell him he's wrong because what he learned works for people. Apparently we are to intelligent for the world. And now I'm sure you will smear the fact that we are intelligent. Ok- do your animal thing. 

You have again demonstrated your willful lack of comprehension of anything other than your own presuppositions. If you fail this badly in comprehending what I have written, it is hardly surprising you can read such fantasy into the ignorant ramblings of the bible.

I have repeatedly explained that I do NOT see 'human' and 'animal' as 'the same'. In any sense. Let alone 'want' them to be  the same. We are animals. But 'animal' encompasses all the range of behaviours and attributes we see in the natural world. You commit a category error in making a dichotomy between 'human' and 'animal'. "Human" refers to what distinguishes us from other animals. 

What you describe bears no relation to my ideas. You are totally unqualified to argue anything here. You have no subtlety of understanding, seemingly permanently locked into a genuine delusion. You have proved it. You read into things what you expect to read. 

I want to solve problems by empirical study of reality, both the physical reality we inhabit, and the reality of the way our own minds work, so that we can counter the many fallacies, false perceptions, errors of reasoning, that we are prone to, as your responses here so nicely demonstrates.

The history of the region (the Middle East) in which these ideas arose, demonstrates how such ideas utterly failed to solve any problems, rather they are the source of many.

You are manifestly the one who is stuck. I am way past you, but of course you are incapable of perceiving that. I can understand to a useful degree the psychological hangups you are suffering from, I have encountered variations of them many times.

It is clearly a waste of time discussing these things with you, I'm genuinely sorry.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You want us

Old Seer wrote:

You want us to prove everything we say

Another clear example of your lack of reading comprehension, your inabilty to see anything but what you want or expect to.

We only ask for at least something that represents external, objective evidence supporting your assertions. Note, supporting, not proving.

And not necessarily everything.

====

Science is indeed continually finding errors and inaccuracies in its theories, AND adjusting them or replacing them with better ones. This is how it builds an increasingly more accurate model/description of more and more aspects of Reality.

It works.

The fact that we are communicating is an obvious demonstration of this.

The history of the Middle East is a strong demonstration that the ideas of the bible and other ancient texts don't work.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You want us

Old Seer wrote:
You want us to prove everything we say but yet, we don't require you to prove anything you say or claim because we know you can't prove anything.

I can prove plenty. You're the one who can't prove anything.

Old Seer wrote:
The whole world is deluded except for you guys. Not hardly.

Agreed. Everyone has their own delusions. But everyone religious shares in a dangerous and pointless one that wastes people and resources.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We fully recognize that

We fully recognize that little if anything about such things as being discussed here can be proved, but you have yet to provide even some reasonably supportive evidence for any of your claims.

All humans are subject to illusions and delusions, confirmation bias, and so on, so we fully acknowledge that even we can get caught out in such ways. As does the methodology of Science, which is why we try to have independent checking of findings wherever possible, and ask others to see if they can find any errors in our methodology and analysis, as in the current discussion of the findings of particles apparently slightly exceeding the speed of light.

Your comment about Science making errors is yet another example of your misunderstanding of how serious research is conducted.

So many groups have done much the same thing, trying to find secret knowledge in the bible, and come up with a whole range of varying ideas, showing that if you dig deep enough into any such account you can read almost anything into it.

So when you claim you have applied some of your findings and they 'work', how many possible alternative explanations for what you claim 'worked' did you examine?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckles in disbelief...

Old Seer wrote:

 

I can find truth in the bible because ancient people knew it. It was they that discovered truth, The truth they found was truth about themselves. The truth is what Adam is. That's proper man. So-you wish to be an animal without any nerve to comprehend a new thing. And you all here want to solve problems with what you know. The problem was solved thousands of years ago.

You want human and animal to be the same, to me it's obvious they are not the same. And you want to solve people's problems with a human animal concept. That's what the problem is- a misunderstanding of what "human" is. Then you are stuck with what you have, we're past that. Then we will let it get to you via the grapevine.

As the saying goes--what goes around comes around. It will be coming around. Keep you eye on the masses, they will ultimately decide. So- as far as you are concerned our Psycho guy is wrong. Well according to him he learned something new that wasn't in his academics. He's amazed at what we uncovered---and now he helps people with it. He's retired now but still helps people. You can't tell him he's wrong because what he learned works for people. Apparently we are to intelligent for the world. And now I'm sure you will smear the fact that we are intelligent. Ok- do your animal thing. 

 

I'm humbled before the lord of naked assertions...

 

"The truth is what Adam is. That's proper man."

 

Oo-eer....

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old "Seer",you are

Old "Seer",

you are manifestly still stuck in the ancient fallacy that "truth" can be obtained purely by "reasoning", devoid of empirical evidence. Your facile reference to Science and its errors shows this.

Your only means of even partially refuting this is to tell us what tests you used to come to the conclusion that your ideas 'work'.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Old

BobSpence wrote:

Old "Seer",

you are manifestly still stuck in the ancient fallacy that "truth" can be obtained purely by "reasoning", devoid of empirical evidence. Your facile reference to Science and its errors shows this.

Your only means of even partially refuting this is to tell us what tests you used to come to the conclusion that your ideas 'work'.

 

 

Methinks we're giving this guy a lot of undeserved credit.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Old

BobSpence wrote:

Old "Seer",

you are manifestly still stuck in the ancient fallacy that "truth" can be obtained purely by "reasoning", devoid of empirical evidence. Your facile reference to Science and its errors shows this.

Your only means of even partially refuting this is to tell us what tests you used to come to the conclusion that your ideas 'work'.

And you're stuck with the myth that "empirical evidence" has all the answers.  There is no empirical evidence that you exist, love your Mother, hate brocolli, or have a really cute face under all that facial hair.

The vast majority of the Universe, as well as the vast majority of the history of the Universe we're able to observe, is beyond our ability to "empirically research."

Most of the "really important questions" in life can't be weight or measured.  Most of what makes life more than 20-some-odd thousand days and nights of utter boredom or sheer terror cannot, in any way, shape or form, even be address by Physics.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Old "Seer",

you are manifestly still stuck in the ancient fallacy that "truth" can be obtained purely by "reasoning", devoid of empirical evidence. Your facile reference to Science and its errors shows this.

Your only means of even partially refuting this is to tell us what tests you used to come to the conclusion that your ideas 'work'.

And you're stuck with the myth that "empirical evidence" has all the answers.  There is no empirical evidence that you exist, love your Mother, hate brocolli, or have a really cute face under all that facial hair.

The vast majority of the Universe, as well as the vast majority of the history of the Universe we're able to observe, is beyond our ability to "empirically research."

Most of the "really important questions" in life can't be weight or measured.  Most of what makes life more than 20-some-odd thousand days and nights of utter boredom or sheer terror cannot, in any way, shape or form, even be address by Physics.

I never claimed that empirical research has "all the answers". But it is the only way we get any objective answers.  

Empirical evidence is not limited to what can be "weighed or measured", if you mean by 'measured', measurement of various physical properties. Psychological and sociological research requires more tricky experimental design, but it does give us at least partial answers to things that are not reliably accessible to our naked experience.

Of course Physics cannot address such things - only a fool would claim that. But it is not the whole of, or foundation of, Science, in any sense.

Despite Hawking, I do not believe Physics can produce a true "Theory of Everything". It only addresses the substrate, the nuts and bolts of what reality is built on, not phenomena like Life , Thought, and Society. That needs different disciplines.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Brian37

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
My credentials are--being part of a study and search for bible meaning with persons with excellent backgrounds in their fields. My input was to submit questions for their review and analysis. I am submitting to you the results. I didn't do all this on my own. They invited me into their circle, I accepted.

A "bible study" isn't shit. And I don't care if it were Pat Robertson or Billy Graham, they are not scientists nor psychologists, or academic historians. They are apologists. The are merely recruiters for their club. If the people you say are "experts" are of that ilk, which you know they are, their "degree" is not in anything near being credible like scientific method. And their "study" in the form of a questionaire does not constitute replication or falsification or independent review.

Selling a myth is not "study" it is merely preying on the credulous and gullible through marketing.

There are fans of Star Wars who know every line of every movie and collect comic books. They can be "experts" in that series and know every actor and collect every bubble gum card. But they are not scientists or psychologists or evolutionary biologists. Even they are not nutty enough to say "The force is real".

You are merely a recruiter and an apologist. Your are nothing but an apologist trying to peddle a magic man with a magic wand.

There are lagit historians who study hieroglyphics but do not believe the sun is a god and not trying to claim that Osirus was real. They are simply historians who tell us what the ancient Egyptians used to believe.

Nothing in your posts indicates anything but the fact that people are capable of believing false things. Don't feel bad, you are in good company with all the other fans of all the other magic men claims humans make.

 

 

 

Thank you for being rude--and animalistic. Regardless. You have what we gave you. Every day from now on you will encounter _"you". You won't avoid it. So, our 20 to 30 guys are wrong and you are right.

We are not trying to peddle anything. We only wish to show you what has been found. The psyhco guy says ---you are all victims of your own imagination.

I do not owe your claims blind value just because you peddle them. Popularity does not constitute evidence of any god. There are far more than 20 or 30 Muslims on this planet, yet you are not a Muslim. You participated in a bible study, that is not a scientific peer reviewed study, that is bunk. If I got 20 or 30 Muslims to claim to you that Allah was the one true god, would you go "oh, they studied so the must be right".

You haven't given me a thing. You are a used car salesman and I am simply saying no thanks, the car is rusted and has no engine, and you get pissed because I am not buying your lemon. Don't sell lemons, thats my advice to you.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I never

BobSpence wrote:

I never claimed that empirical research has "all the answers". But it is the only way we get any objective answers.  

Empirical evidence is not limited to what can be "weighed or measured", if you mean by 'measured', measurement of various physical properties. Psychological and sociological research requires more tricky experimental design, but it does give us at least partial answers to things that are not reliably accessible to our naked experience.

Of course Physics cannot address such things - only a fool would claim that. But it is not the whole of, or foundation of, Science, in any sense.

Despite Hawking, I do not believe Physics can produce a true "Theory of Everything". It only addresses the substrate, the nuts and bolts of what reality is built on, not phenomena like Life , Thought, and Society. That needs different disciplines.

Good to see that in the Church of Science you are at least an Agnostic.  I'd thought you were much more of the Die Hard Evangelical True Believer sort of Science Worshiper.

If Science doesn't have all the answers and cannot prove everything in existence, something which you seem to at least acknowledge if only because you seem to have been cornered, what's the deal with attacking some other discipline whose answers are less clear and equally unprovable?  I get that there is the entire Competition Among Religions thing -- you've got your god of Science, I've got my G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and you want your god to beat up my G-d, so ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If Science doesn't

Quote:
If Science doesn't have all the answers and cannot prove everything in existence,

Your mistake is that you treat science like a medium, an oracle, a crystal ball. Scientific method is a gauge, not a magic trick in Vegas.

Scientists are people. Scientific method is a tool. Don't mix the two.

A credible scientist goes where the evidence leads, not where they want it to go. Theism teaches you the opposite. It teaches you to defend, not test to verify.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

I never claimed that empirical research has "all the answers". But it is the only way we get any objective answers.  

Empirical evidence is not limited to what can be "weighed or measured", if you mean by 'measured', measurement of various physical properties. Psychological and sociological research requires more tricky experimental design, but it does give us at least partial answers to things that are not reliably accessible to our naked experience.

Of course Physics cannot address such things - only a fool would claim that. But it is not the whole of, or foundation of, Science, in any sense.

Despite Hawking, I do not believe Physics can produce a true "Theory of Everything". It only addresses the substrate, the nuts and bolts of what reality is built on, not phenomena like Life , Thought, and Society. That needs different disciplines.

Good to see that in the Church of Science you are at least an Agnostic.  I'd thought you were much more of the Die Hard Evangelical True Believer sort of Science Worshiper.

If Science doesn't have all the answers and cannot prove everything in existence, something which you seem to at least acknowledge if only because you seem to have been cornered, what's the deal with attacking some other discipline whose answers are less clear and equally unprovable?  I get that there is the entire Competition Among Religions thing -- you've got your god of Science, I've got my G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and you want your god to beat up my G-d, so ...

Nah, your God has yet to put up much of a fight. Science (unlike your God) doesn't bully people into answers.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
She blinded me with science....

Furry, darlin'... With what would you replace the scientific method.
Oh, you aren't the only theistically impaired person to make such remarks, I see it all the time...
"Science doesn't have all the answers" "Scientists are often wrong"...yada, freeking yada...

What then is a BETTER way to get answers?

Please, please PLEASE don't yammer about 'love' and 'feelings' and 'philosophy'... because frankly, it's a little worn around the edges...

There are no 'truths' to be gained from even an in depth navel gave into the whys and wherefores of how we as a species interpret our hormones and chemical signals as 'reality' of sorts...

Just tell me, what would you replace science with?

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Good to

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Good to see that in the Church of Science you are at least an Agnostic.  I'd thought you were much more of the Die Hard Evangelical True Believer sort of Science Worshiper.

If Science doesn't have all the answers and cannot prove everything in existence, something which you seem to at least acknowledge if only because you seem to have been cornered, what's the deal with attacking some other discipline whose answers are less clear and equally unprovable?  I get that there is the entire Competition Among Religions thing -- you've got your god of Science, I've got my G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and you want your god to beat up my G-d, so ...

 

I thought we have already been over this just a few posts up, in the same thread.  It's a matter of frame of reference.  Science and new age (or old age) mumbo jumbo are not on equal footing here.  Think of this analogy.  You want to measure wind speed, science would be the analogous of a anemometer, and religion would be the equivalent of sticking a finger in your mouth and holding it up in the air.  The anemometer will tell you the speed with an accuracy of 99.99%(depending on the instrument of course), the wet finger will tell you the speed with a very low accuracy.  

Now you can take the stand that neither are 100% exact, but to claim that they're both just as inaccurate is idiotic.  This stand annoys me the most, especially from people such as yourself, that have the mental capacity to know better.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

I never claimed that empirical research has "all the answers". But it is the only way we get any objective answers.  

Empirical evidence is not limited to what can be "weighed or measured", if you mean by 'measured', measurement of various physical properties. Psychological and sociological research requires more tricky experimental design, but it does give us at least partial answers to things that are not reliably accessible to our naked experience.

Of course Physics cannot address such things - only a fool would claim that. But it is not the whole of, or foundation of, Science, in any sense.

Despite Hawking, I do not believe Physics can produce a true "Theory of Everything". It only addresses the substrate, the nuts and bolts of what reality is built on, not phenomena like Life , Thought, and Society. That needs different disciplines.

Good to see that in the Church of Science you are at least an Agnostic.  I'd thought you were much more of the Die Hard Evangelical True Believer sort of Science Worshiper.

If Science doesn't have all the answers and cannot prove everything in existence, something which you seem to at least acknowledge if only because you seem to have been cornered, what's the deal with attacking some other discipline whose answers are less clear and equally unprovable?  I get that there is the entire Competition Among Religions thing -- you've got your god of Science, I've got my G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and you want your god to beat up my G-d, so ...

Nah, your God has yet to put up much of a fight. Science (unlike your God) doesn't bully people into answers.

Good point. I like that.

The geeks(skeptics) always get bullied by the theists. Throughout history when science says "that's not true" the theists shouts "SHUT THE FUCK UP" or "DONT PICK ON MY DADDY"

Scientific method(the tool, not the person) does not bully because it is not a person. It is a WAY of observation. It makes no claims without prior established data. It uses universal tools, and acts as a filter to personal bias. The same cannot be said for theism.

Theism puts the cart before the horse, and worse it makes claims about invisible friends who play favorites to humans. It ignores evolution and natural human behavior and twists it to comic book form.

Theism are the jocks in Revenge of the Nerds, but we all know, at least those who have seen the movie, know the outcome.

Humans simply do not want to face reality, most humans no matter what pet deity they claim. It always takes the geeks to pull humanity into the future.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Furry,

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Furry, darlin'... With what would you replace the scientific method.
Oh, you aren't the only theistically impaired person to make such remarks, I see it all the time...
"Science doesn't have all the answers" "Scientists are often wrong"...yada, freeking yada...

What then is a BETTER way to get answers?

Please, please PLEASE don't yammer about 'love' and 'feelings' and 'philosophy'... because frankly, it's a little worn around the edges...

There are no 'truths' to be gained from even an in depth navel gave into the whys and wherefores of how we as a species interpret our hormones and chemical signals as 'reality' of sorts...

Just tell me, what would you replace science with?

 

LC >;-}>

 

That is the other false assumption that theists make. If we come to our senses and face reality without superstition, somehow we will simply become robots or reduce ourselves to criminals.

It is a stupid claim to think that being an atheist means not having morals, or not being able to feel emotions like love and having compassion for others. It merely means we don't assign those evolutionary traits to fictional bearded men with magic wands floating in the sky.

Furry, I promise you and every other believer here that our species will not go extinct if we give up on god claims. I promise you that there is no cosmic magic man waiting to hit you or me or anyone with a lightening bolt if we "step out of line".

We are all we have, there was nothing before our species as far as humans, and there will be nothing as far as humans after humans go extinct. Our myths will die with our species when it goes extinct because there will be no future generation to sell the myths to.

Our pet god/s throughout our species history are merely a psychological projection in anthropomorphic gap filling as a placebo in false attempt to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

Reality without superstition is far more filling than the tribal comic books of an ignorant age.

The fact it takes a ray of light 100,000 years to travel across our galaxy. The immense size of a red giant star if in place of our own sun, it's surface would extend out past Saturn. The gravity of a collapsed star would make our gravity look like a wimp. Time being affected by gravity. The power of black holes. The power of volcanos and earthquakes. All those things are a reality that make me say "WOW" and unlike believers, I don't assign any of that to a stupid myth written by scientifically ignorant people of an ancient past full of tribalism and dictators.

There never was a god and never will be a god. There are only humans, their imaginations and wishful thinking.

That DOES NOT mean that life is worthless or that we will be monsters if we don't suck up to the gullibility faith requires. It merely means that we accept reality the way it is.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Old Seer

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Luminon wrote:

I find these criteria very limiting. They sound more like what lies in the end of research, not its beginning. I can imagine countless circumstances that could make nonetheless real phenomena not match up to these criteria. As a proverbial sieve, this one is pretty rough and lots of reality will fall through. Only the most stable and repeatable phenomena will remain and will continue to set the standard for criteria and therefore our worldview. I find that a little unsettling. A bit inflexible, asking for a huge paradigm shift every once a while. 

Anyway, I'd like to ask if there is any special treatment or word for pieces of evidence, which

 - considered separately can be explained by various causes
 - considered together can only be explained by one cause?

Which one is more worthy of Occam's razor?

 - a simple theory with huge effects
 - a complex theory with few effects 

What is more valuable in a scientist?
 - precise and thorough work on a trivial research
 - intuitive and approximate work on an innovative research
 

Please, don't assume I want to push some woo theory right now and don't say I don't understand science. Maybe I do, but want to look at it from sociologist's point of view. Every time all the well-meaning folks here explained me the scientific meted, I kept wondering about how is it affected by the sociology of scientific community. 
Truth isn't instantly recognized as a truth for more reasons than just lack of evidence. I've seen skeptics being wrong, yet convinced of their truth. Science is not simple or perfect, there are tendencies, fads, pet theories, prestige of journals, economic demand, political pressure, rivalry, cultural or anti-cultural prejudices and so on. And it takes time, effort, money and someone's interest to go through the proper channels. 

You surely heard of Clarke's first law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 

 

The bible with the bible. You need other sources for proof and verification. That's like asking the bank robber -who robbed the bank? If you want to prove Christianity you have to do it by other means then the bible. In order to do that you need to understand Christianity. If one doesn't understand Christianity there's no proof.

Which Christianity would that be? There are millions of version that are all based on the Bible.

All of them. Christianity (proper form) isn't a superficial religion. It's about the inner workings of one's person.  There are no real Christians on the planet including myself and the guys I'm with on this subject. IE-The Pope is not a Christian-as proper Christianity doesn't have an authority structure. The real Christianity became extinct from about 50 AD to 75 AD.

Christianity doesn't have an authority structure? What do you do with Christ then? You worship him but he's not your master?

If there is no longer a "real" Christianity why are you worshipping fakery?

JC is not an authority figure---he's an example. I/we don't worship anything or anyone. Worship is silly. (I have to look up worship. I don't even know if I know how to do that) No, I don't do that. However you need to know where I stand. I am not a Theist, Deist, Atheist, Christian, or belong to any known religion today.

Alpha Guardianship:  a team of  explorers/adventurers, of which are also academics in engineering, psychiatry, archeology,  physics, law, the medicines, and other fields. In 1985 we took on the bible as a project of study. Our studies were completed in the summer of 1992. We are making the effort to rely the findings to others.

We don't hold the bible as fakery. It's a history of a Middle Eastern people and their religion. It ended as a civilization no different then any of it's time. They didn't do anything good or bad any more or less then any other civilizations to date.   
 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.