|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:01 am
Valheita kittycross Please. Learn to use a dictionary. Pretty please? Refer to the word "maybe." Also looking up "probability" might help. There are also spell check options. Also in English, English is capitalized and university is not - unless of course you are attending University University. If your mother remarks about your need for education, I can see why. Attending a class does not equal being a source. Attending a class means that you showed up in a place at a specified time. If I'm not mistaken you are an aspiring computer programmer and not a quantum physicist. It may not have covered finite versus infinite, universe versus multiverse and existence beyond most basic in you Quantum Mechanics for Computer Programmers course, but it's something you might find interesting. Quantum theory goes beyond Schrodinger and probability is probability. Perhaps you might want to look into, although generally it comes after learning to identify basic farm animals. I believe you made your capacity for logic well known with your duck comment.Maybe I should be thanking you for that. My daughter got such a laugh to know that anyone thought like that. Finding religion and finding spirituality are different things, as are god/dess/es and churches. Finding religion is independent to belief. Also there more than one religion out there. If you happened to find the correct one, please do share your enlightenment that you choose not to have for your self. I still maintain that atheism is no more logical, rational or scientific than theistic or deistic beliefs. There is no demonstrable evidence for or against the existence of higher powers or beings. Lack of proof is not proof of lack, nor is it proof of and god/dess/es or higher powers. However, those who have obtained their own personal proof could even be considered a bit more rational and logical in that they have obtained data, analyzed and concluded. Even if they are obviously not objective-no one ever is- and their results might be repeatable, they are not demonstrable at least they are going by some thing other than "God's mean I don't wanna," resentment against churches, institutions and holy war or social conformity. The most rational and logical conclusion with out any data is still "unknown." (incidentally, question posed as to whether or not God or any type of god exists and there you have your god waveform waiting to collapse into answers. That's kind of basic quantum theory) Use a dictionary after all my posts explaining why the dictionary falls short of conversational needs? Why on earth would I do that. Spelling, and grammar, are different. Capitalization comes under grammar, if I'm not mistaken. It's not my mother silly, it's the mother. I did tell you I found religion for a reason. Alright, I attended and passed the course. And it was Quantum Mechanics for Astrophysicists, actually. You probably don't know this, but I studied astrophysics before switching to computer science. I'm glad someone got the joke. Yes, a religion is a commonly held spirituality. However, saying "I found spirituality" just doesn't have the same ring to it. I quite agree that atheism is no more rational or scientific, especially given that it's rational to follow what makes sense best to you, and science doesn't deal with deities. However, you're incorrect about it being logical - which is what I've been trying (and evidently failing) to explain to you. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear that by basic rules of logic, something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Maybe it would help if I pointed out that logic isn't always correct? Incidentally, if you're going to question my capacity for logic, I suggest easing off your own ad-hominem and argumentum ad ignorantium logical fallacies. It'll really support your cause better. =D Honney Boy How does this in any way account for the ducks? Humans have a hard time knowing who and what they are, why would things like camouflage or identity issues only be for humans? Was it supposed to account for ducks? Yes. You seem to have a problem with how farm animals work.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:31 am
Valheita Use a dictionary after all my posts explaining why the dictionary falls short of conversational needs? Why on earth would I do that. Spelling, and grammar, are different. Capitalization comes under grammar, if I'm not mistaken. Languages have rules and words have meanings. You cannot have a rational, sensible conversation or discussion if everyone makes it up as they go along. If that were the case we might as well be conversing in L337 speak and using regional slang. If you make a claim that something is not something "in the sense that the english word would convey," the claim is erroneous if you refuse to accept established precepts and definitions in their various state. For the sake of clarity, which English are you using? I was presuming we were both using either UK English or American, but maybe I was wrong. Do tell, what language are you speaking? Quote: It's not my mother silly, it's the mother. I did tell you I found religion for a reason You never said which religion. You also have said you have not found any god worthy of worship, so this Mother of yours is, by you summation, not worthy of respect or veneration? What is the point of even bringing up that someone/thing you do not respect commands you to do something after you have excluded them? It's pretty meaningless, particularly to you if you have no respect for this person/being . Quote: Alright, I attended and passed the course. And it was Quantum Mechanics for Astrophysicists, actually. You probably don't know this, but I studied astrophysics before switching to computer science. Ahh yes. Quantum Physics Lite course. I studded Astrophysics as well. I was a Fine Arts major, but science is fun so I took fun choices for my science electives. I also took up Anthropology, Comparative Mythology and History of God because it's fascinating as well. That does not make me an quantum physicist, astrophysicist, Pope, a authority of Abrahamic beliefs, messenger of Tiamat or Buddha . It means I showed up in places where there were authorities on the subject. I got A's but that still doesn't give me a degree in the subjects. Quote: Yes, a religion is a commonly held spirituality. However, saying "I found spirituality" just doesn't have the same ring to it. No. Religion is not a commonly held spirituality. Religion is a social construct and a possible implementation of spirituality Religion is not a spirituality. Perhaps if you clarified what you found, what you believe, why it is spiritual for you and why you don't have any respect for it... Quote: I quite agree that atheism is no more rational or scientific, especially given that it's rational to follow what makes sense best to you, and science doesn't deal with deities. However, you're incorrect about it being logical - which is what I've been trying (and evidently failing) to explain to you. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear that by basic rules of logic, something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Maybe it would help if I pointed out that logic isn't always correct? To jump to an unfounded, unsupported isn't logical. It may be conventional, but not logical. I am not saying that logic is always correct. Do you have proof that you have a spleen? (I've never heard mention that you don't) Have you seen it measured it? Do you have pictures to share? Or can you prove that you are made of particles? Probably not, but you can make a logical conjecture based on other knowledge and data that you most likely have a spleen and that you and your bit are made of other bits. It is a logical presumption based on other data even though I have no evidence that you have a spleen. To make a leap of unfounded belief is unfounded. It is unsupported. There is not even reasonable conjecture applied. No data. No reason. There is no logic to it at all. Ducks. Seriously: Is there any explanation to your statement that ducks always know what is or isn't a duck?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:23 am
Yep I believe there's God because his Awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:36 pm
kittycross Valheita Use a dictionary after all my posts explaining why the dictionary falls short of conversational needs? Why on earth would I do that. Spelling, and grammar, are different. Capitalization comes under grammar, if I'm not mistaken. Languages have rules and words have meanings. You cannot have a rational, sensible conversation or discussion if everyone makes it up as they go along. If that were the case we might as well be conversing in L337 speak and using regional slang. If you make a claim that something is not something "in the sense that the english word would convey," the claim is erroneous if you refuse to accept established precepts and definitions in their various state. For the sake of clarity, which English are you using? I was presuming we were both using either UK English or American, but maybe I was wrong. Do tell, what language are you speaking? Quote: It's not my mother silly, it's the mother. I did tell you I found religion for a reason You never said which religion. You also have said you have not found any god worthy of worship, so this Mother of yours is, by you summation, not worthy of respect or veneration? What is the point of even bringing up that someone/thing you do not respect commands you to do something after you have excluded them? It's pretty meaningless, particularly to you if you have no respect for this person/being . Quote: Alright, I attended and passed the course. And it was Quantum Mechanics for Astrophysicists, actually. You probably don't know this, but I studied astrophysics before switching to computer science. Ahh yes. Quantum Physics Lite course. I studded Astrophysics as well. I was a Fine Arts major, but science is fun so I took fun choices for my science electives. I also took up Anthropology, Comparative Mythology and History of God because it's fascinating as well. That does not make me an quantum physicist, astrophysicist, Pope, a authority of Abrahamic beliefs, messenger of Tiamat or Buddha . It means I showed up in places where there were authorities on the subject. I got A's but that still doesn't give me a degree in the subjects. Quote: Yes, a religion is a commonly held spirituality. However, saying "I found spirituality" just doesn't have the same ring to it. No. Religion is not a commonly held spirituality. Religion is a social construct and a possible implementation of spirituality Religion is not a spirituality. Perhaps if you clarified what you found, what you believe, why it is spiritual for you and why you don't have any respect for it... Quote: I quite agree that atheism is no more rational or scientific, especially given that it's rational to follow what makes sense best to you, and science doesn't deal with deities. However, you're incorrect about it being logical - which is what I've been trying (and evidently failing) to explain to you. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear that by basic rules of logic, something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Maybe it would help if I pointed out that logic isn't always correct? To jump to an unfounded, unsupported isn't logical. It may be conventional, but not logical. I am not saying that logic is always correct. Do you have proof that you have a spleen? (I've never heard mention that you don't) Have you seen it measured it? Do you have pictures to share? Or can you prove that you are made of particles? Probably not, but you can make a logical conjecture based on other knowledge and data that you most likely have a spleen and that you and your bit are made of other bits. It is a logical presumption based on other data even though I have no evidence that you have a spleen. To make a leap of unfounded belief is unfounded. It is unsupported. There is not even reasonable conjecture applied. No data. No reason. There is no logic to it at all. Ducks. Seriously: Is there any explanation to your statement that ducks always know what is or isn't a duck? You can, actually. That's the brilliant thing about language. A dictionary defines a language in that language. So inline definitions are entirely possible - indeed they're almost always used in conversations, that's why English is called a context-dependant language. Incidentally, I rather suspect I'm using thought-speech (inline definition: the language in which I think, see Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) which would explain why you are getting confused. I do not know the name of the religion. And no, it's not that she isn't worthy of respect or veneration, she simply isn't a god, or goddess as the case may be. Wonderful! You'll understand the following argument perfectly then. (I've shrunk it to save space). Your claim is that there is an unobserved waveform that is in a superposition of existent and non-existent states, resulting in a maybe state. You also claim that this is science. Lets verify that using the accepted rule that a scientific theory must be falsifiable. (Karl Popper, but then you know this).
To know whether or not the god wave exists, I must observe it. Should I observe it, it collapses into one of two outcomes - it exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't exist, then I have no evidence if it existed before observation or not.
Ergo, I cannot prove your claim wrong. Thus, by the definition of science, such a claim is not scientific. Science has to have a way to be invalidated, that is to say it is falsifiable.
I don't wish to clarify it, not here at least. Just look at how you jumped on me for challenging the scientific validity of your claim. Who knows what you'd do to a belief unfounded by logic or science. I have all the evidence I need to logically conclude that I have a working spleen. You're welcome to disbelieve it on account of a lack of evidence though. Reason != Logic. Reason is rational. You've already stated rationality as separate from logic, so I'm sure I needn't clarify further. There's also no leap of unfounded belief. I'm not claiming (inline: assertion of truth, even when debated.) there is no god. I'm making a statement (inline: a formal (read: logical) account of events) that I have no reason to believe in a god. Here, I'll leave a couple of links for you. They'll clarify my position. If you don't think they're authoritive enough, you're more than welcome to look up your own. Argumentum ad IgnorantiumNull Hypothesis (This one is brilliant, as it also mentions the Popper definition of science). Atheism and the Null Hypothesis (This one's a blog, so it's authoritivity is questionable, but it does a good job of explaining null hypothesis and burden of proof (both logical constructs) as they apply to atheism.) It was a joke? Do you seriously think I would use a word like "metafowlsical" if I was in any way serious? Come on. Anyway, those sources should do a reasonable job of explaining both my stance on atheism, and my argument against your claims about quantum physics. With any luck, you'll understand them better than my own terrible English which I have burdened you needlessly with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:11 pm
CleoSombra Do I believe in some personified being that sits atop the universe and watches down on us? No. That's not my definition of God. I believe that God is a concept - the concept of true goodness. The be in the kingdom of God (heaven) is to be a good person who tries to do the right things. People say "Prove to me that there is a God!" It's not something that can be proved. You can't prove a concept - it's just an idea or a belief system. The bible wasn't meant to be a rulebook or a look into the future - it was just a general set of guidelines on how people can work on being good. Don't steal - it's not nice. Same with murdering and lying. Be generous; don't focus on material possessions. That's what means to be good. Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. God is only a concept and idea. He's a symbol for good. Hence, WWJD?, He's also a symbol for faith. He or it is not an actual person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:40 am
N I K K I M U S E CleoSombra Do I believe in some personified being that sits atop the universe and watches down on us? No. That's not my definition of God. I believe that God is a concept - the concept of true goodness. The be in the kingdom of God (heaven) is to be a good person who tries to do the right things. People say "Prove to me that there is a God!" It's not something that can be proved. You can't prove a concept - it's just an idea or a belief system. The bible wasn't meant to be a rulebook or a look into the future - it was just a general set of guidelines on how people can work on being good. Don't steal - it's not nice. Same with murdering and lying. Be generous; don't focus on material possessions. That's what means to be good. Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. God is only a concept and idea. He's a symbol for good. Hence, WWJD?, He's also a symbol for faith. He or it is not an actual person. Set, also known as Seth, or Setesh is a god, but not known as a symbol of good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:21 pm
Honney Boy N I K K I M U S E CleoSombra Do I believe in some personified being that sits atop the universe and watches down on us? No. That's not my definition of God. I believe that God is a concept - the concept of true goodness. The be in the kingdom of God (heaven) is to be a good person who tries to do the right things. People say "Prove to me that there is a God!" It's not something that can be proved. You can't prove a concept - it's just an idea or a belief system. The bible wasn't meant to be a rulebook or a look into the future - it was just a general set of guidelines on how people can work on being good. Don't steal - it's not nice. Same with murdering and lying. Be generous; don't focus on material possessions. That's what means to be good. Exactly, I was thinking the same thing. God is only a concept and idea. He's a symbol for good. Hence, WWJD?, He's also a symbol for faith. He or it is not an actual person. Set, also known as Seth, or Setesh is a god, but not known as a symbol of good. True. It really depends on the context we're considering the word "God." In Hinduism, there are 330,000,000 Gods and Goddesses, all for different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:29 am
I believe he does, but it's annoying when people go out of their way to shove their reasonings down my throat for no reason at all.
I never even preached and yet I get the "Your god is fake," insults from friends at school. -_- Some people live to be rude.
"Do you believe in God?"
"Yeah."
"Oh, yeah well, he's fake. Are you really that stupid?"
The fuuuuck???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:16 pm
SO
MANY
FALLACIES
FALLACIES EVERYWHERE
(Honestly, there are so many fallacies now that I don't think it's possible to present an argument without some kind of fallacy. Even this post is a fallacy!)
Anyway, since the last time I posted here, I can't say my mind has changed. I can't bring myself to believe in something that's currently unobservable and logically far-fetched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:54 pm
Foam-Dome SO MANY FALLACIES FALLACIES EVERYWHERE(Honestly, there are so many fallacies now that I don't think it's possible to present an argument without some kind of fallacy. Even this post is a fallacy!) There are religious discussions at all on our planet which does not contain a lot of fallacies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:08 am
Gakre Foam-Dome SO MANY FALLACIES FALLACIES EVERYWHERE(Honestly, there are so many fallacies now that I don't think it's possible to present an argument without some kind of fallacy. Even this post is a fallacy!) There are religious discussions at all on our planet which does not contain a lot of fallacies? Nary a one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
