FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Aparantly God
Aparantly God
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Does not want female drivers I'm of the opinion that no gods exist and organised religions use its name and mythology to manipulate the humans that belive I am persistently informed that a persons beliefs are sacred and must not be questioned I'd suggest the recent news regarding a Jewish sect telling it's believers their women must not drive else their children will not be permitted to go to school is a fine example where we really must question the authority and implications of religions" An instance of radical lunacy is evidence to back your belief? It appears that you might be falling into the same trap. Not all religions are manipulative. And who persistently tells you that a persons beliefs should not be questioned? Even when I get the occasional visit from a Jehovah, they are delighted when I show an interest and question them. Have you some sort of conspiracy theory in mind? | |||
"God and religion are different things. Belief and religious adherence are different things. " Well obviously god and religion are different things One is a human invented concept with zero collaborative data And the other has millions of adherents with a huge amount of collaborative data However we may need to define differant, I will be hard to find a person following a religion such as Islam that does not feel a god exists thus they in such cases are inseparable faces of a metaphoric coin | |||
"God and religion are different things. Belief and religious adherence are different things. Well obviously god and religion are different things One is a human invented concept with zero collaborative data And the other has millions of adherents with a huge amount of collaborative data However we may need to define differant, I will be hard to find a person following a religion such as Islam that does not feel a god exists thus they in such cases are inseparable faces of a metaphoric coin" Your title and opening post are that God does not want women drivers. I don't believe that is the case. Buddhism is not theist but is a religion. It has adherents and I have been to enough pujas to see the similarities with other religious practices across a range of theist faiths. I'm bowing out now on this one as I have had the merry-go-round of the religion, belief and man-made constructs with you before. | |||
"God and religion are different things. Belief and religious adherence are different things. Well obviously god and religion are different things One is a human invented concept with zero collaborative data And the other has millions of adherents with a huge amount of collaborative data However we may need to define differant, I will be hard to find a person following a religion such as Islam that does not feel a god exists thus they in such cases are inseparable faces of a metaphoric coin Your title and opening post are that God does not want women drivers. I don't believe that is the case. Buddhism is not theist but is a religion. It has adherents and I have been to enough pujas to see the similarities with other religious practices across a range of theist faiths. I'm bowing out now on this one as I have had the merry-go-round of the religion, belief and man-made constructs with you before. " Thus the magic word Aparantly I then make it quite clear that I don't think a god exists thus by simple logic I was illustrating that religions use a god concept to organise people to fulfill a human agenda and NOT that a god suggests a human should do anything ALL things associated with the will, wants, rules, bla bla of any god concept are inherently invented by a human I like Buddhist philosophy , I don't like it's organised religion and ritualistic implications | |||
"God and religion are different things. Belief and religious adherence are different things. Well obviously god and religion are different things One is a human invented concept with zero collaborative data And the other has millions of adherents with a huge amount of collaborative data However we may need to define differant, I will be hard to find a person following a religion such as Islam that does not feel a god exists thus they in such cases are inseparable faces of a metaphoric coin Your title and opening post are that God does not want women drivers. I don't believe that is the case. Buddhism is not theist but is a religion. It has adherents and I have been to enough pujas to see the similarities with other religious practices across a range of theist faiths. I'm bowing out now on this one as I have had the merry-go-round of the religion, belief and man-made constructs with you before. Thus the magic word Aparantly I then make it quite clear that I don't think a god exists thus by simple logic I was illustrating that religions use a god concept to organise people to fulfill a human agenda and NOT that a god suggests a human should do anything ALL things associated with the will, wants, rules, bla bla of any god concept are inherently invented by a human I like Buddhist philosophy , I don't like it's organised religion and ritualistic implications" A god is not something that can be proved in the scientific sense of the word. It is something that is believed in. Faith. Many have it. I don't. But just because you do not have faith, do not try to put down those who do. The world is more magical for belief. It enriches our society, too. | |||
| |||
"Does not want female drivers I'm of the opinion that no gods exist and organised religions use its name and mythology to manipulate the humans that belive I am persistently informed that a persons beliefs are sacred and must not be questioned I'd suggest the recent news regarding a Jewish sect telling it's believers their women must not drive else their children will not be permitted to go to school is a fine example where we really must question the authority and implications of religions An instance of radical lunacy is evidence to back your belief? It appears that you might be falling into the same trap. Not all religions are manipulative. And who persistently tells you that a persons beliefs should not be questioned? Even when I get the occasional visit from a Jehovah, they are delighted when I show an interest and question them. Have you some sort of conspiracy theory in mind?" I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. When they come to my door, they get a proper grilling. I left religion behind first chance I got and never looked back. I do still enjoy a good argument though!  | |||
"Does not want female drivers I'm of the opinion that no gods exist and organised religions use its name and mythology to manipulate the humans that belive I am persistently informed that a persons beliefs are sacred and must not be questioned I'd suggest the recent news regarding a Jewish sect telling it's believers their women must not drive else their children will not be permitted to go to school is a fine example where we really must question the authority and implications of religions An instance of radical lunacy is evidence to back your belief? It appears that you might be falling into the same trap. Not all religions are manipulative. And who persistently tells you that a persons beliefs should not be questioned? Even when I get the occasional visit from a Jehovah, they are delighted when I show an interest and question them. Have you some sort of conspiracy theory in mind? I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. When they come to my door, they get a proper grilling. I left religion behind first chance I got and never looked back. I do still enjoy a good argument though! "Good! You do not have faith in that religion (and I DO understand that. My connections there did not result in a positive reaction either). But you are willing to engage. Would the world be a better place without belief/faith/superstition/traditions? We are humans. Not robots. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"This nutty little fringe group argue that women driving "goes against the laws of modesty within our society". A spokesman for the Office of the Chief Rabbi in the UK said: "The Belz Chasidic dynasty has contributed significantly to the rich tapestry of our tradition but this particular view is entirely removed from mainstream Jewish practice." I'm intrigued by how flawed your logic must be to get from a few cranks suggesting women shouldn't drive out of "modesty" issues... to religion is evil and God doesn't exist. Haven't you figured out for yourself yet the myriad maze of circular reasoning that supports your stance? Perhaps you're too busy looking at others and pointing your finger "My childhood vicar always said that every time we point one finger at someone we point three at ourselves. | |||
"This nutty little fringe group argue that women driving "goes against the laws of modesty within our society". A spokesman for the Office of the Chief Rabbi in the UK said: "The Belz Chasidic dynasty has contributed significantly to the rich tapestry of our tradition but this particular view is entirely removed from mainstream Jewish practice." I'm intrigued by how flawed your logic must be to get from a few cranks suggesting women shouldn't drive out of "modesty" issues... to religion is evil and God doesn't exist. Haven't you figured out for yourself yet the myriad maze of circular reasoning that supports your stance? Perhaps you're too busy looking at others and pointing your finger "Think you need to read my op again, and all other posts I've written Please don't project your vastly distorted interpretation of my words as if they are my reasoning Firstly it is you calling them nutty ? Second it is easily demonstrative that they are not the only religious organisation that some may call nutty , I may wish to cite the prevailing Catholic view on contraception, which I think I could find substantial data to illustrate it's "nutty"? View is not helpful in improving health within developing countries ? As for your intrigue and inaccurate assertion I have used flawed logic, as I say re read my op and try again My op does nothing to imply one group of religious bigots mean all religions are evil. Nor if you re read any of my past posts would you find something so vague or sweeping Nor do I or ever have suggest the existence of religious extremism is a reason I am atheist So no circular reasoning Let's be clear I am of the opinion that all humans and groups should be free to believe and vocally articulate anything they wish. I don't however think that IF articulated, verbalised, written, promoted, indoctrinated, suggested etc should be exempt from polite, articulate, philosophical, objective examination or questioning ! I endorse your right to free thought and free speech , respect my right to make objective analysis and comment of those My op was a clear example of one organisation who's beliefs should indeed be queried. That's it As for finger pointing ? I'm glad the finger was pointed at slavery, I'm glad the finger is being pointed at female genital mutilation, I'm glad someone stood up to established beliefs that homosexuality should be illegal, The reason the priest gave the finger pointing analogy was because Christianity appears to preach that we all sin despite a number of so called christian forumites protesting the contrary. . Christianity is deeply associated with so called morality, right and wrong and rules to assist gaining a gods favour. I may indeed agree that it should NOT be associated with these but I think it would not be difficult to illustrate world wide these associations and concepts are perceived by many who are and who are not religious Thus it can be discovered across the world a proportion of so called Christians(in this case I say so called as there are a number on the forum who suggest moralising is not Christianity) who do point a moral finger and I guess our vicar using taoist/Buddhist philosophy (it is suggested that actually Christianity arose by borrowing heavily upon far eastern philosophical ideas to soften and give a balanced heart to the tribal bronze age obvious blood cult of Judaism) of let they without fault cast the first stone To counterbalance the human trait of moralising I'd suggest I would not say or finger point, that a person should not hold a specific belief .I would however openly suggest and illustrate that beliefs have consequences good bad and a whole grey scale between and it's reasonable to analyse these objectively and from a number of perspectives | |||
"This nutty little fringe group argue that women driving "goes against the laws of modesty within our society". A spokesman for the Office of the Chief Rabbi in the UK said: "The Belz Chasidic dynasty has contributed significantly to the rich tapestry of our tradition but this particular view is entirely removed from mainstream Jewish practice." I'm intrigued by how flawed your logic must be to get from a few cranks suggesting women shouldn't drive out of "modesty" issues... to religion is evil and God doesn't exist. Haven't you figured out for yourself yet the myriad maze of circular reasoning that supports your stance? Perhaps you're too busy looking at others and pointing your finger
Think you need to read my op again, and all other posts I've written
Please don't project your vastly distorted interpretation of my words as if they are my reasoning
Firstly it is you calling them nutty ?
Second it is easily demonstrative that they are not the only religious organisation that some may call nutty , I may wish to cite the prevailing Catholic view on contraception, which I think I could find substantial data to illustrate it's "nutty"? View is not helpful in improving health within developing countries ?
As for your intrigue and inaccurate assertion I have used flawed logic, as I say re read my op and try again
My op does nothing to imply one group of religious bigots mean all religions are evil. Nor if you re read any of my past posts would you find something so vague or sweeping
Nor do I or ever have suggest the existence of religious extremism is a reason I am atheist
So no circular reasoning
Let's be clear I am of the opinion that all humans and groups should be free to believe and vocally articulate anything they wish. I don't however think that IF articulated, verbalised, written, promoted, indoctrinated, suggested etc should be exempt from polite, articulate, philosophical, objective examination or questioning ! I endorse your right to free thought and free speech , respect my right to make objective analysis and comment of those
My op was a clear example of one organisation who's beliefs should indeed be queried. That's it
As for finger pointing ?
I'm glad the finger was pointed at slavery, I'm glad the finger is being pointed at female genital mutilation, I'm glad someone stood up to established beliefs that homosexuality should be illegal,
The reason the priest gave the finger pointing analogy was because Christianity appears to preach that we all sin despite a number of so called christian forumites protesting the contrary.
. Christianity is deeply associated with so called morality, right and wrong and rules to assist gaining a gods favour. I may indeed agree that it should NOT be associated with these but I think it would not be difficult to illustrate world wide these associations and concepts are perceived by many who are and who are not religious
Thus it can be discovered across the world a proportion of so called Christians(in this case I say so called as there are a number on the forum who suggest moralising is not Christianity) who do point a moral finger and I guess our vicar using taoist/Buddhist philosophy (it is suggested that actually Christianity arose by borrowing heavily upon far eastern philosophical ideas to soften and give a balanced heart to the tribal bronze age obvious blood cult of Judaism) of let they without fault cast the first stone
To counterbalance the human trait of moralising
I'd suggest I would not say or finger point, that a person should not hold a specific belief .I would however openly suggest and illustrate that beliefs have consequences good bad and a whole grey scale between and it's reasonable to analyse these objectively and from a number of perspectives
"I have to say that I really couldn't follow your argument there but that you did sound as extreme as a zealot. | |||
"Apparently God Does not want female drivers" This is your assertion. You'll need to explain how you arrived at it. "I'm of the opinion that no gods exist and organised religions use its name and mythology to manipulate the humans that belive. I am persistently informed that a persons beliefs are sacred and must not be questioned" Fair enough. That's your perrogative. People's personal beliefs are important but they can be questioned. I just believe that questioning is best done in a friendly and charitable manner as it's the most likely to win them over. Indeed, in this regard, I respect your own beliefs... I just think they're based upon flawed logic that's all. I'm quite happy for you to have them... but I'm also quite happy to correct you on them if you believe they are "objectively true". "I'd suggest the recent news regarding a Jewish sect telling it's believers their women must not drive else their children will not be permitted to go to school is a fine example where we really must question the authority and implications of religions" You'll find that everyone is quite happy questioning the authority and implications of all religions other than their own As for this nutty little fringe group of extreme orthodox Jews... they're really only pissing in their own swimming pool with this law as far as I'm concerned... and they are entirely unrepresentative of the religious world as a whole. I agree with you about the Pope and condoms etc... but I'd also argue that Roman Catholicism is not representative of the religious world as a whole. You have to remember that when you refer to "religions" you're including a long list of organisations and belief systems including Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Sufism, Bahaism, and even your very own... Taoism | |||
"You've asked me to return to the OP... Apparently God Does not want female drivers This is your assertion. You'll need to explain how you arrived at it. I'm of the opinion that no gods exist and organised religions use its name and mythology to manipulate the humans that belive. I am persistently informed that a persons beliefs are sacred and must not be questioned Fair enough. That's your perrogative. People's personal beliefs are important but they can be questioned. I just believe that questioning is best done in a friendly and charitable manner as it's the most likely to win them over. Indeed, in this regard, I respect your own beliefs... I just think they're based upon flawed logic that's all. I'm quite happy for you to have them... but I'm also quite happy to correct you on them if you believe they are "objectively true". I'd suggest the recent news regarding a Jewish sect telling it's believers their women must not drive else their children will not be permitted to go to school is a fine example where we really must question the authority and implications of religions You'll find that everyone is quite happy questioning the authority and implications of all religions other than their own As for this nutty little fringe group of extreme orthodox Jews... they're really only pissing in their own swimming pool with this law as far as I'm concerned... and they are entirely unrepresentative of the religious world as a whole. I agree with you about the Pope and condoms etc... but I'd also argue that Roman Catholicism is not representative of the religious world as a whole. You have to remember that when you refer to "religions" you're including a long list of organisations and belief systems including Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Sufism, Bahaism, and even your very own... Taoism "Taoism is not mine nor do I have many if any beliefs I understand taoism , and love it's sexual approach xx | |||
 | |||
| |||
"The anti god discussion seems to be a rant against rules. If there was no god and no religion there would still be organisations making up rules for its members. The issue is not god or religion. It's human societal nature. Religion has little to say on many specific issues such as driving. But societies still make up many arbitrary rules. That change over time and geographically. Take the age of consent. Religion has little to say on it. However societies do. Religion for most is optional. When you reach the age of reason you can choose to follow . Leave. Or find a middle way that fits you. No one has free choice to ignore arbitrary rules set up by society. They can leave a society but have to join another. Religion gets a bad rap when most of the worst religious decision are.linked to nations and national leaders." I broadly agree with this sentiment . My simplistic perspective is that there are too many rules period I feel it is reasonable and objective to perpetually examin the rules we have and the sub rules that all organisations of influence, political parties, governments, work places, religions, suggest or try to enforce The reason religions perhaps go to top of pile is possibly two fold Maybe it can be illustrated that when a set of ethics are said to be the wishes of a superior being the human mind is more susceptible to manipulation But for me it's the nonsense idea that is often promoted that a religion is sacred and that an unsubstantiated belief should not be examined To me Christianity, taoism, rahism, Hinduism, Islam are no more or less immune to reasoned scrutiny than, ukip, tories, green party, Stephen hawking, Einstein, the royal society, my council, schools, or a work place In all we will philosophically find to vastly varying degrees good stuff bad stuff and indifferent I'm an atheist I can't be anti god xx I said in the op "Aparantly god " Which a, was obviously ironic And b, someone on the news said the biggoted men of the Jewish sect believed god would not approve of the immodesty of women driving I did not know if what they said held truth thus the correct use of the word apparently | |||
"Taoism is not mine nor do I have many if any beliefs I understand taoism , and love it's sexual approach xx" Aren't you thinking of tantra?  I didn't think Taosim had any particular sexual approach but you might correct me on that... I'd be interested to know. As for not having any beliefs... I'm guessing you're pretty confident the sun will rise tomorrow | |||
| |||
"Taoism is not mine nor do I have many if any beliefs I understand taoism , and love it's sexual approach xx Aren't you thinking of tantra? I didn't think Taosim had any particular sexual approach but you might correct me on that... I'd be interested to know. As for not having any beliefs... I'm guessing you're pretty confident the sun will rise tomorrow "The tao predates tantra xx And no I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow , I'm perfectly aware that statistically it's possible that as the earth rotates something could happen to prevent us seeing the sun xx I have observations and experimental evidence that statistically conclude it would be unlikely for earth to stop rotating before tomorrow, I cite angular momentum for this However there are indeed unknowns so a position of belief is not one i hold . I don't know that the speed of light cannot be exceeded thus I cannot know an object will not appear that cannot as yet be seen Rather than belief i choose logical semantics and understanding of concepts | |||
 | |||
"Taoism is not mine nor do I have many if any beliefs I understand taoism , and love it's sexual approach xx Aren't you thinking of tantra? I didn't think Taosim had any particular sexual approach but you might correct me on that... I'd be interested to know. As for not having any beliefs... I'm guessing you're pretty confident the sun will rise tomorrow
The tao predates tantra xx
And no I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow , I'm perfectly aware that statistically it's possible that as the earth rotates something could happen to prevent us seeing the sun xx
I have observations and experimental evidence that statistically conclude it would be unlikely for earth to stop rotating before tomorrow, I cite angular momentum for this
However there are indeed unknowns so a position of belief is not one i hold . I don't know that the speed of light cannot be exceeded thus I cannot know an object will not appear that cannot as yet be seen
Rather than belief i choose logical semantics and understanding of concepts
"Logical semantics? How come it is so difficult to tell what the fuck you're on about then? Wait, don't answer that. I'm sure the answer will be that you're a higher level of intelligence than us mere mortals. | |||
"Taoism is not mine nor do I have many if any beliefs I understand taoism , and love it's sexual approach xx Aren't you thinking of tantra? I didn't think Taosim had any particular sexual approach but you might correct me on that... I'd be interested to know. As for not having any beliefs... I'm guessing you're pretty confident the sun will rise tomorrow
The tao predates tantra xx
And no I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow , I'm perfectly aware that statistically it's possible that as the earth rotates something could happen to prevent us seeing the sun xx
I have observations and experimental evidence that statistically conclude it would be unlikely for earth to stop rotating before tomorrow, I cite angular momentum for this
However there are indeed unknowns so a position of belief is not one i hold . I don't know that the speed of light cannot be exceeded thus I cannot know an object will not appear that cannot as yet be seen
Rather than belief i choose logical semantics and understanding of concepts
Logical semantics? How come it is so difficult to tell what the fuck you're on about then?
Wait, don't answer that. I'm sure the answer will be that you're a higher level of intelligence than us mere mortals."Yup. I was entirely lost too. | |||
"Taoism is not mine nor do I have many if any beliefs I understand taoism , and love it's sexual approach xx Aren't you thinking of tantra? I didn't think Taosim had any particular sexual approach but you might correct me on that... I'd be interested to know. As for not having any beliefs... I'm guessing you're pretty confident the sun will rise tomorrow
The tao predates tantra xx
And no I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow , I'm perfectly aware that statistically it's possible that as the earth rotates something could happen to prevent us seeing the sun xx
I have observations and experimental evidence that statistically conclude it would be unlikely for earth to stop rotating before tomorrow, I cite angular momentum for this
However there are indeed unknowns so a position of belief is not one i hold . I don't know that the speed of light cannot be exceeded thus I cannot know an object will not appear that cannot as yet be seen
Rather than belief i choose logical semantics and understanding of concepts
"What is logic and how are you certain of your belief in it? That's rhetorical and purely about definition. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The tao predates tantra xx" Just wiki'ing this... Tantra is the name given by recent scholars to a style of meditation and ritual which arose in India no later than the 5th century AD. Taoism is a philosophical, ethical or religious tradition of Chinese origin that emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao. Where's the relationship? "And no I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow , I'm perfectly aware that statistically it's possible that as the earth rotates something could happen to prevent us seeing the sun xx I have observations and experimental evidence that statistically conclude it would be unlikely for earth to stop rotating before tomorrow, I cite angular momentum for this However there are indeed unknowns so a position of belief is not one i hold . I don't know that the speed of light cannot be exceeded thus I cannot know an object will not appear that cannot as yet be seen" So what you're basically saying is that you don't believe the sun will rise tommorrow. In that case what exactly are your plans tommorrow? Gonna fumble for a few candles and a box of matches? "Rather than belief i choose logical semantics and understanding of concepts" You clearly believe that your brain's logic is a greater source of Truth than your imagination or intuition. That itself is a belief... and a rather big whopper of one I'd suggest. Whilst you may feel there is empirical evidence to support this view it is still metaphysical conjecture nonetheless. Not saying that I necessarily disagree with you... just pointing out that this is a belief of yours which cannot be claimed to be a fact | |||
| |||
| |||
"Taoist Sexology" Ok found it... thx | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"God and religion are different things. Belief and religious adherence are different things. Well obviously god and religion are different things One is a human invented concept with zero collaborative data And the other has millions of adherents with a huge amount of collaborative data However we may need to define differant, I will be hard to find a person following a religion such as Islam that does not feel a god exists thus they in such cases are inseparable faces of a metaphoric coin" Well said. Now if you'd only said that in the first place you wouldn't be being patronised right now. | |||
"What a fascinating thread. It started with a comment about ultra orthodox Jews banning women from driving, and ended up in a philosophical argument about who's sexual philosophy is better. - I just think it’s better to have ideas. I mean, you can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it. Mankind got it all wrong by taking a good idea and building a belief structure on it. -Dogma." 
Ideas that's a perfect word .
For me it is being aware the world contains ideas and rather than deciding any one is "the truth" which would be my definition of belief I prefer to understand them, their alleged origins their alleged attributes . Knowing that over time many ideas evolve .
Please though, I have not said or do not think taoist sex techniques are better or worse than tantric ones my point is they appear to be an evolution of one another , I have read text that both support and quash the idea that taoism predates tantra
Believing one stand point or another here is for me pointless, it's collecting and understanding the data which in turn if required could form a statistical chance of one idea being a truth, but as one gathers more data usually the direction and the question changes and new perspectives become apparent xx | |||
"I just think it’s better to have ideas. I mean, you can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it. Believing one stand point or another here is for me pointless, it's collecting and understanding the data which in turn if required could form a statistical chance of one idea being a truth, but as one gathers more data usually the direction and the question changes and new perspectives become apparent xx" I'm guessing you guys aren't big on Epistemology, the study of the limits of human knowledge. It's commonly recognised that there isn't an awful lot humans can claim to know about life and thus we all must operate primarily upon a body of beliefs. Perhaps the word you were looking for is Dogma... but everyone, including you, has a belief system. I would suggest, for example, that you are scientific realists... that is that you believe the reason why a scientific theory can successfully predict a certain result is because it is True. This enables you to see science as the purveyor of Truth... rather than just some intellectual game we're playing with ourselves which happens to work out of serendipity. I would suggest that you are probably positivists too... this gives you the belief that scientific knowledge is superior to religious and philosophical knowledge. Finally, I'd hazard a guess that you are materialists and do not believe in the existence of the soul. None of these stances are based upon evidence, fact, or certainty of any kind... they are all metaphysical belief systems... what's more, I'd hazard a guess that you're relatively dogmatic about them... believing them to be more well founded upon Truth than others beliefs... coming onto forums and proselytizing them upon people who believe differently  | |||
| |||
"I know that: - some of what I think I know will at some point be proved to be incorrect. - some of what I don't know I could learn. - some of what I don't know nobody knows. My ego allows me to accept new information and update what I know. What I believe and what others believe is utterly pointless debating because my ego will never allow cleverly formed arguments to change my beliefs without new information. " ... Or put more simply: Rhetoric doesn't trump information | |||
"What I believe and what others believe is utterly pointless debating because my ego will never allow cleverly formed arguments to change my beliefs without new information. ... Or put more simply: Rhetoric doesn't trump information" lol So you're basically dividing all of human knowledge into information vs. rhetoric. Where does scientific conjecture fit into that? Based upon your stance not even Evolution theory could be proved. Information alone leads to very little... it is hypothesis which helps science move forward. For example... cosmologists observe that the more distant galaxies get the redder they get. The hypothesis is that this increasing redness is the result of increased movement away from us. From this hypothesis cosmologists are able to arrived at the conclusion that the universe is expanding. There is no "information" to suggest it is expanding. So are we to assume that Big Bang theory is just rhetoric?!?! lol that's a new one on me. Atheists never fail to surprise me with how they twist things up
When will you guys get it that mertaphysical conjecture and belief systems are just a part of everyone's life? You simply cannot get away from them. Conceding that point actually lends you a fair bit more credibility so I don't really see why you are so ideologically opposed to it | |||
