Science and atheism inconsistent?

[shunyadragon]

So do you recommend that people should use "big sciency sounding" words, without understanding what the meaning or the context of the words are? Do you think there is no risk that a person might sound incoherent and unintelligible? Or, did you selectively form your level of comprehension insult only from the first part of my comment? Never mind, contextomy and quote mining are your favorite tools for distortion and misrepresentation.

The problem is with those who use this blanket vague insulting assertion without specifically citing what you are talking about, and not making the effort to understand the vocabulary used.

Can you cite specific examples where this is true?

 

[ecco]

Excellent self-reflection of your problems communicating with those who believe differently.

Once again you ducked and dodged Truly Enlightened's comments. Do you think no one is noticing?

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again you ducked and dodged Truly Enlightened's comments. Do you think no one is noticing?

Only the inconsistent incoherent posters that have an imagination like you.

Concerning his or your unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary.

Can you cite specific posts where this is true?

 

[ecco]

Only the inconsistent incoherent posters that have an imagination like you.

Concerning his or your unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary.

What are you going on about? What unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary of mine are you referring to?

Can you cite specific posts where this is true?

Where what is true? Do you think I am a mind reader?

 

[shunyadragon]

What are you going on about? What unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary of mine are you referring to?


Where what is true? Do you think I am a mind reader?

The comments concerning vocabulary that @Truly Enlightened referred to, or any that you believe I did not respond to concerning @Truly Enlightened posts. You made accusations! BE SPECIFIC!

Please not post #581 where I responded to @Truly Enlightened assertion.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Only the inconsistent incoherent posters that have an imagination like you.

Concerning his or your unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary.

Can you cite specific posts where this is true?

Only the inconsistent incoherent posters that have an imagination like you.

Concerning his or your unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary.

Can you cite specific posts where this is true?

So now anyone that may disagree with you, or can make up their own mind without religious assistance, is an inconsistent incoherent poster. And to add insult to insanity, you want them to go find the imaginary proof to prove themselves wrong. Shear arrogance. Shear madness.

 

[shunyadragon]

So now anyone that may disagree with you, or can make up their own mind without religious assistance, is an inconsistent incoherent poster. And to add insult to insanity, you want them to go find the imaginary proof to prove themselves wrong. Shear arrogance. Shear madness.

Concerning his or your unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary.

Can you cite specific posts where this is true?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So now anyone that may disagree with you, or can make up their own mind without religious assistance, is an inconsistent incoherent poster. And to add insult to insanity, you want them to go find the imaginary proof to prove themselves wrong. Shear arrogance. Shear madness.

I can't believe that someone older than me, could be reduced to this vapid and immature level of discourse. It might be best that you stick with superstitions and myths, and leave science and logic to the rational.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can't believe that someone older than me, could be reduced to this vapid and immature level of discourse. It might be best that you stick with superstitions and myths, and leave science and logic to the rational.

Most definitely not the view held by most in this forum.

Concerning his or your unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary.

Can you cite specific posts where this is true?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Most definitely not the view held by most in this forum.

Concerning his or your unfounded imaginary assertions concerning vocabulary.

Can you cite specific posts where this is true?

Do you even think before you reply? Do you need to misrepresent what people say in order to fit your list of parroted responses? I said that I, not anyone else, was surprised. This means that it is irrelevant what others may think of you, and certainly not from my perspective. My statement was based entirely from the fact that you were reduced to simply repeating my post word for word, like a child. This is not a mature discourse for any adult. It is equivalent to a "and you too" response.

Do you even understand what you are asking? You are saying that If I ask the poster to define the context of the words he uses in a debate, that my concerns are simply unfounded and imaginary, unless I can prove that they are not? Should I not question anything that I feel is obtuse, vague, and clearly ostentatious, for fear that I would be admitting my level of ignorance? This is shear elitism, egoism, and arrogance. For example, if I were trying to explain the Rules of Universal Objectivity in French, you would certainly ask me to use English in my explanations, wouldn't you? Would you say that your assertion of not understanding my explanations is an imaginary assertion? Of course not. Would you say that you should make an effort to learn the French? Of course not. Yet, you want people to go back and search for something to apologize for, or to discover. Just because you say their assertions are imaginary in regards to the vocabulary used. You provide no evidence, no facts, and no examples, Nothing but accusations, inferences, insinuations, and implications.

The problem is more than just my concerns with the words the poster uses. It is the context and application of the words. If the poster chooses to conflate perception with conception, or perceptual experiences with conceptual experiences, or cognition with physicality, or our subjective reality with our objective reality, then he is just wrong. These words have different meanings, which the poster refuses to acknowledge. Even after giving him the simplest of examples(apple). The poster is totally fixated on believing that nothing is real unless we can collectively conceive of it(wrong); that both perceptual and conceptual things are real(wrong); God is both conceptual and conceptual(wrong); therefore God is real(wrong). This is all logically inconsistent and very easy to prove. But because over 80% of people keep agreeing with him, it has become another truism for him. And, no force on the planet will make him see any differently.

You might want to relook at posts, #529, #552, #564 and #567, where I desperately tried to explain why the words he uses are in the wrong context, or have different meanings. He simply ignores my concerns and keep making more of the same equivocation errors.

Now, again why do you believe(or know) that only your God, and not one(or all) of the over 4000 God beliefs, created the seeds for Abiogenesis and Evolution?

 

[shunyadragon]

Now, again why do you believe(or know) that only your God, and not one(or all) of the over 4000 God beliefs, created the seeds for Abiogenesis and Evolution?

I do not believe the over 4,000 Gods exist, and they are molding God in their own cultural image. I believe the Baha'i Faith is a witness to the nature of God, and the spiritual evolution of our existence. You are apparently demanding an answer to Why? to satisfy your demand for only believing in a materialist view, and I could not offer an explanation that would satisfy your demands. This is a matter of the 'Independent investigation of knowledge and truth' that is a foundation principle of the Baha'i Faith. It is up to you to investigate the nature of our existence and make your determination of what you believe.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I do not believe the over 4,000 Gods exist, and they are molding God in their own cultural image. I believe the Baha'i Faith is a witness to the nature of God, and the spiritual evolution of our existence. You are apparently demanding an answer to Why? to satisfy your demand for only believing in a materialist view, and I could not offer an explanation that would satisfy your demands. This is a matter of the 'Independent investigation of knowledge and truth' that is a foundation principle of the Baha'i Faith. It is up to you to investigate the nature of our existence and make your determination of what you believe.

So you are basically saying, since nothing can satisfy my rational and materialistic view of reality, I should just go and find my own answers? How do I find answers to why only your faith(God) created Abiogenesis and the ToE, and not any of the thousands of other God-beliefs, without asking someone of your faith? If you simply believe that your claim is true, then so do the followers of thousands of other religions as well. What makes your claims of creations more valid than theirs? The simple answer is, you don't know. You know nothing, and only believe because you want your belief to be true. It is top-down logic,based totally on ignorance. Wherever gaps appear in our understanding of life, the universe, or how humans evolved, many create imaginary deities, concepts, myths, and stories to fill-in these gaps. This has been repeated over and over again in man's 150,000 year history. That is until science eventually changes belief into certainty.

In the 150,000 years of human history there have been over 4000 religions. These religions include polytheism, monotheism, and paganism. The Hindu Religion has over 300 deities. The Ancient Hittites Religion has over 1000 deities. The Chinese, Polynesians, Japanese, Korean, Africans, and Aboriginals, all worship 1000's of different deities. Even pagans have their own deities as well. It has been estimated that the number of deities is in the millions. So my estimate of 4000 is extremely conservative. The 33 Million Gods of Hinduism | HuffPost

As a rational thinker, it has always been a source of confusion to me, why one religion has not emerged in over 150,000 years of human history? Let's do a thought experiment. Let's just imagine that one of these Gods is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then the followers of this God would be experiencing some benefits for believing in Him. This would be real and undeniable benefits. These benefits would become obvious to everyone. The followers of a this true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of this true god would live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, be very intelligent, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of this true god. Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and would gravitate toward this true god. And, over a 150,000 years period, people would eventually start believing in this one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under this one true god. Of course, this is not what we observe today, is it?

What do you think is the logical conclusion to any belief in a God?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you are basically saying, since nothing can satisfy my rational and materialistic view of reality, I should just go and find my own answers? How do I find answers to why only your faith(God) created Abiogenesis and the ToE, and not any of the thousands of other God-beliefs, without asking someone of your faith? If you simply believe that your claim is true, then so do the followers of thousands of other religions as well. What makes your claims of creations more valid than theirs? The simple answer is, you don't know. You know nothing, and only believe because you want your belief to be true. It is top-down logic,based totally on ignorance. Wherever gaps appear in our understanding of life, the universe, or how humans evolved, many create imaginary deities, concepts, myths, and stories to fill-in these gaps. This has been repeated over and over again in man's 150,000 year history. That is until science eventually changes belief into certainty.

In the 150,000 years of human history there have been over 4000 religions. These religions include polytheism, monotheism, and paganism. The Hindu Religion has over 300 deities. The Ancient Hittites Religion has over 1000 deities. The Chinese, Polynesians, Japanese, Korean, Africans, and Aboriginals, all worship 1000's of different deities. Even pagans have their own deities as well. It has been estimated that the number of deities is in the millions. So my estimate of 4000 is extremely conservative. The 33 Million Gods of Hinduism | HuffPost

As a rational thinker, it has always been a source of confusion to me, why one religion has not emerged in over 150,000 years of human history? Let's do a thought experiment. Let's just imagine that one of these Gods is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then the followers of this God should be experiencing some benefits for believing in Him. There would be real and undeniable benefits. These benefits would become obvious to everyone. The followers of a this true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of this true god would live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, be very intelligent, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of this true god. Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and would gravitate toward this true god. And, over a 150,000 years period, people would eventually start believing in this one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under this one true god. Of course, this is not what we observe today, is it?

What do you think is the logical conclusion to any belief in a God?

It is your conclusion framed and justified in your strict materialist view, not mine

 

[atanu]

..

As a rational thinker, it has always been a source of confusion to me, why one religion has not emerged in over 150,000 years of human history? ..

Similarly there should be only one truly healthy food and all other foods would have fallen by side?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It is your conclusion framed and justified in your strict materialist view, not mine

My conclusion is framed and justified by the facts and the evidence, not by my materialistic view. My view is objective, because my facts and evidence are objective. You have no view, you only have an unfalsifiable belief that you call your view. Would you like to address the facts that support my view? Of course not. Would you like to address the question that I asked you? Of course not. Deflect, dismiss, ignore, avoid, and distract. These are your tools for rational discourse.

 

[shunyadragon]

My conclusion is framed and justified by the facts and the evidence, not by my materialistic view. My view is objective, because my facts and evidence are objective. You have no view, you only have an unfalsifiable belief that you call your view. Would you like to address the facts that support my view? Of course not. Would you like to address the question that I asked you? Of course not. Deflect, dismiss, ignore, avoid, and distract. These are your tools for rational discourse.

Which is a strict materialistic view.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Similarly there should be only one truly healthy food and all other foods would have fallen by side?

Did you read past that first sentence that explains why I was puzzled? Selective quoting out of context is also intellectually dishonest. Equivocation errors seems to be prevalent among believers. We are not talking about physical things like clothing, food, cars, ceremonies, technologies, etc. These things are all real and fueled by commercial and capitalistic factors/forces. We are talking about a God-belief, and the lack of evidence to support it. So please don't conflate the real with the imaginary.

So No, there should not be only one healthy food emerging over the years, and the disappearance of all unhealthy food. What we should see, is exactly what we do see today.

 

[atanu]

Did you read past that first sentence that explains why I was puzzled? Selective quoting out of context is also intellectually dishonest. Equivocation errors seems to be prevalent among believers. We are not talking about physical things like clothing, food, cars, ceremonies, technologies, etc. These things are all real and fueled by commercial and capitalistic factors/forces. We are talking about a God-belief, and the lack of evidence to support it. So please don't conflate the real with the imaginary.

So No, there should not be only one healthy food emerging over the years, and the disappearance of all unhealthy food. What we should see, is exactly what we do see today.

No. The logic is same. If only one God system should have prospered, only one food also ought to have been healthy.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Which is a strict materialistic view.

If you can justify any non-materialistic view with facts and evidence, then please let's hear it. Or, are you just trying to imply/insinuate that materialistic views are wrong, without actually saying it? So instead of casting aspersions on my views, try address the merits of that view(right or wrong). What are the merits of your non-material views?

 

[shunyadragon]

If you can justify any non-materialistic view with facts and evidence, then please let's hear it. Or, are you just trying to imply/insinuate that materialistic views are wrong, without actually saying it? So instead of casting aspersions on my views, try address the merits of that view(right or wrong). What are the merits of your non-material views?

The demand to justify a non-materialistic view with materialistic facts and evidence is indeed a strict materialist view.