I see that internet jabber everywhere and it really ticks me off. How can you type all that without stopping and saying "Wait, this is absolutely and undeniably idiotic."(I'm sure someone could say the same thing for what I just typed, the right move would be to leave this forum if I don't like it, but I'm a P-R-I-C-K...) Besides, internet debates are pointless, it is not a real debate unless you're within fists reach of your enemy/opponent/adversary/foe/conflicting moron.
By the way, I don't know about anyone else. but I got a "Capt.Picard" feeling from Dr.Robert.
Yeah, we kind of left the subject of psychology a while ago... Sorry.
Everything i post has some alterior motive behind it. Like i said at one point, i've replied with 5 different personalities. It's meaningless to everyone else, even me to be honest but it's fun to see how people change their tones so rapidly. You can't get that in real life as people get akwward when you ask them, out of the blue, things like "don't you think eugenics is a good idea in theory?"
That's a bad example. People debating music can elaborate on their opinion by explaining their music is better because of tone, rythm, style, etc.
Religion is faith. There is no scientific evidence to suggest there is a God and not scientific evidence to suggest there isn't. So it's all down to faith, a concept it appear many people cannot grasp.
Hexi, A question I wanted to ask you before.... Have you ever taken the PCLR psychopathy checklist? If not its here: http://www.arkancide.com/psychopathy.htm
If you have, what did you score? :-)
is not quite true. Yes, there is no scientific evidence to suggest
that God exists, but there is a great body of scientific evidence
which suggests that God does not exist. This consists in all the hard
evidence which explains why the world is as it is without the
need for God as an explanatory factor.
Razor states that, "When competing hypotheses are equal in other
respects, one should select the hypothesis that introduces the fewest
assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still
sufficiently answering the question." In other words, the
simplest explanation is probably the correct one. This means that
because there are naturalistic explanations for everything we see and
know, there is no reason to postulate "God," which would
just add another unnecessary "entity."
this does not prove that there is no God, because one cannot
prove a negative, but it does obviate or eliminate the need to
imagine a "God" as an explanatory factor for anything.
Occam's Razor (or any other logical method) does not, and cannot,
prove "no-God," the God conversation always devolves
into a debate about so-called "faith." Since faith is by
definition not logical (Tertullian: "I believe it because
it is absurd"), a logical or scientific discussion about the
existence of God always breaks down, and often ends in name-calling
such as what I am seeing here on the Forum. This is unfortunate
because the name calling buries the issue, so that what is being
debated is no longer the existence of God at all, but rather who is
superior in the debate, which means exactly nothing.
you believe in God, Mazel Tov! Congratulations for being able to believe in an idea
which makes you happy and removes the fear of death. If you do not believe in God, Mazel Tov!.
Congratulations for your understanding and embrace of a naturalistic universe.
Dr. Robert, god bless his soul (and for the irony challenged, that god thing was deliberate) at least provided some meaty intellectual give and take, back and forth. So did a few others. And he’s right about the flame war thing. I find trading insults on an internet forum pointless and juvenile. I suppose if people need to act stupid on the internet as an outlet for their otherwise mind numbingly useless existences, than by all means, go for it. But really, where did the smart, thoughtful people go?
Daniel, this is exactly why pseudo-intellectuals like yourself are annoying. You miss the whole point of the banter, can't see the meanings behind it and everything that isn't longwinded trite is not classified as "intellectual".
If i wrote and explained that in 6 paragraphs you would praise it for being "intellectual".
Awww, you find me annoying? I'm touched. But since you love honesty, your comment was vapid. Mistaking pabulum for "banter" is vapid. The cure for vapidity: reading. Go read a book. The expansion of your intellectual horizons will do you some good.
Go on now.
You can't talk... You counted the number of sentences... :-) LOL
I'm concerned that Ecce Homo lacks the emotional integrity to withstand social bombardment.
In other words... don't break him.
But if he were to "break" you could fix him again, right? :-)
Ecco, how's it going there in your fantasy land? To say such rubbish like "Truth does not need defending" makes you look horribly naive. Tell me, have you ever read a single history book? I know my tone is "provocative" but i just want to explicitly express my disdain.
Toby, that was utterly besides the point. I had to count them to make a point. :)
My world is just fine, thanks for asking. :-) I have read loads of books, on many subjects. Your understanding of truth is… limited. Unnecessarily so. Truth cannot be found in what is read in books. Facts can, but not truth. It’s bigger than that.
I understand why you believe what you believe. I get that it makes sense to you. I even get that you felt compelled to express your disdain. You were completely successful in that expression. So that’s good. Um… honestly, I don’t know what else to say to you because I’ve made it pretty clear that I don’t defend because I don’t need defending. I don’t argue because I can’t see anything worth arguing about. So there you go. I celebrate your freedom to believe precisely what you wish to believe, to examine what you want and to leave unexamined what you want.
You missed my point entirely. Truth is very often obscured on purpose and if no one defends their point of view, humanity would be lost. That is what i meant with reading history. You read history, then you read the same history by another author and you have 2 different histories. If you don't care about the truth and instead are content with a subjective view then that's your choice. I on the otherhand wish that my views are challenged with logic and reasoning.
Ah I see. You are right Hexi. I did miss your point. Thank you for clearing that up.
All I can say is that there is a reality larger than logic and more profound than human reasoning. As such, you can only see it. It can't be argued or debated, only seen or not, which is why I left debating behind long ago. Don't take my word for it. Come see for yourself. Or not. The choice is yours.