Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 44 more replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pfuzylogic
[quote]You had enough time to draft this response. [/quote]
Yeah, I kinda reread my stuff, so you have less spellingmistakes to worry about. It was also pretty long and I wanted to be as clear as possible.
[quote]I suggest you spend the same amount of time commutes to what you believe and not blindly accept what scientists spew out. [/quote]
For someone that blindly accepts a book that doesn't agree with debate on certain dogmatic issues, don't you think that using that argument is a bit of a weird thing to do? You actually say something later on that I agree with, and which shows the big diffrence between how I perceive the world and how you look at it.
[quote]I have seen many scientists claim the mantle of knowing key parts of the universe only to have it come tumbling down upon their death. They made up models which in the end are just good science fiction, hawking for an example.[/quote]
Are the theories of these scientists still accepted as "knowledge" when someone else gives "valid" evidence of these ideas being wrong? Science isn't always right, it betters itself, and the more we research the better the knowledge-pool gets. There are setbacks and there are mistakes and then we move forward again. But it always goes forward.
"Faith" is diffrent, certain aspects are stationairy even when evidence is provided when they are wrong. In these fields we can't progress because "dogmatic ideas" don't allow it. And these dogmatic ideas originate from a book that has been largely stationairy for a long periode of time because it's not open for scientific inquiry because people like yourself keep believing that it's "objectively true" while having no evidence for that.
[quote]God is not subject to our minds and understandings.[/quote]
Why is he not? We know stuff about the character (god) in the story. He does things, he makes descisions, he has an entire character build up, he reasons, he judges. Is it so "beyond" us to make an opinion about these behaviors? Why even read or believe in a story if you know in advance that the main character is going to be "beyond" our understanding, that the character will be so far out that what ever we'll read about him will just make no sense to us. And since it all makes no sense to us? Why would we believe to have anny knowledge of this character at all? Why even act upon what we know from him? We are just to stupid to understand it annyway? ... I mean, if he's so beyond us, why refute objective knowledge gained by methodology just because of something that we have no evidence off and that is impossible for us to understand?
[quote]You had enough time to draft this response. [/quote]
Yeah, I kinda reread my stuff, so you have less spellingmistakes to worry about. It was also pretty long and I wanted to be as clear as possible.
[quote]I suggest you spend the same amount of time commutes to what you believe and not blindly accept what scientists spew out. [/quote]
For someone that blindly accepts a book that doesn't agree with debate on certain dogmatic issues, don't you think that using that argument is a bit of a weird thing to do? You actually say something later on that I agree with, and which shows the big diffrence between how I perceive the world and how you look at it.
[quote]I have seen many scientists claim the mantle of knowing key parts of the universe only to have it come tumbling down upon their death. They made up models which in the end are just good science fiction, hawking for an example.[/quote]
Are the theories of these scientists still accepted as "knowledge" when someone else gives "valid" evidence of these ideas being wrong? Science isn't always right, it betters itself, and the more we research the better the knowledge-pool gets. There are setbacks and there are mistakes and then we move forward again. But it always goes forward.
"Faith" is diffrent, certain aspects are stationairy even when evidence is provided when they are wrong. In these fields we can't progress because "dogmatic ideas" don't allow it. And these dogmatic ideas originate from a book that has been largely stationairy for a long periode of time because it's not open for scientific inquiry because people like yourself keep believing that it's "objectively true" while having no evidence for that.
[quote]God is not subject to our minds and understandings.[/quote]
Why is he not? We know stuff about the character (god) in the story. He does things, he makes descisions, he has an entire character build up, he reasons, he judges. Is it so "beyond" us to make an opinion about these behaviors? Why even read or believe in a story if you know in advance that the main character is going to be "beyond" our understanding, that the character will be so far out that what ever we'll read about him will just make no sense to us. And since it all makes no sense to us? Why would we believe to have anny knowledge of this character at all? Why even act upon what we know from him? We are just to stupid to understand it annyway? ... I mean, if he's so beyond us, why refute objective knowledge gained by methodology just because of something that we have no evidence off and that is impossible for us to understand?
Pfuzylogic · M
@Kwek00
Let’s get off of the rhetorical attack with “people like me”. If you can’t be respectful then there is no point to this discussion. If you want to act as the masses and believe everything that is thrown out in the name of science then that is your choice. They don’t follow their own stated methods with their “discoveries” and the fraud is there.
Let’s get off of the rhetorical attack with “people like me”. If you can’t be respectful then there is no point to this discussion. If you want to act as the masses and believe everything that is thrown out in the name of science then that is your choice. They don’t follow their own stated methods with their “discoveries” and the fraud is there.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Pfuzylogic
Well people like you, people that see "genesis" as real.
If you don't think you are part of a group, then I'll say "like you". If you consider that an attack then you have some really long toes? Or just looking a reason to be offended?
I also said:
[quote]So I do have trust in science, even tough [b]I criticise the [u]human aspect[/u] of science[/b][/quote]
So I totally agree with you, and I believe that we should combat fraud.
However, it's not because you find cases of "fraud" that the entire system is just one big fraudeuleus thing. As I said, it searches for knowledge, this is a discovery, and we get better and better understanding of what we know and how the world works over time. It's a proces over time. It doesn't consider itself "dogmatic", every bit of it is open for discussion as long as you provide valid evidence for your case.
You say:
[quote]If you want to act as the masses and believe everything that is thrown out in the name of science then that is your choice. [/quote]
But you are mistaken, I don't follow "everything" that is thrown at us. Not at all. I try to get my conception of what I know and how I understand as closely to the ideas that went through this process. And even if I adopts these ideas, then too should I be aware that they can be contested by annyone that provide "valid" evidence.
But you complain about that, you complain that I try to follow these guidelines. But you live in a reality where:
[quote]I don’t base my belief on evidence first.[/quote]
You are actually way more open to believe "everything" then I am? Don't you think?
Well people like you, people that see "genesis" as real.
If you don't think you are part of a group, then I'll say "like you". If you consider that an attack then you have some really long toes? Or just looking a reason to be offended?
I also said:
[quote]So I do have trust in science, even tough [b]I criticise the [u]human aspect[/u] of science[/b][/quote]
So I totally agree with you, and I believe that we should combat fraud.
However, it's not because you find cases of "fraud" that the entire system is just one big fraudeuleus thing. As I said, it searches for knowledge, this is a discovery, and we get better and better understanding of what we know and how the world works over time. It's a proces over time. It doesn't consider itself "dogmatic", every bit of it is open for discussion as long as you provide valid evidence for your case.
You say:
[quote]If you want to act as the masses and believe everything that is thrown out in the name of science then that is your choice. [/quote]
But you are mistaken, I don't follow "everything" that is thrown at us. Not at all. I try to get my conception of what I know and how I understand as closely to the ideas that went through this process. And even if I adopts these ideas, then too should I be aware that they can be contested by annyone that provide "valid" evidence.
But you complain about that, you complain that I try to follow these guidelines. But you live in a reality where:
[quote]I don’t base my belief on evidence first.[/quote]
You are actually way more open to believe "everything" then I am? Don't you think?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Pfuzylogic · M
@talisker
I am speaking of salvation of our Souls through the Messiah Jesus.
I am speaking of salvation of our Souls through the Messiah Jesus.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Pfuzylogic · M
Yes Faith first!