24 Jan 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoHi rvsakhadeo,
I can feel for your sincere efforts in trying to get some right-brain thinking through to all these materialistic tunnel thinkers!
Once somebody makes the categorical statement that EVERYTHING around us can be understood and explained by materialistic processes, or at least by processes that can be understood by us at our current level of scientific prowess, then all further discussion about spiritual matters is futile.
Even Einstein acknowledged that there are limits to our understanding of reality and at least the possibility of the reality of a spiritual realm. (twhitehead: don't ask for the reference - Google it!)
However, there are those of us that can see quite clearly what you mean by the value of mythology, but did not take part in this discussion. You are not alone!
(No doubt this will elicit a whole lot of responses from some that will protest: How can you say that? Prove the value of mythology! etc etc My response? Poor you!)
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFIf you are referring to Dasa's statement concerning "child abusers" you already know what I think of Dasa - complete nutcase and not worthy of any serious response.
Do you think someone accusing those with a different belief system, who do "what parents do" in this regard, of being "child abusers", might be a poster - with tongue in cheek - trying to bring "their" [and your] religion into disrepute?
How is accusing people of being child abusers any different from calling for genocide against muslims? (incidentally, something he has NOT retracted, no matter what his buddy RJH says) oh yes, who incidentally ALSO has not put up or apologised about calling you a liar. This will cast a long shadow on RHP...
But I guess neither of them cares about what anybody thinks, and they will take it as persecution for their beliefs!
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobHi PK,
Children should be taught the ability to make up their own minds, especially with regards to the topic at hand.
Not providing a child with adequate nutrition and not letting them brush their teeth would be detrimental to their health, i don't think you could say the same about teaching them a universally accepted scientific fact.
Incidentally, i have no children.
I was just questioning the logic of letting children "make up their own mind" about religion, and not about health, where they receive (or at least should receive) guidance and encouragement from parents.
Bottom line is that we tend to replicate ourselves and our own world view - and that is not bad or wrong.
Raising children that are AWARE, and able to differentiate between good choices and bad choices, and good science and hogwash or superstition, is all part of that process. Unfortuantely, many parents themselves do not have this ability and cannot teach their children that.
Sorry, this is a bit of a tangent and not really on topic. I just got caught by this concept that children "should" be able to decide for themselves when we in fact mold their young minds in our image (for good or bad) from the very earliest age.
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by CalJustExcept that nobody has claimed that we can currently explain everything.
Once somebody makes the categorical statement that EVERYTHING around us can be understood and explained by materialistic processes, or at least by processes that can be understood by us at our current level of scientific prowess, then all further discussion about spiritual matters is futile.
I would like to know how you separate 'material' processes from other processes. What other categories of process do you know?
I certainly don't think that declaring illogical thinking a way to find out about illogical processes will get us any further towards finding out about the universe.
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe already once distinctly corrected you concerning a-logical thinking, and NOT illogical thinking, vs logical thinking.
I certainly don't think that declaring illogical thinking a way to find out about illogical processes will get us any further towards finding out about the universe.
He never said illogical thinking, those were YOUR words.
A-logical thinking comprises right-brained, intuitive thought processes, which have in the past (as has been described on this thread) contributed to scientific advances.
Myths, dreams, poetry, etc are some such processes.
But then you with your hard-core logical brain would not know what we are taking about.
And you are the poorer for it, but don't realise it.
:'(
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo I have not - I feel I would be wasting my time, just like i am doing now. No disrespect.
The explanation for the diversification of life on this planet ie, evolution, does not depend on the big bang or abiogenesis.
Have you ever read a book about evolution written by an evolutionary biologist?
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobUniversally would include everybody right? Even if not the case, it doesn't mean that because it is accepted "universally" it is the truth. I can use the very same argument towards Christianity and you will differ from me. There are just as many theists as there are atheists, I would even assume the balance more towards theists. Thus my argument can be that there is a better chance of God to exist than the evolution theory.
Please explain how a universally accepted scientific fact is a 'lie'. Also i noticed you didn't answer my question from earlier - have you read a book written by an evolutionary biologist concerning evolution?
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFChildren abusers must be locked away - period.
You said they should be locked away forever, but now you don't seem to be saying they should be locked away forever anymore. Do you have the same mixed feelings or doubts about punishing people who abuse children physically?
I think i have explained myself well on this.
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by CalJustI have had a quick scroll through the site...tell me a bit more please.
Hi Nicksten,
If you are serious about finding out what Christian scientists think, a good place to start would be at [b]www.biologos.org. (Note: NOT biologos.com, which is a commercial site!)
I am probably what you would call a theistic evolutionist, and I would be happy to explore/explain this with you further.[/b]
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think he tried to explain that the principles are the same.
Children should be taught the ability to make up their own minds, especially with regards to the topic at hand.
Not providing a child with adequate nutrition and not letting them brush their teeth would be detrimental to their health, i don't think you could say the same about teaching them a universally accepted scientific fact.
Incidentally, i have no children.
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by CalJustWell I did ask for an explanation, but I guess the explanation is a-logical and therefore cannot be put in a post.
He already once distinctly corrected you concerning a-logical thinking, and NOT illogical thinking, vs logical thinking.
It is however a fact that the supernatural (which is what he was trying to describe or learn about) is illogical from its very definition.
A-logical thinking comprises right-brained, intuitive thought processes, which have in the past (as has been described on this thread) contributed to scientific advances.
And I see no need for such a confusing word to describe intuition and the like. Do you mean intuition has no logic to it? Or do you mean without following a logical process?
But then you with your hard-core logical brain would not know what we are taking about.
And you are the poorer for it, but don't realise it.
:'(
At least I am willing to share my knowledge, unlike some apparently who just like to act superior.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by CalJustWell for starters the idea that different halves of the brain do different things (ie being left
He already once distinctly corrected you concerning a-logical thinking, and NOT illogical thinking, vs logical thinking.
He never said illogical thinking, those were YOUR words.
A-logical thinking comprises right-brained, intuitive thought processes, which have in the past (as has been described on this thread) contributed ...[text shortened]... know what we are taking about.
And you are the poorer for it, but don't realise it.
:'(
brained or right brained being artistic or logical respectively) is total nonsense.
Thinking is either logical, ie it follows the laws of logic, or it is illogical, it doesn't follow the
laws of logic. There is no in between ground.
That isn't to say that being 'illogical' for fun is a bad thing, but just when you are trying to
determine the nature of reality there is no value in being illogical (or a-logical which would
mean not-logical... which is illogical)
I think you are falling under the straw-Vulcan fallacy, rationality and logic don't mean what
you think they mean.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan
24 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustNo. I was referring to Nicksten.
If you are referring to Dasa's statement concerning "child abusers" you already know what I think of Dasa - complete nutcase and not worthy of any serious response.
How is accusing people of being child abusers any different from calling for genocide against muslims? (incidentally, something he has NOT retracted, no matter what his buddy RJH says) oh yes, ...[text shortened]... them cares about what anybody thinks, and they will take it as persecution for their beliefs!
How is accusing people of being child abusers any different from calling for genocide against muslims?
Does this apply to your co-religionist Nicksten?
25 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFThere is a very big margin/difference accusing people of something towards killing all the muslims. I believe that was the answer else you'd need to rephrase?
No. I was referring to Nicksten.
[b]How is accusing people of being child abusers any different from calling for genocide against muslims?
Does this apply to your co-religionist Nicksten?[/b]
25 Jan 12
Originally posted by NickstenYes I will rephrase. How is the idiocy of accusing people - who teach conventional science - of being child abusers, and no different from physical/sexual child abusers, any different from the idiocy of calling for genocide against Muslims?
There is a very big margin/difference accusing people of something towards killing all the muslims. I believe that was the answer else you'd need to rephrase?