Still Looking

Originally posted by Palynka
It always amuses me how some types of theists like Freaky are afraid of science.

i would not like to refer to freaky as a theist. it insults theists everywhere.

freaky is part of a subgroup of theists, kind of like the retarded or pedophile or nazi or lawyer cousin some of us are embarassed of mentioning.

(the lawyer part was a joke)

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"It really would be awful if we knew from birth exactly what we must do each day."

What you perceive as an insult is really just my annoyance of ridiculous statements like the one above.

Why make such meaningless statements? Who would ever think of such a thing or even suggest it?[/b]

Let me explain. You read a book, right? The book told you how you should live, right? The book told you what will happen in the end, right? You have a code of ethics given to you that you must follow, right?

If everyone agreed, and knew it was true, and followed the ethical code to the letter, there would be no dilema, no inner tension/termoil, no responsibility (for "good" or "bad" acts), no discussion, no personal development/growth, no sense of achievement, no need for reflection, etc, etc, just endless towing the line.

I know i'm thinking a little outside the box, but if you could just entertain my idea for a moment you will see that it is not meaningless, and that your annoyance is not necessary.

Who would think of such a thing or even suggest it? Me, obviously.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i would not like to refer to freaky as a theist. it insults theists everywhere.

freaky is part of a subgroup of theists, kind of like the retarded or pedophile or nazi or lawyer cousin some of us are embarassed of mentioning.

(the lawyer part was a joke)

That's what I meant. Subgroup or type ends up meaning the same thing...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]... an atheist can offer many explanations, many of which might be theories or very complicated science...
Atheists continue to offer many explanations, all of which are theories (read: wild, unfounded conjectures) and none of which can be considered science, since science requires observation.

... but nothing can be as definitive as ...[text shortened]... , but only to a limited degree, and only for non-essential elements of their salient issues.

Atheists continue to offer many explanations, all of which are theories (read: wild, unfounded conjectures) and none of which can be considered science, since science requires observation.
science requires observation then? so science means what you can see with the eye? what you can smell? or hear? what is your definition of observation? is the "trumpets sounding, jericho collapsing" also observation? if so, observation by whom? have anyone seen fusion happening? or have we simply observed it through indirect means? or deduced it happened? does one see gravitation? or do we only see the effects?
tell us what is and what isn't the "observation" required for science.


faith is "as is". it is a form of knowledge, but one you cannot build or expand upon. science is based on theories you can use to build other theories while knowing every second you will have demolish part or all of a certain theory. faith doesn't do that. faith never evolves and never demands proof. which is ok as long as you don't build a faith powered airplane.

However, an atheist further wishes to have it both ways: experience-based in some regards, but faith-based in others (such as in this situation).
kinda like the intelligent design or creationist "scientists", isn't it? no respectable scientist will use faith to form a theory. "i believe that 1+1=3, therefore 1+1+1=5"

"Can those faiths be tested, experimented upon and shown to be 'true' using the various scientific methods?" if they can, they cease to be faiths and start being facts. faith is by definition unproven.

Originally posted by Palynka
That's what I meant. Subgroup or type ends up meaning the same thing...

i know. but exactly that is why we invent terms for those people. to emphasize. just like we call hitler a nazi and not "a type of christian".

how about zealot? this seems a nice term for freaky.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i know. but exactly that is why we invent terms for those people. to emphasize. just like we call hitler a nazi and not "a type of christian".

how about zealot? this seems a nice term for freaky.

Zealot has a more defined meaning...

What about Luddite Theist?

Originally posted by josephw
I'm still looking for an explanation from the atheist as to where everything came from.

As a Bible believing Christian I believe everything that exists was created by God.

Now, before you atheists start asking questions about what everything is, what I mean by "everything", is, all that exists. All that exists is everything that there is. Everything th ...[text shortened]... em for you, then forget that and demonstrate your understanding of the nature of existence.

josephw,

I don't know. I have seen no good evidence to suggest that you do either.

I don't regard god as an explanation of where everything came from so much as a label for the personification of the unanswered and possibly unanswerable questions in this case.

Why is there something rather than nothing? i don't know, but I've seen some interesting ideas, including yours.

Originally posted by josephw
You've never heard God's voice? Maybe you're not listening. Maybe you think God should speak to you on your own terms. Maybe God speaks in a way you haven't thought of. Do you think you will "hear" with your ears when God speaks?


[b]"Just get on with life, and better yourself..."

And then die? "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."

I ...[text shortened]... choices and decisions. Without guidance we flounder. We need truth.[/b]

Maybe you are listening to your own attributes and indoctrinated dogma of nothingness, if you can perceive what nothingness is - you included!

Maybe my idea of spirituality doesn't need a God - in your layman's terms.

I hear, in what I do! I don't need to press it on other people - as in I do not judge!

You don't know what I have thought, so therefore you judge me!

As I originally said, unpointed towards any, improve yourself! One knows! Oneself!
The goal is within! Not external...... external is not ready for oneself!!!!!!! nor to others!!!!

Try to objectionable here, without your own massive road of single sight!

Originally posted by twiceaknight
Let me explain. You read a book, right? The book told you how you should live, right? The book told you what will happen in the end, right? You have a code of ethics given to you that you must follow, right?

If everyone agreed, and knew it was true, and followed the ethical code to the letter, there would be no dilema, no inner tension/termoil, no r ...[text shortened]... ce is not necessary.

Who would think of such a thing or even suggest it? Me, obviously.

Me too!