Idiots?

Idiots?

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
03 Oct 11
1 edit

I can respect theists who base their belief on personal experience (although I argue that personal experience is not proof) or on "gut feeling" (in which case they should not try to evangelise and pursuade others who do not have that "gut feeling"😉

However I am enraged by those that give "proof" for their beliefs, particularly when these same characters debunk scientific proof for established theory like ; big-bang, evolution, etc.

To debate:
WHAT DRIVES THESE IDIOTS TO DEFEND THEIR RIDICULOUS POSITIONS?

OR

Is their Logic superior to mine .......................... ?

PLEASE NOTE
This is NOT an attack on theists, only an attack on theists who insist their faith is "provable" "self-evident" or "logical".

ka
The Axe man

Brisbane,QLD

Joined
11 Apr 09
Moves
102909
03 Oct 11
1 edit

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I can respect theists who base their belief on personal experience (although I argue that personal experience is not proof) or on "gut feeling" (in which case they should not try to evangelise and pursuade others who do not have that "gut feeling"😉.

However I am enraged by those that give "proof" for their beliefs, particularly when these same characte ...[text shortened]... RIDICULOUS POSITIONS?

OR

Is their Logic superiour to mine ..........................
The only way to get into deeper spiritual understandings is to discard dualisms such as "superior" and such. Any devisive terms like that one shoud be changed/be upgraded.

Gut feelings are not nearly as good as personal experience, and even with PE we still need to weed out the ones that have had a clear, non bised take on their experince, and those that just have "fleeting visions" ,(often clouded by their own biases), without furthur proof.

Joined
29 Dec 08
Moves
6788
03 Oct 11

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The only way to get into deeper spiritual understandings is to discard dualisms such as "superior" and such. Any devisive terms like that one shoud be changed/be upgraded.

Gut feelings are not nearly as good as personal experience, and even with PE we still need to weed out the ones that have had a clear, non bised take on their experince, and those ...[text shortened]... at just have "fleeting visions" ,(often clouded by their own biases), without furthur proof.
I'm as one with you on discarding dualisms, but as a basis for theism, the only personal experiences I feel a need to weed out are those that are not my own.😉

s
Aficionado of Prawns

Not of this World

Joined
11 Apr 09
Moves
38013
03 Oct 11

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I can respect theists who base their belief on personal experience (although I argue that personal experience is not proof) or on "gut feeling" (in which case they should not try to evangelise and pursuade others who do not have that "gut feeling"😉

However I am enraged by those that give "proof" for their beliefs, particularly when these same character ...[text shortened]... attack on theists who insist their faith is "provable" "self-evident" or "logical".
Well then I don't know if your attack is directed at me or not.

Because I think my faith is logical and rational. But I do not think it should be logical to anyone without faith... nor was it logical to me, before I had faith.

Does that make any sense?

r
rvsakhadeo

India

Joined
19 Feb 09
Moves
38047
03 Oct 11

Originally posted by sumydid
Well then I don't know if your attack is directed at me or not.

Because I think my faith is logical and rational. But I do not think it should be logical to anyone without faith... nor was it logical to me, before I had faith.

Does that make any sense?
The heart has its own reasons ! Seriously speaking, the emotional half of our brain, which is the right half, controlling all emotions, activities like sports, music, gymnastics, dance, singing, poetry, is very much developed in women. The ability to arrive at flash decisions, intuition are also governed by this half. Faith is governed by this brain. It is as active as the logical left brain.

s
Aficionado of Prawns

Not of this World

Joined
11 Apr 09
Moves
38013
03 Oct 11

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The heart has its own reasons ! Seriously speaking, the emotional half of our brain, which is the right half, controlling all emotions, activities like sports, music, gymnastics, dance, singing, poetry, is very much developed in women. The ability to arrive at flash decisions, intuition are also governed by this half. Faith is governed by this brain. It is as active as the logical left brain.
So you're saying I'm a girly man?

How DARE you. 😠

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
03 Oct 11

Originally posted by sumydid
Well then I don't know if your attack is directed at me or not.

Because I think my faith is logical and rational. But I do not think it should be logical to anyone without faith... nor was it logical to me, before I had faith.

Does that make any sense?
Providing you can trace your logical argument for your relgion back to personal-experience/gut-feeling/holy-spirit or whatever mystic feelings you have had (still have) then fine, I can respect that.

I am not attacking any individual - only the pretension that religion is somehow a logical conclusion to the universe arouund us. There is NO PROOF. (Although individuals may have personal proof to satisfy themselves.)

ka
The Axe man

Brisbane,QLD

Joined
11 Apr 09
Moves
102909
03 Oct 11

Originally posted by JS357
I'm as one with you on discarding dualisms, but as a basis for theism, the only personal experiences I feel a need to weed out are those that are not my own.😉
Yes, well that's why I dont call myself a theist.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
03 Oct 11

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I can respect theists who base their belief on personal experience (although I argue that personal experience is not proof) or on "gut feeling" (in which case they should not try to evangelise and pursuade others who do not have that "gut feeling"😉

However I am enraged by those that give "proof" for their beliefs, particularly when these same character ...[text shortened]... attack on theists who insist their faith is "provable" "self-evident" or "logical".
It sounds like you are attacking this IDIOT.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
04 Oct 11

Originally posted by RJHinds
It sounds like you are attacking this IDIOT.
Well this is one thing we agree on. I think he's calling the kettle black.... How anyone could fall for the THEORY of evolution I'll never understand.

r
rvsakhadeo

India

Joined
19 Feb 09
Moves
38047
04 Oct 11

Originally posted by sumydid
So you're saying I'm a girly man?

How DARE you. 😠
No, not at all. While many women do have well developed right brains, it has nothing to do with femininity. Many men too have dominant right brains. It might of interest to you to know that William James put forth that i) the tender minded temparament is religous, likes to have definite and unchanging dogmas and a priori truths, takes to free will, idealism, monism, and optimism. ii) the tough minded temparament is irreligous, materialistic, empiricist, sceptical, pessimistic. There are some temparaments which take up theories from both groups.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
04 Oct 11
2 edits

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
No, not at all. While many women do have well developed right brains, it has nothing to do with femininity. Many men too have dominant right brains. It might of interest to you to know that William James put forth that i) the tender minded temparament is religous, likes to have definite and unchanging dogmas and a priori truths, takes to free will, ideal ...[text shortened]... st, sceptical, pessimistic. There are some temparaments which take up theories from both groups.
some people just dont like it that sometimes words can have two meanings, or that
theories and scientific data are open to interpretation.

r
rvsakhadeo

India

Joined
19 Feb 09
Moves
38047
04 Oct 11

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
some people just dont like it that sometimes words can have two meanings, or that
theories and scientific data are open to interpretation.
Very true. The approach to knowledge, must be free from prejudices of every kind. Arbitrary categorisation like William James did, hinders rather than helps, although in the first flush, it appears that it has helped to simplify matters.

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
04 Oct 11
1 edit

Originally posted by galveston75
Well this is one thing we agree on. I think he's calling the kettle black.... How anyone could fall for the THEORY of evolution I'll never understand.




Take 20 minutes and find out.

EDIT:
and here are the scripts from those videos if you don't have the bandwidth for them

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt1.html

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt2.html

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
04 Oct 11

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc

Take 20 minutes and find out.

EDIT:
and here are the scripts from those videos if you don't have the bandwidth for them

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt1.html

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt2.html
I think some are trying to change the definiton of evolution because
they are beginning to realize it doen't work.