[POLL]Your religion? - Page 9

On August 13 2012 04:40 xafies wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right? LOL what?Plz read this : about perception

Please argue your points yourself and include your references if asked. I have read a ton of these and I would like to discuss specific points, to refine what I believe or find out where I am wrong, I am not looking for a supposed authority to tell me what I should believe. Logic and arguments are the only thing that works on me, authority or supposed authority I dont really respect much if it does not come with the former values.

I would like to know YOUR arguments, not some other guys.

On August 13 2012 04:07 Zorglub wrote: How about you started refuting my logic or arguments instead of petty insults then, it should not be difficult if they are as far out as you claim.

I shouldn't need to rebut your statements such as "to me religion is science". To me this is degrading and insulting.

You made statements alluding that your conclusions are based on science, logic and sound reasoning and qualified it with your background, upbringing and experimentation. And yet your conclusions are actually based on unquantifiable personal experience. It's fine that your opinions and beliefs are based on your personal experience but you some how think bringing science into your argument that it gives it weight. You have done a bait and switch and I have called you out on it.

Basically you haven't posted anything even remotely worth debating/arguing.

I can't/won't go into philosophy because I don't think I'm at all qualified (which actually stops me from posting complete shit on the internet).

On August 13 2012 04:49 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 04:07 Zorglub wrote: How about you started refuting my logic or arguments instead of petty insults then, it should not be difficult if they are as far out as you claim. I shouldn't need to rebut your statements such as "to me religion is science". To me this is degrading and insulting. You made statements alluding that your conclusions are based on science, logic and sound reasoning and qualified it with your background, upbringing and experimentation. And yet your conclusions are actually based on unquantifiable personal experience. It's fine that your opinions and beliefs are based on your personal experience but you some how think bringing science into your argument that it gives it weight. You have done a bait and switch and I have called you out on it. Basically you haven't posted anything even remotely worth debating/arguing.

"It's fine that your opinions and beliefs are based on your personal experience" How could I ever claim anything else? Are you somehow able to experience what other people experience and make your opinion from that? Please tell me how you do that?

To a spiritual/religious person like me, science is knowledge about God just like religion is, because there is nothing else to know anything about, there is only God. But I guess you don't see the logic in that.

On August 13 2012 03:19 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 03:13 Baalim wrote:   On August 12 2012 07:35 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:36 Baalim wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:01 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 03:31 FarmMylife wrote: Honestly I can see that believing in God and heavan from a logical or scientific point of view is kind or retarded. However if I try to get to heaven by doing good things I am not really hurting anyone. When I die if I was right then all is good and I end up in heaven, if the athiest was right then it wont matter anyways because I wont know. yet there are many scientists who believe in God. Hell, even Einstein believed: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html 98% of nobel prize winner in hard sciences are atheists/agnostics. Could you provide a source? I've found an article (kinda old, it's from 2005) that says it's close to 50% http://www.livescience.com/379-scient...ef-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html im in colombia right now but ill try to look for the source as soon as i get back, i remember the number perfectly, souce might be faulty. Still what i meant is the perfectly documented relationship between religiosity and intelligence. Intelligence is a funny thing. It takes intelligence to see intelligence, if the gap is too big you can not see it, or it will make no sense to you. Maybe the scientist can't see the ones who are socially/emotionally intelligent, and vice versa. Maybe there are all kinds of ways to be intelligent, where the mathematical/scientific is only one of them. Maybe beeing a good mother or a great buddy is also a kind of intelligence?

Intelligence is used to broadly lately and the whole "lots of types of intelligence" are mainly used to lift the self steem of people but yeah there are diferent types of intelligence.

Proof of that is that there are Nobel prize winners who believe in jew zombies

On August 13 2012 04:57 Zorglub wrote: "It's fine that your opinions and beliefs are based on your personal experience" How could I ever claim anything else? Are you somehow able to experience what other people experience and make your opinion from that? Please tell me how you do that? To a spiritual/religious person like me, science is knowledge about God just like religion is, because there is nothing else to know anything about, there is only God. But I guess you don't see the logic in that.

I've never been raped but I don't need to experience it to realise it would be pretty traumatic.

Interesting how all of a sudden there is only one god and it's "God" now. I assume you mean Zeus because we all know if there is only one god it would be him, not like your a christian pretending to of gone on a journey of self discovery having previously been a man of science or anything.

You don't know what logic is.

On August 13 2012 04:59 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 03:19 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 03:13 Baalim wrote:   On August 12 2012 07:35 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:36 Baalim wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:01 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 03:31 FarmMylife wrote: Honestly I can see that believing in God and heavan from a logical or scientific point of view is kind or retarded. However if I try to get to heaven by doing good things I am not really hurting anyone. When I die if I was right then all is good and I end up in heaven, if the athiest was right then it wont matter anyways because I wont know. yet there are many scientists who believe in God. Hell, even Einstein believed: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html 98% of nobel prize winner in hard sciences are atheists/agnostics. Could you provide a source? I've found an article (kinda old, it's from 2005) that says it's close to 50% http://www.livescience.com/379-scient...ef-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html im in colombia right now but ill try to look for the source as soon as i get back, i remember the number perfectly, souce might be faulty. Still what i meant is the perfectly documented relationship between religiosity and intelligence. Intelligence is a funny thing. It takes intelligence to see intelligence, if the gap is too big you can not see it, or it will make no sense to you. Maybe the scientist can't see the ones who are socially/emotionally intelligent, and vice versa. Maybe there are all kinds of ways to be intelligent, where the mathematical/scientific is only one of them. Maybe beeing a good mother or a great buddy is also a kind of intelligence? Intelligence is used to broadly lately and the whole "lots of types of intelligence" are mainly used to lift the self steem of people but yeah there are diferent types of intelligence. Proof of that is that there are Nobel prize winners who believe in jew zombies

If we then stop calling it intelligence and call it "gifts" or "talents" in a certain field of living or knowledge, then it becomes obvious there are many kinds. The way we usually define intelligence today is a giftedness in one type of knowledge/talent(the scientific), but it is obvious there are many other areas where giftedness or talents benefit the individual or whole. Some would even argue that a low IQ dyslexic man who lived at happy and fullfilling life, just the way he wanted, was more intelligent than a high IQ gifted male who only thinks in math and is unable to live a socially fullfilling life..

I wouldnt say he was more intelligent, he probably lived a happier life, which ultimately is what matters the most.

Its just a matter of semantics of what you call intelligence and skills, i think its silly to try to over-reach with the word intelligence for the sake of raising self-steem (everybody is smart in some way propaganda)

On August 13 2012 05:12 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 04:57 Zorglub wrote: "It's fine that your opinions and beliefs are based on your personal experience" How could I ever claim anything else? Are you somehow able to experience what other people experience and make your opinion from that? Please tell me how you do that? To a spiritual/religious person like me, science is knowledge about God just like religion is, because there is nothing else to know anything about, there is only God. But I guess you don't see the logic in that. I've never been raped but I don't need to experience it to realise it would be pretty traumatic. Interesting how all of a sudden there is only one god and it's "God" now. I assume you mean Zeus because we all know if there is only one god it would be him, not like your a christian pretending to of gone on a journey of self discovery having previously been a man of science or anything. You don't know what logic is.

Oh great man please teach me then!

That is the english language for you, if you talk about The God, it is with a capital G, if you talk about the concept of god or the property of "godliness" it is not with a capitol G.

One God in many different interpretations, gives us many gods who are infact all the same.

On August 13 2012 02:51 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:05 Funktion wrote: I'm not arguing with you at all. Nothing to be gained from trying to influence a fool with such bastardised definitions of science and logic. Remember that? I hold no respect for how you think or draw your conclusions. I despise how you wield words like science and logic to give some sort of psuedo credence to the baseless crap you speak. Science can replicate and offer proof of conclusions, you explain away your personal revelation of "an entity/god" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:25 Zorglub wrote:made me realize that an entity/God was the only possible or at least most probable explanation. with "personal opinion/experience" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:39 Zorglub wrote: As I said it is a personal opinion/experience that took me years to realize, so I am afraid I can not explain the whole sequence of events that let me to that conclusion here in a short form, I am sorry. That is why I said it was a personal opinion/experience, it has to be experienced to be realized, I can hardly explain it all in words and especially not in a short term. By adding the "personal opinion" I sort of tried to say that I can not explain it to you, it is just a personal experience. To make it clear, there is just no point arguing with someone like you who equates science with religion + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:52 Zorglub wrote: To me religion is like science. or believes that religion is anything resembling or approaching the truth + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:32 Zorglub wrote: Times change and new theories and religions appear which are hopefully a little closer to the truth than the former versions. So have fun with your petty flat earth and teenage digs if they make you feel better. Edit: There is a word coined by Colbert that pretty much sums this up: Truthiness.

solid post

On August 13 2012 05:21 Baalim wrote: I wouldnt say he was more intelligent, he probably lived a happier life, which ultimately is what matters the most. Its just a matter of semantics of what you call intelligence and skills, i think its silly to try to over-reach with the word intelligence for the sake of raising self-steem (everybody is smart in some way propaganda)

I agree if that was the purpose but that is not my purpose, I say it because that is what i truely believe is true.

On August 12 2012 14:24 Spitfiree wrote: @taco ... not sure if troll or .. you know

Not really trolling with that non-pedophile comment, not at all comparing atheists to non-pedophiles and theists to pedophiles.
Merely replacing nouns in an attempt to show brambolius how ridiculous his sentence sounds.

On August 12 2012 17:35 Graisseux wrote: Hate the emotivity you are displaying in this thread, but this is gold :D

Wrongly assuming I mean't what I didn't mean I'll agree that that would be gold.

On August 13 2012 04:48 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 04:40 xafies wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right? LOL what?Plz read this : about perception Please argue your points yourself and include your references if asked. I have read a ton of these and I would like to discuss specific points, to refine what I believe or find out where I am wrong, I am not looking for a supposed authority to tell me what I should believe. Logic and arguments are the only thing that works on me, authority or supposed authority I dont really respect much if it does not come with the former values. I would like to know YOUR arguments, not some other guys.

Ok my arguments are with science .This article explains in a simple manner how f.e the visual system works.If you read it you 'll understand that brain works like a complicated computer .There is no room for saying mind is required to see or feel.This is strictly brain's work/ without energy it will be unable to function.And will be dead....... forever.
P.S Unless you define the mind as the brain

On August 12 2012 08:18 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 07:54 brambolius wrote: gotta love how all the so called atheists defend their beliefs like it's a religion, and stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree. Class act people. Gotta love it how the so called non-pedophiles do the same thing. Class act people.

Thx for proving my point lol.

On August 12 2012 11:49 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 07:54 brambolius wrote: gotta love how all the so called atheists defend their beliefs like it's a religion, and stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree. Class act people. Maybe when I'm older, I'll open up a Unicorn farm. If you believe, you can achieve!

And thx to you too.

And just to be clear, i'm not a religious person.

On August 13 2012 06:14 taco wrote: Not really potatoe with that non-sugarplum comment, not at all eating yellyfish to non-cyclopeds and rubba-dub-dubs to catfur. Merely replacing nouns in an attempt to show taco how ridiculous his sentence sounds.

Wow, that was easy

On August 13 2012 06:31 xafies wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 04:48 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:40 xafies wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right? LOL what?Plz read this : about perception Please argue your points yourself and include your references if asked. I have read a ton of these and I would like to discuss specific points, to refine what I believe or find out where I am wrong, I am not looking for a supposed authority to tell me what I should believe. Logic and arguments are the only thing that works on me, authority or supposed authority I dont really respect much if it does not come with the former values. I would like to know YOUR arguments, not some other guys. Ok my arguments are with science .This article explains in a simple manner how f.e the visual system works.If you read it you 'll understand that brain works like a complicated computer .There is no room for saying mind is required to see or feel.This is strictly brain's work/ without energy it will be unable to function.And will be dead....... forever. P.S Unless you define the mind as the brain

Ok so you are objecting against the concept of "mind" if I understand you right?

If your brain is controlling all your actions and thoughts, who is controlling the environment and everything your brain reacts and responds to? Or is the nature/environment not controlled?

If nature/the environment is not controlled then your thoughts and actions are not controlled either, because they exist only because of input and interaction with the environment. The environment will enevitably influence your thoughts and actions. A brain without anything to respond to or any external input or output would hardly serve any purpose at all. In the bigger picture it is the environment controlling man and his thoughts, it is not the other way around.

On August 13 2012 07:25 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 06:14 taco wrote: Not really potatoe with that non-sugarplum comment, not at all eating yellyfish to non-cyclopeds and rubba-dub-dubs to catfur. Merely replacing nouns in an attempt to show taco how ridiculous his sentence sounds. Wow, that was non-comparable

You're ridiculing an act, the act of people who don't do something (in your case: have a theism) defending their choice not to do something that others (in your case: have a theism).
The act is the same; be it non-pedophiles or non-smokers. Yet you ridicule the act in this case and only this case?
Why is the act worthy of ridicule when atheists choose not to be theists but not when people that don't molest children choose not to?

On August 13 2012 07:41 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 06:31 xafies wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:48 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:40 xafies wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right? LOL what?Plz read this : about perception Please argue your points yourself and include your references if asked. I have read a ton of these and I would like to discuss specific points, to refine what I believe or find out where I am wrong, I am not looking for a supposed authority to tell me what I should believe. Logic and arguments are the only thing that works on me, authority or supposed authority I dont really respect much if it does not come with the former values. I would like to know YOUR arguments, not some other guys. Ok my arguments are with science .This article explains in a simple manner how f.e the visual system works.If you read it you 'll understand that brain works like a complicated computer .There is no room for saying mind is required to see or feel.This is strictly brain's work/ without energy it will be unable to function.And will be dead....... forever. P.S Unless you define the mind as the brain Ok so you are objecting against the concept of "mind" if I understand you right? If your brain is controlling all your actions and thoughts, who is controlling the environment and everything your brain reacts and responds to? Or is the nature/environment not controlled? If nature/the environment is not controlled then your thoughts and actions are not controlled either, because they exist only because of input and interaction with the environment. The environment will enevitably influence your thoughts and actions. A brain without anything to respond to or any external input or output would hardly serve any purpose at all. In the bigger picture it is the environment controlling man and his thoughts, it is not the other way around.

sounds like you're objecting to the philosophical ramifications of accepting no god/meaning, not so much that you've found a reason why there has to be a god/meaning. Most people feel that way about free will, too.

On August 13 2012 08:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 07:41 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 06:31 xafies wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:48 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 04:40 xafies wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right? LOL what?Plz read this : about perception Please argue your points yourself and include your references if asked. I have read a ton of these and I would like to discuss specific points, to refine what I believe or find out where I am wrong, I am not looking for a supposed authority to tell me what I should believe. Logic and arguments are the only thing that works on me, authority or supposed authority I dont really respect much if it does not come with the former values. I would like to know YOUR arguments, not some other guys. Ok my arguments are with science .This article explains in a simple manner how f.e the visual system works.If you read it you 'll understand that brain works like a complicated computer .There is no room for saying mind is required to see or feel.This is strictly brain's work/ without energy it will be unable to function.And will be dead....... forever. P.S Unless you define the mind as the brain Ok so you are objecting against the concept of "mind" if I understand you right? If your brain is controlling all your actions and thoughts, who is controlling the environment and everything your brain reacts and responds to? Or is the nature/environment not controlled? If nature/the environment is not controlled then your thoughts and actions are not controlled either, because they exist only because of input and interaction with the environment. The environment will enevitably influence your thoughts and actions. A brain without anything to respond to or any external input or output would hardly serve any purpose at all. In the bigger picture it is the environment controlling man and his thoughts, it is not the other way around. sounds like you're objecting to the philosophical ramifications of accepting no god/meaning, not so much that you've found a reason why there has to be a god/meaning. Most people feel that way about free will, too.

I am arguing what I believe to be true, for the sole reason of ruling out mistakes, to refine what I believe is the truth even further. I would also accept no god/meaning if I thought that was the most probable explanation, and I will go back to it again if new knowledge or evidence makes it more likely than the theory I hold as most likely right now.

Speaking of free will, maybe you could explain to me how it would be possible to have a "free will"? I simply can not see how it would be possible, no matter if you take a scientific or religious approach. Maybe you could explain to me how it is supposed to work?