The work of Satan...

Arsal said:
Satya's obsession with proving Christianity wrong is oddly reminiscent of myself on another forum. Of course, all I achieved was have the topic banned from the website because I made too many threads on a "sensitive issue". Psh.
Click to expand...

I can't prove Christianity wrong. There isn't any point in doing so. That is not my aim.
 
Satya said:
I can't prove Christianity wrong. There isn't any point in doing so. That is not my aim.
Click to expand...

I know bro, am i right in understanding that what you do want to prove is Objective Reality?
reached through Scientific based Observation and experimentation with no personal bias integration?
 
acd said:
@Barnabas
Abstinence before marriage... dinosaurs and people walked the earth together....
Shenanigans!
images.jpg
Click to expand...

You act like there aren't people who chose not have sex, that's just silly. [MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION] you know I don't expect you to follow christian customs, you also know my opinion on the whether or not same sex marriages should be legal or not. Which brings up the next question, have you finally met someone you think you could marry, if so congratulations.
 
Satya said:
I totally would have waited to have sex until I was married if the Christian majority had gotten off its high horse and allowed me to have the legal contract of marriage with the person I care about.
Click to expand...

Oh really? That is what stopped you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Satya said:
I wasn't arguing that the Bible says the world was created in six, twenty-four hour periods. I was arguing the order the Bible says things were created in is different than the order in how they actually evolved.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Bible may list things in a different order than the order they emerged through evolution. This does not mean that the Bible is incorrect - this simply requires that one not read the book of Genesis as if it were a chronology of the emergence of the various classes of life-forms. If you read it as a religious text, focused on the symeterey, progression and ascending dignity of God's work of creation - with its culmination not even in humans, but in divine rest/repose (ie. heaven) - then there's nothing to inspire a suspicion that science is somehow a nefarious, incorrect, or deceptive endeavor.

I'm not making a very significant point - but it is one that is lost to so many people.
 
Divine Wannabee said:
I know bro, am i right in understanding that what you do want to prove is Objective Reality?
reached through Scientific based Observation and experimentation with no personal bias integration?
Click to expand...

If I could prove objective reality, then there wouldn't be any point to any of this. I'm just trying to get people to question their beliefs. If after questioning their beliefs, they wish to continue believing in them, then I am fine with it.

Of course, what I am figuring out is that some people don't see beliefs the same way I do. Some people actually form a relationship with their beliefs and put an absolute trust in that relationship that they like to call "faith". Trying to get them to question that belief seems to be seen as an intrusion into that personal relationship.
 
Barnabas said:
You act like there aren't people who chose not have sex, that's just silly. @Satya you know I don't expect you to follow christian customs, you also know my opinion on the whether or not same sex marriages should be legal or not. Which brings up the next question, have you finally met someone you think you could marry, if so congratulations.
Click to expand...

Actually yes. I'm on the seventh month of a relationship. It has been going very well. I'm feel very fortunate. Thank you for asking.
 
Satya said:
If I could prove objective reality, then there wouldn't be any point to any of this. I'm just trying to get people to question their beliefs. If after questioning their beliefs, they wish to continue believing in them, then I am fine with it.

Of course, what I am figuring out is that some people don't see beliefs the same way I do. Some people actually form a relationship with their beliefs and put an absolute trust in that relationship that they like to call "faith". Trying to get them to question that belief seems to be seen as an intrusion into that personal relationship.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is observe their beliefs properly so that you understand their perspective correctly, once this has been accomplished all you have to do is define for the individual, contradictions that "They" may have overlook but will understand, or objective contradictions that call out to them "I am True!"
 
Satya said:
If I could prove objective reality, then there wouldn't be any point to any of this. I'm just trying to get people to question their beliefs. If after questioning their beliefs, they wish to continue believing in them, then I am fine with it.

Of course, what I am figuring out is that some people don't see beliefs the same way I do. Some people actually form a relationship with their beliefs and put an absolute trust in that relationship that they like to call "faith". Trying to get them to question that belief seems to be seen as an intrusion into that personal relationship.
Click to expand...

Its all good, but remember you still have spaces in youir life to question your own beliefs,
its obvious that telling another guy he's wrong to believe "this or that" is a negative form of communicating, what this will get you in reality is "Ignored"
 
It's impossible to deal with people who have truly irrational beliefs which are not based upon visual evidence and analysis. Just leave them to it.
 
InvisibleJim said:
It's impossible to deal with people who have truly irrational beliefs which are not based upon visual evidence and analysis. Just leave them to it.
Click to expand...

Visual evidence and analysis are just subjective truths. What visual evidence is there to a blind man?
 
Zukkor said:
Visual evidence and analysis are just subjective truths.
Click to expand...

False.

We can standardize our visual perceptions and use them to measure the world objectively. A meter, a gram, a liter, a second, etc. are standardized and therefore the same for everyone. From using those objective measures, we can measure and analyze the world objectively. The distance from me to you is an objective distance that can be measured through standardized measures. There is nothing subjective about it.
 
quoted from this thread
"I'm just trying to get people to question their beliefs. If after questioning their beliefs, they wish to continue believing in them, then I am fine with it."

quoted from another thread
"I certainly can't force you to question your beliefs. I cannot dictate where you put your trust, nor should I try to do so."

It might possibly be good for people to question at times certain things, but I really think they do that on their own and in their own time. For me, questioning made my beliefs even stronger and more concrete; not in the least bit weaker. I actually think people question things more than some people give them credit for, but they question things through their own desires to learn more. Some people may question things through negativity or rebellion. Whatever the reason(s) may be, they do indeed question things. I would much rather question something on my own than to have someone question it for me. I do not think I am alone on this.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
False.

We can standardize our visual perceptions and use them to measure the world objectively. A meter, a gram, a liter, a second, etc. are standardized and therefore the same for everyone. From using those objective measures, we can measure and analyze the world objectively. The distance from me to you is an objective distance that can be measured through standardized measures. There is nothing subjective about it.
Click to expand...

Except for the measurements themselves, but that's splitting hairs.
 
Satya said:
False.

We can standardize our visual perceptions and use them to measure the world objectively. A meter, a gram, a liter, a second, etc. are standardized and therefore the same for everyone. From using those objective measures, we can measure and analyze the world objectively. The distance from me to you is an objective distance that can be measured through standardized measures. There is nothing subjective about it.
Click to expand...

This is a post between Billy and I where I was asking at what point would he accept God to be real...

Me: If God unmistakeably floated down from the heavens, right up to you in a magical explosion of rainbows and glitter surrounded by angels with golden harps, tapped you on the nose and said, "Billy, to prove I am real I will turn this here rock into falcon right in front of your very eyes and simultaneously give you an orgasm!" and did so, but only you were there to witness this event, would you then believe in the existence of God? Would seeing and experiencing something with your own eyes be enough scientific proof for you? Or would it have to be a collective decision among the scientific community? Just curious...


Billy: I think if it only appeared to me I would question my own sanity. If god was to reveal itself it would have to be to everybody. Anyone crazy can "see and hear" god.

Which brings up the point of can we really believe what we perceive?

Analysis can always be skewed depending on who is analyzing. Case in point... the Third Reich's scientific research and analysis of the Aryan superior race vs. sub-human races.
 
just me said:
quoted from this thread
"I'm just trying to get people to question their beliefs. If after questioning their beliefs, they wish to continue believing in them, then I am fine with it."

quoted from another thread
"I certainly can't force you to question your beliefs. I cannot dictate where you put your trust, nor should I try to do so."
Click to expand...

What is your point?
 
Sensiko said:
Which brings up the point of can we really believe what we perceive?
Click to expand...

Hence the point of consensus and measurement. We create standardize measures so that we have an objective means of conveying our perceptions.

Now if you want to play the postmodernist and try to argue that there is no way to prove objective reality, then fine. Of course, that is the best evidence that there isn't a God, or if there is one, that they don't want us to know they exist because then they made the entire universe in such a way that it is impossible to prove their existence.

Analysis can always be skewed depending on who is analyzing. Case in point... the Third Reich's scientific research and analysis of the Aryan superior race vs. sub-human races.
Click to expand...

Thanks for Godwinning my thread.

But that is a poor example. America is largely to blame for that "science". The Nazis largely used statistics from a study an American did on African Americans. The statistician was a racist who chose populations of impoverished blacks and compared them to middle class whites and argued that disparities in their health and education were evidence that they were innately inferior. Of course the statistician left out the details of their socioeconomic differences in order to make it look like it was purely racial.

There is a reason the word "psuedoscience" exists. There are people like yourself who don't understand that there is thing called the scientific method. Science that does not follow the scientific method is called "psuedoscience" and it is pretty much people making stuff up and calling it science. Racial supremacy is a pretty good example of pseudoscience, which genetics, a real science which uses the scientific method, has come to disprove.

I find it quite infuriating that the school system has done such a poor job educating people on the difference between pseudoscience and real science that people like yourself continue to bring examples like the one above as "science".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top