Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Snakelord
    I don't know what makes you think that
    every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define objects but not concepts.
    you on the other hand .....
    you mean like empirically discern a concept?

    yes, but not with empiricism as the medium
    and what do you concur about the nature of experience?
    Can the experience of "gaining knowledge" be empirically reduced or does it stand outside of such a model of definition?
    Where is there anything that says you are prohibited from using your senses?
    as your choice in language indicates, you still haven't understood that I was introducing the notion of a hierarchy as opposed to mutually exclusive terms.

    IOW you are speaking nonsense.


    read it and weep

    me - If I say X is made of A and B yet I am unable to produce X with A and B, I am simply talking about some mental concept that solely exists in my mind

    (notice that I am contending the rational basis that, A+B=X, as opposed to actual existence of A & B)


    you - You say there's a god (x) which is comprised of omnipotence (a), omnipresence (b), and omniscience (c), exists in a spiritual realm (d)... the list goes on, unfortunately I'll run out of letters to use come z.

    You are simply talking about some mental concept that exists solely in your mind. Glad we agree.

    (notice that you are contending the validity of (a) to (z) as components)


    :shrug: :bawl:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
     
  9. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  10. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    By denying myself.

    No. All Humanity has been created in the Image of God.
     
  11. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Can I be Victor Mature?
     
  12. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    How about Jesus?
     
  13. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  14. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  15. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  16. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Really? Would seem then that you can use empiricism to detect this god, unless you now concur that it is merely a concept?

    The subject at hand is you showing me this god. Must you continually evade?

    I didn't "mean" like anything, I asked a question. So lg, how does one determine these levels?

    Understood. So how?

    I don't see the relevance of the question. If experience is gained without utilising the senses then it is non-sense experience. You thought I was being rude, I was being accurate.

    Wtf?

    <Snake> You'll have to explain that non-sense to me if you want me to accept non-sense as the way to establish truths.

    <lg> call upon the skills of a janitor when you actually require a forensic scientist

    <Snake> Where is anything here not utilising the senses?

    <lg> Where does anything say you can't use your senses?

    Lol, are you smoking dope? :m:

    I said explain non-sense to me, not nonsense. :bugeye:
     
  17. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Would you please not interrupt. I asked a question, post #306 and I'm still waiting for an answer LG is panting to give me. Please have the decency to wait in line.

    For your information "decency" is a concept which can only be understood by reading Plato, Descartes and Karl GUstav Jung. Don't believe me ? Just ask JG and all will become clear.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2007
  18. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    There is no "line." This is a discussion forum. If you want your own private audience with LG, use the PM system.

    Otherwise, everyone is free to post whatever comments they choose within the rules guidelines. You can, however, choose not to answer or even read those comments. You can also use the Ignore feature should they be overly bothersome

    Thank you.
     
  19. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    It's ok Skin, he was messing with me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Have you a thread on humour ?
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Snakelord
    sorry
    perhaps it should have read
    every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define dull matter but not concepts, what to speak of god.

    its not so much an issue of constant evasion but constant reiteration and clarification
    then why did you write this

    Is there an envyometer or wrathometer that detects specific levels and then determines specific grades?

    do you mean to say that you are totally stumped how to determine different levels of states of being?
    eg lust, wrath, envy happiness, etc

    the relevance is that, yes, experience grants knowledge, but, no, such experience cannot be empirically reduced (if it could be, there would be no need to go to school)
    hence knowledge (that dynamic element that empowers the senses) is not within the purview of the senses.

    so your original statement about empiricism and us being all the same on some level (aka knowledge acquiring) is contradictory, since the very thing you indicate is a non-empirical phenomena

    ok let me put it another way
    if a janitor is called upon to do the work of a forensic scientist, does he use his senses?
    if a forensic scientist is called in, does he use his senses?
    If the answer to both these questions is yes, why are you introducing the notion that one of them is using his non-senses?

    It seems you are just using primitive language, by talking about knowledge as a non-sense - kind of like describing the rest of the planets in the universe as non-earths

    Obviously the special benefits of utilizing a forensic scientist is that he has senses plus knowledge, as opposed to just the average run of the mill knowledge of the janitor

    Do you understand how I am talking about something that operates on hierarchical/concomitant rather than mutually exclusive principles?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007
  23. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    What do you mean? This whole thread has been one big joke from the start!
    Just look at the oxymoron; Atheist-Fundamentalism.
     

Share This Page