|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 10/09/2006 : 11:02:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul...
To Mr. Gee Mack. Your post was very rude.
You're an insolent child, GK Paul. You've established a pattern of being rude in these threads, then you claim other people are rude when they bring up concerns which you don't have the balls or the honesty to address. That in itself is a dishonest tactic. Your using dishonesty to support your superstition or defend your position can certainly be considered bearing false witness.
quote:
If you think I'm lying than list the facts I stated that are untrue. But if you are rude in any way I'm probably not going to respond.
We only need to back up a couple of spaces to find one of your lies...
quote:
If you believe in feeling knowledge or intuitive knowledge than the fact that almost all cultures have come to the belief in the divine (independently, and with no observation) than this is evidence for the truth of God's existence.
This is not evidence for any god's existence. That you should say so is a lie. But that's just a singular example. Your comments in these threads have regularly contained strawmen and red herrings. You have regularly dodged questions and given replies which were completely negligent of the questions asked. You have indicated that you would answer questions, then simply ignored questions when asked. Your tactics are dishonest. You're a liar. That has been pointed out several times, and you've been asked several times to explain how you justify your dishonesty with your bogeyman gods. How is it that you consider your bearing false witness to be acceptable when one of the tenets of your superstition seems to make that contrary to the rules?
And my concern that you may be mentally ill, or have some sort of serious reading disability, or are perhaps just a troll, is perfectly legitimate. Your answer to those issues will have a great deal of bearing on the continued direction of this conversation. If you're mentally ill or suffer from some sort of mental retardation, we will probably have sympathy for your problem, but most of us will probably cease, or at least change the tack of our participation. If you have a reading disability, we will also likely have sympathy for your problem, and will probably modify our methods of communicating to accommodate your problem. If you're a troll, simply engaging in this conversation to suit some desire to stir up trouble, most of us will likely cease our participation, yet we probably won't have any sympathy in that case. And if you just don't have any moral integrity, no honesty, if you're just a liar, we will most likely consider that much the same as you being a troll, but of course you would have our sympathy if it's pathological or beyond your control.
Come on GK Paul, people who have shared your superstition have been willing to endure torture and even to die to defend their beliefs. You're barely even willing to answer a few questions to defend or support yours. And when you do, you regularly sidestep the actual question, respond with irrelevancies, attempt to manipulate the conversation by applying conditions, often act rude, and nearly always act ungrateful. What's the matter? Don't you have any guts? No honesty? No integrity? Is your faith in your terrorist bogeyman god not strong enough to hold up to some pretty serious scrutiny without you balking or whining about it? I would think if you really have faith, if you truly believe, you'd be willing to say, "Bring on the questions!" Then you'd answer straight up, and knock off the morally vacuous tactics of refusing to reply and giving dishonest replies.
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 12:29:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
To Mr. Gee Mack. Your post was very rude. If you think I'm lying than list the facts I stated that are untrue. But if you are rude in any way I'm probably not going to respond.
Every time someone calls you on lying, you simply call them "rude" and ignore them henceforth. That's childish and intellectually dishonest. Talk about rudeness! And dishonesty!
Unfulfilled promises to define and give evidence for your Trinity continue to hover like black clouds over your head. For GeeMack, myself, or others to point out your lies is perfectly correct and relevant.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 15:44:37 [Permalink]
|
To Siberia you are right to say truth or reality is not a popularity contest.
But if you knew nothing about science and you were told 97 scientists believe smoking causes lung cancer and 3 scientists believe it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree that it is more logical for "you" to believe that smoking does cause cigarette cancer.
Let's suppose 97 human cultures came to believe in the divine and 3 cultures didn't. Does that fact increase or decrease the "likelihood" that the divine exist. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:04:19 [Permalink]
|
| to Mr. Pleco, You seem to say that scientists believe that Isaac Newton, the inventor of calculus and the laws of gravity (that greatly influenced Einstein), was a crackpot for studying alchemy, astrology, and numerology. I strongly disagree. He was a true scientist in search of the truth even if his search was not "popular" with some other scientists. He was not biased against Christianity in any way. If he believed something had truth in it he was going to study it, period. And he did more studying of Christianity than of physics. I know some scientists don't like that the father of the science revolution was a believer in the Bible but that's the way it is. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:33:50 [Permalink]
|
| pleco, thanks for posting that article on Jung! I could only skim it at the moment, but I printed it out and intend to read it thouroughly before bedtime. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:40:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
To Siberia you are right to say truth or reality is not a popularity contest.
But if you knew nothing about science and you were told 97 scientists believe smoking causes lung cancer and 3 scientists believe it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree that it is more logical for "you" to believe that smoking does cause cigarette cancer.
Let's suppose 97 human cultures came to believe in the divine and 3 cultures didn't. Does that fact increase or decrease the "likelihood" that the divine exist.
Ah, but there's evidence that smoking causes cancer, and the said person would probably remember someone who smokes and had lung cancer (and there's still people who don't believe it, mind you), or someone who smoked his/her whole life and ended very ill. It's verifiable. They believe it for a reason, not because they "feel it's right". That said, I don't buy that because everybody believes it, there's a higher (or lower) probability that it is right. If nobody believed Christianity, only a handful of people; would you?
I don't believe in scientists just because they are scientists. Many people believe astrology too, that doesn't mean some constellation is controlling my moods and personality. I find that believing blindly, in anything, is dangerous in itself. It opens too many possibilities for abuse, of myself and of others. Like Marf said, racism, too, was widely believed to be justifiable, by many civilizations. That doesn't make it right. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:41:45 [Permalink]
|
GK Paul wrote: quote:
But if you knew nothing about science and you were told 97 scientists believe smoking causes lung cancer and 3 scientists believe it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree that it is more logical for "you" to believe that smoking does cause cigarette cancer.
Let's suppose 97 human cultures came to believe in the divine and 3 cultures didn't. Does that fact increase or decrease the "likelihood" that the divine exist.
GK, this example falls flat on its face when we go back to the flat earth idea. It seemed plainly evident that the world was flat, and when a single scientist was arguing that it wasn't, people ignored him. When another scientist argued it, the church put him in jail. Today, almost everyone believes the world is round, because today we know more about it, and we're not just making guesses or assumptions.
Now let's look at the question of the divine or supernatural. What we see is that there is a disproportionate number of atheists and agnostics among the educated. There are more doubters in the first world than the third, and in the first world there are more doubters with college degrees than those without. So either education itself somehow destroys many peoples' ability to feel or intuit, or those people simply have access to more information and therefore are making a more informed judgement on the question. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:48:33 [Permalink]
|
GK Paul said:
quote:
I know some scientists don't like that the father of the science revolution was a believer in the Bible but that's the way it is.
Newton isn't "the father of science", and who cares if he was religious? Alot of great minds speak about things outside their field, and are most often wrong. Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate in chemisrty, once made the ridiculous claim that massive doses of vitamin C were good for people. But so what?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:49:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
to Mr. Pleco, You seem to say that scientists believe that Isaac Newton, the inventor of calculus and the laws of gravity (that greatly influenced Einstein), was a crackpot for studying alchemy, astrology, and numerology. I strongly disagree. He was a true scientist in search of the truth even if his search was not "popular" with some other scientists. He was not biased against Christianity in any way. If he believed something had truth in it he was going to study it, period. And he did more studying of Christianity than of physics. I know some scientists don't like that the father of the science revolution was a believer in the Bible but that's the way it is.
To me, what Newton believed or not is entirely not my business and I could care less about his personal beliefs. However, saying that Christianism may be right just because a scientist believes it (or that one is a scientist just because someone studies something as astrology) is just silly. He was a scientist when it came to the likes of physics; he wasn't being so when he delved into the mystical things. Simple like that.
Surprising as that might be, science and mysticism can coexist, and one doesn't automatically validate the other. Not Jung, nor Newton, was automatically right in everything they believed just because they did great stuff for science - that's just, well, not right. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:50:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
to Mr. Pleco, You seem to say that scientists believe that Isaac Newton, the inventor of calculus and the laws of gravity (that greatly influenced Einstein), was a crackpot for studying alchemy, astrology, and numerology. I strongly disagree. He was a true scientist in search of the truth even if his search was not "popular" with some other scientists. He was not biased against Christianity in any way. If he believed something had truth in it he was going to study it, period. And he did more studying of Christianity than of physics. I know some scientists don't like that the father of the science revolution was a believer in the Bible but that's the way it is.
Actually that isn't what I said at all. And I definitely didn't say he was biased against christianity.
It doesn't bother me that Newton was christian at all. After all, no one is perfect. As I said, science takes the good he did, and throws away the bad. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 17:08:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco...quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul...
to Mr. Pleco, You seem to say that scientists believe that Isaac Newton, the inventor of calculus and the laws of gravity (that greatly influenced Einstein), was a crackpot for studying alchemy, astrology, and numerology. I strongly disagree. He was a true scientist in search of the truth even if his search was not "popular" with some other scientists. He was not biased against Christianity in any way. If he believed something had truth in it he was going to study it, period. And he did more studying of Christianity than of physics. I know some scientists don't like that the father of the science revolution was a believer in the Bible but that's the way it is.
Actually that isn't what I said at all. And I definitely didn't say he was biased against christianity.
So you've been caught in another lie, GK Paul. But you apparently don't have the balls or the honesty to acknowledge it nor to explain how you think your bogeyman god will let you get away with that. Yep, eternal damnation just might be the appropriate reward for that behavior, boy. Or does your superstition allow you to lie with intent and purpose and later on say, "Sorry 'bout all that bearing false witness, Master," and expect to make everything cool? And is it really worth taking a chance like that given the possibility that your invisible pal might just decide to torture you forever in a fiery hell? 
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 10:31:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
But if you knew nothing about science and you were told 97 scientists believe smoking causes lung cancer and 3 scientists believe it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree that it is more logical for "you" to believe that smoking does cause cigarette cancer.
Scientists does not believe smoking causes lung cancer.
It is a conclusion they reach after examining physical evidence that clearly points to the fact.
Therefore your analogy sucks.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 10:57:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
To Siberia you are right to say truth or reality is not a popularity contest.
But if you knew nothing about science and you were told 97 scientists believe smoking causes lung cancer and 3 scientists believe it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree that it is more logical for "you" to believe that smoking does cause cigarette cancer.
Let's suppose 97 human cultures came to believe in the divine and 3 cultures didn't. Does that fact increase or decrease the "likelihood" that the divine exist.
Neither. Did you know that about 1% of the smartest people on the planet have ANY supernatural beliefs? That supernatural beliefs in people are inversely proportional to their education. Doesn't that by your own logic mean that you should loose your supernatural beliefs? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 13:14:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
To Siberia you are right to say truth or reality is not a popularity contest.
But if you knew nothing about science and you were told 97 scientists believe smoking causes lung cancer and 3 scientists believe it doesn't. Wouldn't you agree that it is more logical for "you" to believe that smoking does cause cigarette cancer.
Let's suppose 97 human cultures came to believe in the divine and 3 cultures didn't. Does that fact increase or decrease the "likelihood" that the divine exist.
All you have said is that since you and a lot of other people believe in Gods, then Gods exist. This is only evidence that people believe in Gods, it is not evidence for Gods.
As clear as I can possibly make this:
- Testimonials do not constitute evidence.
- A lot of people believing in Gods does not constitute evidence that Gods exist.
- A list of famous people believing in Gods does not constitute evidence that Gods exist.
There are no limits to what people might believe.
btw. How many of these Gods do you believe in?
edited to add: I made a similar post in part 2 on page 15, but since that post was ignored and GK Paul is still making the same argument, I thought that I would repeat it. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 10/10/2006 13:16:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
