Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are confusing intelligence with consciousness here.

Nope, though you may well be confusing consciousness with self-awareness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope, though you may well be confusing consciousness with self-awareness.

Nope, you are confusing consciousness with intelligence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nope, you are confusing consciousness with intelligence.

Your claim, your burden of proof. What do you think these terms mean, and where do you think the confusion lies?

Given your long history of wilfully or inadvertently getting pretty every term you've attempted wrong by the way, can I suggest you have a fresh pair of trousers to hand?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your claim, your burden of proof. What do you think these terms mean, and where do you think the confusion lies?

Given your long history of wilfully or inadvertently getting pretty every term you've attempted wrong by the way, can I suggest you have a fresh pair of trousers to hand?

Look up the definition of consciousness on Wikipedia.
If you run true to form you will focus on some obscure wee paragraph in the text to the exclusion of everything else...It wont help you though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look up the definition of consciousness on Wikipedia.

Why? I know what it means thanks. Question is though - do you?

If you run true to form you will focus on some obscure wee paragraph in the text to the exclusion of everything else...It wont help you though.

The "wee paragraph" being the definition part presumably.

OK, so you've made the accusation, you've been asked to back it up, and it turns out you have nothing.

Fair enough. If ever you do feel like telling what you think these terms mean and where you think the confusion lies though, by all means share.

[ippy]

My husband was a 'born again' before he went to uni to do his first degree in Science and theology at 18. He was an unbeliever by the time he completed his degree.

Yes Floo, science does seem to bring out the rational side of thinking in large numbers of people.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

Yes Floo, science does seem to bring out the rational side of thinking in large numbers of people.

ippy

I'm actually baffled as to how anyone can study theology rigorously and not find it denting their faith is some way.

[floo]

I'm actually baffled as to how anyone can study theology rigorously and not find it denting their faith is some way.

Studying theology combined with science certainly scuppered my husband's faith.

[Robbie]

Not surprised but must have been interesting. I wonder if students still do such a course. One like it i've heard of it is History & Philosophy of Science and Theology with Religious Studies (or similar title), but Philosophy is key word there I think.

[Alan Burns]

I'm actually baffled as to how anyone can study theology rigorously and not find it denting their faith is some way.

It is certainly a rigorous test of faith. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is certainly a rigorous test of faith.

No it isn't. Divinity might be, but sometimes atheists study theology too.

[ippy]

It is certainly a rigorous test of faith.

Yes A B, I can see that, all of that nasty logic and rational thinking it must take a lot out of you having to ignore the larger part of all of that really common sense and all.

I would think you must be a bit fed up with that ever present residual amount of sand in the mouth by now? 

ippy

[floo]

Some sadly never let logic get in the way of indoctrination.

[Robbie]

There are people who appear to be programmed, nothing shifts them. In the past I found people like that difficult to be friends with even if they were quite pleasant in their way,I don't mean i disliked them but there were so many brick walls. No doubt I was considered much too liberal.

Hhonestly though now nobody talks about religion & faith unless invited to so it isn't a problem. It's good, even stimulating, talking about it on here, I've learned loads, but it's the internet, we aren't really with other posters. We choose to be here & can give it a rest when we want.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Robinson,

There are people who appear to be programmed, nothing shifts them. In the past I found people like that difficult to be friends with even if they were quite pleasant in their way,I don't mean i disliked them but there were so many brick walls. No doubt I was considered much too liberal.

Hhonestly though now nobody talks about religion & faith unless invited to so it isn't a problem. It's good, even stimulating, talking about it on here, I've learned loads, but it's the internet, we aren't really with other posters. We choose to be here & can give it a rest when we want.

But here's the thing. Some believers turn up here to make arguments for their faith, which is fine in principle. Argument however entails logic, and a lot of fallacious logic has conveniently been codified. All that's necessary to falsify an argument therefore is to identify the fallacy on which it relies.

In practice people rely on various fallacious arguments to validate their "true for you too" claims about their faiths but are untroubled by the fact of the fallacy. AB for example dismisses the problem by calling logic "man-made", Vlad just lies about it, Sword hides from it and then reappears with the same mistakes etc.

And that's the thing - if any of them were honest and just said, "Look, I have no argument worthy of the name to demonstrate any of this stuff but I believe it anyway" that would be just fine. It's when they keep trying bad logic nonetheless that some of us look askance 

[BeRational]

Hi Robinson,

But here's the thing. Some believers turn up here to make arguments for their faith, which is fine in principle. Argument however entails logic, and a lot of fallacious logic has conveniently been codified. All that's necessary to falsify an argument therefore is to identify the fallacy on which it relies.

In practice people rely on various fallacious arguments to validate their "true for you too" claims about their faiths but are untroubled by the fact of the fallacy. AB for example dismisses the problem by calling logic "man-made", Vlad just lies about it, Sword hides from it and then reappears with the same mistakes etc.

And that's the thing - if any of them were honest and just said, "Look, I have no argument worthy of the name to demonstrate any of this stuff but I believe it anyway" that would be just fine. It's when they keep trying bad logic nonetheless that some of us look askance

I agree, and their reluctance to accept this, and to just keep repeating assertions or quotes from the bible, is boring.

[SusanDoris]

I agree, and their reluctance to accept this, and to just keep repeating assertions or quotes from the bible, is boring.

And like the street loud-mouths who go on and on on market days  occasionally, they think they have won the argument when thinking people walk away!!

[Robbie]

You can't prove the Bible with the Bible.
My personal faith is not something I can convince anyone else about & I see no point trying nor do I think it's my role to do so. Hence I don't post on threads like this one too often, no point.

I do read the thread but seems to go round in circles, does my head in so I need a lie down  .  Off now for forty winks.

[Nearly Sane]

And like the street loud-mouths who go on and on on market days  occasionally, they think they have won the argument when thinking people walk away!!

Ah 'thinking' people. And smugly self congratulatory ones, it would seem too.

[floo]

You can't prove the Bible with the Bible.
My personal faith is not something I can convince anyone else about & I see no point trying nor do I think it's my role to do so. Hence I don't post on threads like this one too often, no point.

I do read the thread but seems to go round in circles, does my head in so I need a lie down  .  Off now for forty winks.

You certainly can't prove the Bible using the Bible, I wish those that try to do so would realise that. Just because something is in that book doesn't necessarily make it true.

[Nearly Sane]

You certainly can't prove the Bible using the Bible, I wish those that try to do so would realise that. Just because something is in that book doesn't necessarily make it true.

Just to note that will I think AB, Vlad, and SotS may have issues with their arguments, I haven't seen them do the prove the Bible with the Bible schtick

[SusanDoris]

Ah 'thinking' people. And smugly self congratulatory ones, it would seem too.

Smug, and self-congratulatory? That is definitely not me. I am referring to the people, including me, who try to engage them in argument, but who give up because there is not a glimmer of anything but smug, self-confidence on the part of the shouters.

[Nearly Sane]

Smug, and self-congratulatory? That is definitely not me. I am referring to the people, including me, who try to engage them in argument, but who give up because there is not a glimmer of anything but smug, self-confidence on the part of the shouters.

Ah yes, people who are being smug and self congratulatory always admit it. We've just had a litlle run of you, bhs, and BeRational all noting how stupid people you are disagreeing with because they are not 'thinking people'.

[ippy]

Ah yes, people who are being smug and self congratulatory always admit it. We've just had a litlle run of you, bhs, and BeRational all noting how stupid people you are disagreeing with because they are not 'thinking people'.

Thinking people, yes, thinking people; seen any religioso person come up with anything rational or logical that relates to the magical, mystical or superstition based parts of the things they say they believe in?

I would think the above could be enough to label an area where the thinking is certainly turned off, blind acceptance, now if they were talking about Star Trek, it is real I stood on the bridge of the Enterprise when they exhibited it at the London Science Museum so I don't need to prove that it's real,  .

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Thinking people, yes, thinking people; seen any religioso person come up with anything rational or logical that relates to the magical, mystical or superstition based parts of the things they say they believe in?

I would think the above could be enough to label an area where the thinking is certainly turned off, blind acceptance, now if they were talking about Star Trek, it is real I stood on the bridge of the Enterprise when they exhibited it at the London Science Museum so I don't need to prove that it's real,  .

ippy

Careful you don't pull a muscle while you pat yourself on the back, ippy.