• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

eye for an eye: A christians' view on atheism and science.

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟23,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That it doesn't matter but when I prove you wrong

You didn't prove me wrong. I showed you why your argument was wrong. You completely ignored me and started posting the same crap again.

I have been reading your posts.

Then start showing it. Most people, when they see that their argument is wrong, stop using it. You just repeat. Either you didn't understand that it was wrong to begin with, completely ignored my posts, or didn't read them in the first. If you didn't understand why it was wrong, you probably would've asked me. I therefore conclude that you most likely ignord my posts, or didn't read them. I don't particularly care which, but don't expect me to argue with someone that won't even recognize the fact that I posted.

First I have to establish in your head that the poetic genius does in fact exist.

All you have given me is incredibly flawed argument. If you read my first post, you'd know why it's flawed.
 
Upvote 0
G

GodSchism

Guest


Yea, you got nothing to say about the information I revealed to you because it is beyond your knowledge. You just want to save face.
 
Upvote 0

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟23,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What is objective beauty? Objective would mean something that is natural and not man made.

You didn't answer the question: what is objective beauty?

Everyone determines what is beautiful in their own mind; but some things are naturally beautiful.

Prove it.

Why is it necessary for a flower to express itself through beauty, unless it be touched by the hand of God?

So, since you don't understand evolution, god exists?

These things are naturally beautiful.

Again, prove it.

Is it really in the eye of the beholder?

Yes, unless you can prove otherwise.

But on a level it knows about beauty that animals will come to it, the birds the bees all seek it's comfort.

Or maybe they go their for food. Ever think of that?

Objective beauty can be established.

But you have yet to do so.

For some reason a flower, a life-form that doesn't think knows that beauty attracts.

Or certain animals are hard-wired to be attracted to flowers.

Like I said, unless you are a monster, you will see a flower as a beautiful truth.

Non sequitur.

A flower knows it is beautiful because it attracts other organisms to it's flower;

You've proven sentience in flowers? Amazing.

Besides, how does this all prove the christian god?

Yea, you got nothing to say about the information I revealed to you because it is beyond your knowledge. You just want to save face.

Second post in this topic. You didn't address any of it. You just posted more of the same crap.

Now, for once, actually respond to my post, instead of posting more of the same.
 
Upvote 0

Opethian

Big Member
Jan 2, 2006
982
40
38
Molenstede
Visit site
✟23,850.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Godschism said:
Very good. But too bad you have no knowledge of the subject

Unsupported assertion. All you have demonstrated, to me, is a lack of logic (the logical errors were described by us38, and you have yet to respond to them) in your argument, and a very abstract, implicit way of looking at things, caused by a lack of knowledge and questioning. Your lack of knowledge, and your unwillingness to question things you consider self-evident, causes you to think to possess some kind of "higher knowledge", when it is in fact a view that has its origin in presuppositions, superstition, that perhaps feels vague, abstract, 'spiritual'. What it is in fact is the missing of clarity in your reasoning, combined with a 'good feeling' (we all get it from time to time) you get because of the 'artiness' or 'poeticness' of the vague. The reason you cannot relay to us this "higher knowledge" reveals that it in fact cannot be higher knowledge, for then surely you would, from your "higher state", be able to explain it to us. It reveals that it is in fact no knowledge at all, but a vague view, far from reality. Until you gain a clearer state of thinking, you will not see the immense flaws in your reasoning. Learn to explicitate the implicit.

until a lowly Christian told you.
This sentence reveals how you think non-Christians think about you, and again reveals your distance from reality. In reality, you think of us as "lower than you", as evidenced by your self-appointment of a "higher knowledge". Ironic? Yes. It also represents your frustration of not being able to present to us a clear argument.

But you will never develop this skill. Science is stupid.

Oh yes, it is surely a "higher knowledge" that is needed to construct wise and just sentences such as this.

They don't even know how to use symbols, but through their narrow mind that they call a microscope.

You really think that science doesn't use symbols? Oh boy... Your distance from reality was even greater than I thought. Mathematics is essentially nothing but symbols...

The poetic genius has a kaleidoscope to gaze through.

Or rather, a damped window, through which everyone sees something else, in sharp contrast with the crystal clear window of science, through which everyone can see the same, when utilising an almost universal reason.


Nice little rant but how about coming up with some logical arguments?

And what about aliens, I know you people believe in aliens and advanced civilizations; and that they even visit this world.

That's quite an assumption to make. What do you even mean with "you people"? I believe that there are other planets with life out there in the universe, but the chances of them visiting this "world" as you call it (I think you meant planet earth), are quite small in my opinion.

What do you think they are going to be impressed by, your science? LOL. No.

If they get here before we get "there", probably not, since if they could travel such great distances, they would probably be much more advanced than us, at the moment that we ourselves cannot yet launch such a mission.

They are going to find the most beautiful soul and study that one.

There is no reason to assume that souls exist. It is irrational to do so.

What does an advanced civilization need with science? When they are in search of beauty.

Beauty is something very subjective, and I doubt that organisms from a whole different planet would see beauty in the same way we do, since between individuals of our own species, appreciation of beauty varies intensely. The chances of them understanding our language is already very small.


Where are the arguments?

Science is a religion

Not at all. A religion implies faith, and often even a deity or deities. You can assert this as many times as you want, but it won't make it true. Try defending your own "reasoning" with some arguments first before trying to accuse science of relying on faith.

You believe in it so deeply that it will improve life

What science can/should do or cannot/should not do about life, is philosophy of science, and not science. If you cannot even make that distinction, I don't really know what you're doing in the philosophy forum. That is why science, and 'belief' in science are separate things, and science itself doesn't rely on faith.

but those who trust in science are merely afraid of death because they have no faith

Not at all, but perhaps one of the reasons you are religious, is because of your fear of death. Perhaps you have the need for an afterlife, perhaps you cannot cope with reality.

other than science

Please show me how science is faith?

and science leaves nothing to the imagination. It says that the human soul, the human imagination is invalid because it can't prove either, although it takes a human soul and the human imagination to make science prosper.

First you need to prove that souls exist, before you can make that assertion. Science doesn't say that imagination is invalid, but it explains it in a naturalistic way, without the need for supernatural entities like souls.


What does this have to do with your argument?


Try defending your arguments before going off on a rant again, please.
 
Upvote 0