quote:
mike the whiz (message 105) wrote:
Then preach it in the science section. This is faith and belief. And by the way, I'll believe in what I darn well want.
You did not proffer a justification for your first imperative. You did not clarify the relevance of your second statement of the obvious. And your third sentence is irrelevant and unduly defensive, both of which are staples of an irrational motive. Why did you bother?
quote:
A theistic outlook is not an arrogant dismissal. If anything, we don't dismiss. It is you who dismiss possibilities, because of your limited newbie brain.
You did not justify your first and second assertions, and your third is merely a naked insult [attempt]. Why did you bother?
quote:
Pink exists, so do elephants, so do planets and so does Neptune etc. How this bares relevance to theists is beyond me. Just how much did you "make" these things up?
You misunderstood the reference altogether, or else this is your confusion of logic made apparent. Neither did the symbolism entirely consist of pink, nor of elephants, nor of planets or Neptune. If you re-read the example, you will see it actually implies a hypothetical assertion of the existence of
pink tutu-wearing elephants on the planet Neptune. Unless you misread it, or are deliberately misrepresenting it, the analogy should be clear: it is an assertion of an unwarranted claim (and this particular example a material one, as already stated, because all components are material and not supernatural. All the more presumptuous, by comparison, the claim of supernatural)
quote:
Born2Preach (message 106) wrote:
Exactly, so I guess when I said that nothing scientificly dictated the existence of God I'd be right, eh? I'm not a scientist but I know that science does not dictate, kiddo.
(*scientifically*, kiddo.)
You might want to state things in the proper tense as well: there are no statistical accounts or scientific finds that will is suggestive of existing finds alone; and will does not resolve the ambiguity.
More importantly, however, my response is broadly directed; so I’ll assume your above rejoinder is a masked display of a personal motive. It was empty.
quote:
So all believers tend to dismiss this, huh? Furthurmore, the 'respect it(science I think) deserves'?? Please, I agree that humans are flawed but science is conducted by humans so I think it deserves the respect that I give to those who conduct it; which is a lot more than you seem to think that us believers give it.
You do not make clear that you are properly identifying what this is, in your first sentence/question. It is not responsible to blur the distinction between human and human perception. The consequence of this misdirected mixing of concepts shows in your conclusion: doubting in scientists as humans is not immediately relevant to the issue of doubting human perception. I made it clear that, in addressing the imperfection of human perception, rational scientific inquiry provides the best means by which to most accurately guard against false suggestions resulting from that flawed perception. You commit a logical fallacy rendering your doubt in scientists equal in merit to one’s proper doubt in human perception; it neither addresses the specific flaws of perception, nor does it properly equate (as it pretend to do) the merits of doubting scientific claims versus claims derived by naked, unchecked human perception. I invite you to try again, kiddo.
quote:
I'm trying to debate politely, but two replies to me with this kind of arrogance and you're pushing your luck...
Anyway, how is theism a dismissal of human limitations? Christianity especially reminds us that we are limited in everthing including perception. Which brings up the possibility that your perception is simply wrong and mine is right. I realize that could go both ways, where you don't seem to.
If I make a reply specific to you, I shall make that clear in my reply. If you do take my generalization of religious belief as an address to your sensibilities, that is not my concern. I do, however, state my reasoning here in an emotionally neutral fashion. Arrogance is to denote an unwarranted conceit; and since context is assertions of reality, the unwarranted conceit addresses unwarranted assertions of reality. That’s pretty simple.
You, in turn, oversimplify my suggestion that theism or belief in the supernatural entail unwarranted conceits regarding the limitations of human perception. I shall explain: the reason an assertion based upon personal experience attesting to the realness of a supernatural entity is arrogance is that it implies very precisely that insular human perception is valid as an absolute determinant of what is real and what is not. Hardly anyone’s place to declare that such a thing is offensive to the universe but since we are addressing what is arrogant (in the sense of being overly presumptuous, in this case), it’s relevant.
Your misrepresentation of this logic means that your attempt at refutation above, ending in a weak reversal of claim, is fallacious.
quote:
Does. You have shown us a perfect example of arrogance due to misperception of theists by simply posting that last message.
I beg to differ. It is your onus, as a believer in unsubstantiated, irrational claims, to either concede that your claims are such, or to acknowledge that your assertions of certitude are arrogant.
I believe that, without myself making this a personality contest, I have presented a rational argument. My respondents have, on the other hand, responded in a very personal manner, misconstrued or blatantly misunderstood my arguments, presented fallacious counterarguments and no logical refutation.
It knows only that it needs, commander. But, like so many of us, it does not know what.- Spock
™ Version 4.2
