[Setekh]

Being unable to make mistakes is not perfection, it is an absence of choice. The perfection of God is that, though he is "able" not to, he constantly chooses justly, keeps his promises, and mercifully loves what he has created.

[Bobboau]

it isn't the absence of choice, it is simply you don't do things that will cause stuff that you don't want to happen.
if you had the abbility to know how to manipulate the world so that what ever outcome you wanted would happen then you would be incapable of makeing mistakes, and yet you would still have the freedom to chose what actions to take.

[Setekh]

Actually, you're right, I'd mistaken Ghostavo for saying that their perfection ought to have made them unable to make the wrong decision that they did. My bad.

[Tiara]

No, without light you can have no darkness. Because without knowing what light is you don't know what darkness is. Hence, for the person there would be no darkness because he can't distinguish it.

If you take it litterally, sure, then there is only darkness. You can't know something if you don't know the opposite extreme.

Without darkeness there is no light and without light there is no darkness.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: Refute my statements - you cannot call them "insults" until you can refute their validity

what, that being religious is a mental illness? Or that all religion is irrational? Or that every religious person in the world encourages human rights abuse?

I mean, I've never had anyone (and I know a fair number of people with various religious beliefs - both Muslim and Christian) try to force a religious view or beleif structure upon me.  Surely that disproves your universal case immediately?

 You prove it - after all, your argument seems to be based on the absence of proof, so apply the same criteria to yourself.

Now, I would agree that forced religion is wrong - i.e. the forcing of religious beliefs in Iran, for example.  

But what is wrong with voluntarily choosing to believe?

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


Math is perfect...
A perfect woman is a contradiction as if it's perfect, it's not a woman, and if it's a woman, it can't be perfect. (same can be applied to any being).

What you are really asking him is not the perfect woman, but rather what woman (or type of woman) would he prefer, which is different.



I think she meant "Without light you have no shadows."

In a completely circular room with a light source in the middle, there would be no shadows....

In order to know darkess I don't have to know light...I just have to be around afte sunset. Darkness and light both exist in our world and since one can experience them, one doesn't need to know the oppisite in order to undersand the other....

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


In a completely circular room with a light source in the middle, there would be no shadows....

In order to know darkess I don't have to know light...I just have to be around afte sunset. Darkness and light both exist in our world and since one can experience them, one doesn't need to know the oppisite in order to undersand the other....

What if darkness did not exist in our world?  How could you define 'light', then? (and the inverse case)

It's a simple concept - light is the abscence of darkness, darkness the absence of light.  They cannot be defined independently.

[Kazan]

aldo: never did i say universally - but the fact that the opnes that don't do it themselvse support the ones that do for the most part is enough

and it being a mental illness? it is so by definition

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: never did i say universally - but the fact that the opnes that don't do it themselvse support the ones that do for the most part is enough

and it being a mental illness? it is so by definition

Define it, then.

[Kazan]

when people believe in this they cannot prove the existance of, that completely exist only in their mind, and they make life decisions based off them they get sent to the mental ward - WITH THE EXCEPTION of "God"ittes, since it is an acceptable mental illness


I wasn't refering to this - but something more general, however I found something interesting

Schizophrenia: Positive symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorder.


Definitions from the medical dictionary

So long as they are unable to even support their claims [which they never have been able to] they can easily be fit into any one of the following

psychosis: serious mental disorder that affects all aspects of the personality and involves withdrawal from reality.

schizophrenia: 1. a severe and often incurable mental disorder that is marked by visual and esp. auditory hallucinations, intellectual and emotional isolation from others, and unpredictable behavior.
2. (informal) the existence of strongly contradictory elements, characteristics, motives, or the like.

hysteria: in an individual or group, an uncontrollable outburst of fear or other emotions, producing fits of weeping, laughter, irrational behavior, or the like.

[Omniscaper]

Kazan, you speak of proof, ok. Can science prove the love that you have (if any) for a significant other? Is that love something tangible that can be analyzed in its molecular base? Do you not make life decisions based on that experience which cannot be proven? Will scientists a hundered years from now be able to PROVE your experiences by analyzing your bones and material things? Even if you wrote love letters to that significant other that are discovered hundred years from now will be indiscernable as fact or fiction. While people cannot prove the experiences of your life, it sure as heck was real to you was it not? Or would you consider yourself mentally ill like the rest of the world.

Science is no more  innocent of YOUR "mental illness" accusations. For example evolution. Do you think Darwin's theories which are being treated as fact today, have solid evidence. All he had were his observations of the variety of animals of the Galapagos Islands to spark that idea in his head. He had no idea that his "simple" one cell organisms have a rediculously complex code (dna) that drives its form/developement. That lead to theories of micro-evolution, which then spawned macro-evolution theories and now this popular science thread is treated as fact. All this theoretical development from the simple observations that fueled THEORIES built upon other theories. As far as I'm concerened evolution is still a theory and not a fact. Yet its treatment in mass media is that of fact, when in actuallity its simply a strong faith in that idea.

My point with this is, science has progressed due to both existing fact data and UNPROVEN ideas that experiements are in turn performed. Actions and decisions motivated by unproven and intangible ideas/revelations can hardly be considered a mental defect.


BTW: Thanks for all those Freespace tutorials and especially the Babylon Project. They really kicked @ss.

[Kazan]

Omniscaper: I was being curteous and typing out a long line-by-line refutation of your argument

then my computer crashed


I have refuted every one of those arguments you jsut made before - a thousand times.   I think if you actually bother to read this thread you'll find refutations for all the evolution ones


As for the Love one, I don't remember if there is a refutation in here - but yes they can measure it behaviorally and neurologically

Darwin's Theory - microevolution IS a fact and every time someone tries to refute it they end up refuting themselves

Macroevolution is presented as exactly what it is - A THEORY, and the parts of it that seem irrefutable are treated as fact - just because a chain is incomplete doesn't mean that chain is wrong, that is the only refutation anybody has ever had to any part that is treated as a fact.

Part of your first paragraph is irrelevant, most of it is pointless basic Logic 101 can refute that.


Overall Omniscaper: Your Argument = steaming pile of dung that has been rehashed well beyond a thousand times


I am sick and tired of refuting the same arguments over and over and over and over ...

[Omniscaper]

Do you want a hug?  =)

[Kazan]

rotfl.. i want people like you to finally realize that you have no ground to stand upon

[Omniscaper]

Why be grounded when one could fly?!  =)

As a christian, I don't believe in arguing people into the faith. In the end its God who reveals himself to people and sparks inner revelation and a perspective change. If I come across as  a faith pusher, I apologize. I myself am grappling with pride issues. I guess I take those coments as personal attacks, but I now realize that your reality is your own and I can do nothing else but to set the record straight when Christianity is portrayed to others in a false way.

I have to admit that many of the points you're making are keeping me on my toes and pushes me from being complacent in speaking out about my faith. I'm now motivated to do more homework and research on Christianity.

PS: I'm aware that micro-evolution is a fact. I worded that paragraph funkily. I'm no english major. I was just illustrating the chain, not refuting the fact. In reguards to chains, a chain would be useless if the foundation its tied to is unstable, or if a link is faulty. A break would still lead to disasterous fall. I've yet to find weak link in the chain of my faith's source. God to me is the strongest foundation to rely on. Unlike science, His nature never changes.

[Kazan]

Perhaps you should direct that research at learning logic and actually taking your religion out of it's compartment and use your critical thinking skills

[Omniscaper]

I've been there and done that. It lead right back to Christianity. Would you believe that it was science (from the big bang to the anthropic principals) that lead me back and strengthened my faith?! (If you want details just email me or PM me. Its quite long winded)

 I participated in my share of physics, sociology, philosophy, and mythology classes and lectures. Its too bad that logic alone can't satisfy my journey. I found it too cold and dry. It made me a bitter and disconnected person, according to what my peers have told me (who are not religious). In the end of that search I found it to be nothing more than an indulgence in intellectual vanity. I prefer to let my logic and emotions rely on something that has become more real to me. Something that can strengthen me.

[Kazan]

Omniscaper: you didn't honestly use your thinking critical skills

And if you really want to explain your mislogic I would be happy to point out the errors - science, REAL science, will never point you to religion



"too cold and dry" - You admit that you're letting your emotions do your critical tihnking for you - that is one of the greatest fallacies - it also is the driving force between every intentional fallacy I see a religious person make.  

A "cold and dry" truth is much better than a pleasant lie.  If it made you bitter and disconnected that the problem is in you, you chose to be bitter and disconnected - because reality stole your fanatsies.

Emotions have no business in critical thinking, they have no business helping decide your work view.    Emotions have their own realm whree they are important and valid - i determining matters of factuality they have NO BUSINESS

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
when people believe in this they cannot prove the existance of, that completely exist only in their mind, and they make life decisions based off them they get sent to the mental ward - WITH THE EXCEPTION of "God"ittes, since it is an acceptable mental illness


I wasn't refering to this - but something more general, however I found something interesting

Schizophrenia: Positive symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorder.


Definitions from the medical dictionary

So long as they are unable to even support their claims [which they never have been able to] they can easily be fit into any one of the following

psychosis: serious mental disorder that affects all aspects of the personality and involves withdrawal from reality.

schizophrenia: 1. a severe and often incurable mental disorder that is marked by visual and esp. auditory hallucinations, intellectual and emotional isolation from others, and unpredictable behavior.
2. (informal) the existence of strongly contradictory elements, characteristics, motives, or the like.

hysteria: in an individual or group, an uncontrollable outburst of fear or other emotions, producing fits of weeping, laughter, irrational behavior, or the like.

I suppose you have a psychology doctorate to actually back up your interpretation of these definitions, then?

RE:
Psychosis - why would religion imply "withdrawal from reality"?  Specifically, what is the clinical definition of this term?

Schizophrenia - 2/ is the only definition that i can see being relevant, and that is informal - i.e. vague.  It's also ambivalent - I'm sure an ardent christian could say that belief in science covers the same ground.

Hysteria - here is another definition which is totally incompatible with what you wrote;
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?hysteria
Another (less contradictory)
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm
Finally
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/hysteria

It's worth noting that you seem to be mentioning the non-medical term, i.e. not the definition of the neurological condition.

And this is obviously your subjective, unqualified opinion, so it's not really worthy as 'proof' to anyone else.

[jdjtcagle]

Here's something wierd:)
The person that played Jesus in the Passion, was struck by lightning twice when on the cross:eek: