Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Religion & Language (re: SpiritandTruth)

Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 4:52:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This post is quoted from another thread (http://www.debate.org...) which I broke off into its own, since I feel it was way off-topic.

At 6/17/2016 3:15:27 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I don't think people realize that Christianity is practically anti-religion, and that these Christianity based religions are not Christianity.

This isn't a war between no religion and religion. This isn't a war between different religions. This is a spiritual war, yes, and the enemy is tricking people into attacking the wrong enemy.

Is this an "atheism is a religion" claim?

Jesus ain't the enemy. Jesus is your friend.

And who has claimed him as an enemy? Mostly, those people just don"t believe he existed as depicted in the bible. Heck, there"s even a group "Atheists for Jesus"! (http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com...)

The funny thing is, atheists feel like they are the minority and that they are fighting a larger foe... I don't think they realize just how pervasively pagan the world is. I don't think they realize just how overtly satanic the culture is. An atheist might feel like a David facing off Goliath, but it's really easy for a God realized Christian to feel like Joseph in Egypt.

Language is being confused it's the truth. You want to witness a contemporary day tower of babel? Look no further than the internet.

Yes, the internet. People put so much faith in it that we've practically let it take over every aspect of society and life. Oh what a trap we've fallen into. The tower will fall though, and when it falls, it's going to be messy because people simply don't know how to talk to each other anymore. People don't know how to do things manually anymore. Who is living close to the land?

In terms of language, how would we not know how to talk to each other without the internet, when we use constantly to talk to each other? I"m not sure what the point of this is intended to be.

If I could hammer anything into the heads of people around here, it would be to stop presuming to understand your own language. The dictionary is your friend.

There is no intrinsic truth to be had in language; it does not determine anything about the world. Language is a tool: a structured method of communication in which we arbitrarily make up words to describe concepts (whether they pertain to observations of reality or not) and then rely on the common understanding of these words to effectively convey our thoughts and concepts to each other.

You constantly assert that *your* concept of God is the "correct" concept, of which there is no such thing in terms of reality! Again, words are just used to relate concepts to each other. It"s a fallible method because our understanding of words might differ, which is when we bridge that gap by thoroughly explaining what we are trying to communicate more elaborately and simply, using other words that we have a common understanding of. Insisting that the other person"s definition is wrong is useless.

And use a real dictionary, like Merriam-Webster. They know what words mean. The Oxford is too easily corrupted by how common people misuse words. Ultimately, I think it is very destructive, even though I admit the scientific necessity of documenting these things.

What? The meaning of words is based on popular usage; there is no objectively determinable method of establishing what a word "really means". Language is continuously evolving and changing through many ways, such as misunderstanding, mispronunciations, and misuse.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again too. The scientific method can easily be classified as a religion. If you believe something because when they wrote it down they told you that they performed all the experiments, you are doing the same thing as people who read the bible and believe it because it is in the bible. You are believing what you read.

This is a false analogy and a strawman. Firstly, hat"s accepted as scientific knowledge through experimentation comes with transparency, repeatability, falsifiability, independent verification, and does not claim absolute certainty. Religion possesses the opposite of these properties. Secondly, although a good amount of people do just believe what a single study or experiment concludes, that is not at all representative of the scientific method.

But is says in the scriptures, "Many will be lead away by science falsely so-called".

Science means "knowledge". Keep it real.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 5:11:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 4:52:55 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This post is quoted from another thread (http://www.debate.org...) which I broke off into its own, since I feel it was way off-topic.

At 6/17/2016 3:15:27 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I don't think people realize that Christianity is practically anti-religion, and that these Christianity based religions are not Christianity.

This isn't a war between no religion and religion. This isn't a war between different religions. This is a spiritual war, yes, and the enemy is tricking people into attacking the wrong enemy.

Is this an "atheism is a religion" claim?


No, it isn't but... If you go by this definition, I'm sure you can see how some people do in fact take atheism as some type of religion.

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

I prefer to call atheism a dogma though, because it pisses them off more.

The funny thing is, atheists feel like they are the minority and that they are fighting a larger foe... I don't think they realize just how pervasively pagan the world is. I don't think they realize just how overtly satanic the culture is. An atheist might feel like a David facing off Goliath, but it's really easy for a God realized Christian to feel like Joseph in Egypt.

Language is being confused it's the truth. You want to witness a contemporary day tower of babel? Look no further than the internet.

Yes, the internet. People put so much faith in it that we've practically let it take over every aspect of society and life. Oh what a trap we've fallen into. The tower will fall though, and when it falls, it's going to be messy because people simply don't know how to talk to each other anymore. People don't know how to do things manually anymore. Who is living close to the land?

In terms of language, how would we not know how to talk to each other without the internet, when we use constantly to talk to each other? I"m not sure what the point of this is intended to be.


You underestimate the proliferation of misinformation. You also underestimate how lazy the internet makes people.

If I could hammer anything into the heads of people around here, it would be to stop presuming to understand your own language. The dictionary is your friend.

There is no intrinsic truth to be had in language; it does not determine anything about the world. Language is a tool: a structured method of communication in which we arbitrarily make up words to describe concepts (whether they pertain to observations of reality or not) and then rely on the common understanding of these words to effectively convey our thoughts and concepts to each other.

You constantly assert that *your* concept of God is the "correct" concept, of which there is no such thing in terms of reality! Again, words are just used to relate concepts to each other. It"s a fallible method because our understanding of words might differ, which is when we bridge that gap by thoroughly explaining what we are trying to communicate more elaborately and simply, using other words that we have a common understanding of. Insisting that the other person"s definition is wrong is useless.


Uh, no, quite the opposite. I've been very consistent in asserting that there is no conception or understanding of God that is God. I'm pretty consistent about informing people that I'm pointing, and they keep staring at my finger.

I already know the futility of trying to explain these things better and more accurately. It doesn't matter how simple and lucid you make it, people won't understand it. Only God can reveal these things, and it can't be helped. I can only do so much.

And use a real dictionary, like Merriam-Webster. They know what words mean. The Oxford is too easily corrupted by how common people misuse words. Ultimately, I think it is very destructive, even though I admit the scientific necessity of documenting these things.

What? The meaning of words is based on popular usage; there is no objectively determinable method of establishing what a word "really means". Language is continuously evolving and changing through many ways, such as misunderstanding, mispronunciations, and misuse.


Of course, but surely you can see how this effects comprehension?

I for one thing it is sad when people embrace arbitrariness.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again too. The scientific method can easily be classified as a religion. If you believe something because when they wrote it down they told you that they performed all the experiments, you are doing the same thing as people who read the bible and believe it because it is in the bible. You are believing what you read.

This is a false analogy and a strawman. Firstly, hat"s accepted as scientific knowledge through experimentation comes with transparency, repeatability, falsifiability, independent verification, and does not claim absolute certainty. Religion possesses the opposite of these properties. Secondly, although a good amount of people do just believe what a single study or experiment concludes, that is not at all representative of the scientific method.


I'm merely pointing out that all these people who claim to love "science" are full of crap. They've probably never performed an experiment in their life.

"Scientist" is a religion, and lets not kid ourselves, it is. If you have a problem with this, it is because you misunderstand or are averse to the word "religion", not because it isn't true.

I'm not going to let a bunch of Godless dogs define "God" for me, and they shouldn't have the right to define it for anyone. They are ignorant. They have no respect for language whatsoever. They are authors of confusion and chaos.

The Gospel is simple. The Truth will set you free. Keep it real.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:20:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 5:11:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/17/2016 4:52:55 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This post is quoted from another thread (http://www.debate.org...) which I broke off into its own, since I feel it was way off-topic.

At 6/17/2016 3:15:27 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

Is this an "atheism is a religion" claim?


No, it isn't but... If you go by this definition, I'm sure you can see how some people do in fact take atheism as some type of religion.

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

How is atheism a "system of beliefs" when it literally only pertains to one single issue? And how is atheism dogmatic??

I prefer to call atheism a dogma though, because it pisses them off more.

Your malevolent motives are noted. :/

In terms of language, how would we not know how to talk to each other without the internet, when we use constantly to talk to each other? I'm not sure what the point of this is intended to be.

You underestimate the proliferation of misinformation.

How is this relevant to language usage?

You also underestimate how lazy the internet makes people.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but how does this directly affect language usage?

You constantly assert that *your* concept of God is the "correct" concept, of which there is no such thing in terms of reality! Again, words are just used to relate concepts to each other. It"s a fallible method because our understanding of words might differ, which is when we bridge that gap by thoroughly explaining what we are trying to communicate more elaborately and simply, using other words that we have a common understanding of. Insisting that the other person"s definition is wrong is useless.


Uh, no, quite the opposite. I've been very consistent in asserting that there is no conception or understanding of God that is God. I'm pretty consistent about informing people that I'm pointing, and they keep staring at my finger.

Then you, yourself, cannot possibly know what you are pointing at, by your own definition.

I already know the futility of trying to explain these things better and more accurately. It doesn't matter how simple and lucid you make it, people won't understand it. Only God can reveal these things, and it can't be helped. I can only do so much.

If only God can reveal such things, then why do you defy His wishes and insistently try to argue with people, using insults and generating hostility, and actually serve to push people away from this supposed truth? If God wanted it to be revealed, He'd have done it already.

What? The meaning of words is based on popular usage; there is no objectively determinable method of establishing what a word "really means". Language is continuously evolving and changing through many ways, such as misunderstanding, mispronunciations, and misuse.

Of course, but surely you can see how this effects comprehension?

I for one thing it is sad when people embrace arbitrariness.

Who is "embracing" arbitrariness? That's just the fact of the matter. And yes, striving for consistency is important, but language will still change despite our efforts.

So, why is Webster better than Oxford? How have you determined this?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again too. The scientific method can easily be classified as a religion. If you believe something because when they wrote it down they told you that they performed all the experiments, you are doing the same thing as people who read the bible and believe it because it is in the bible. You are believing what you read.

This is a false analogy and a strawman. Firstly, hat"s accepted as scientific knowledge through experimentation comes with transparency, repeatability, falsifiability, independent verification, and does not claim absolute certainty. Religion possesses the opposite of these properties. Secondly, although a good amount of people do just believe what a single study or experiment concludes, that is not at all representative of the scientific method.


I'm merely pointing out that all these people who claim to love "science" are full of crap. They've probably never performed an experiment in their life.

That's not what you said, though. And anyway, people don't have to perform all experiments for themselves to verify every scientific conclusion; those studies and experiments are available from multiple independent sources and the details of the experiment are available for examination.

"Scientist" is a religion, and lets not kid ourselves, it is. If you have a problem with this, it is because you misunderstand or are averse to the word "religion", not because it isn't true.

OK, what is a "religion" to you? Please elaborate on the concept you hold in mind for this word.

I'm not going to let a bunch of Godless dogs...

Fantastic. :/

...define "God" for me, and they shouldn't have the right to define it for anyone. They are ignorant. They have no respect for language whatsoever. They are authors of confusion and chaos.

It's just a word, which is defined by popular use. No one is trying to define it for you; I have no idea where that comes from. The atheists are typically responding to notion of God that are forwarded by theists, so take up your disagreements with the source.

The Gospel is simple. The Truth will set you free. Keep it real.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:25:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I know that the topic started out this way, but I'm really not into the whole "break up posts" way of communicating.

Maybe instead of trying to dismantle everything, you should attempt to see how what I'm saying is true.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:29:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 5:11:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"Scientist" is a religion, and lets not kid ourselves, it is.
Because independent experts such as sociologists think so, S&T, or because everything you say is true?

If you have a problem with this, it is because you misunderstand or are averse to the word "religion", not because it isn't true.
So there are no legitimate arguments otherwise, whatever the arguments might be?

You have absolute and inerrant knowledge then that science is religion?

May I ask how you acquired it, and how you tested to ensure that it was knowledge and not (say) ignorant and self-serving bigotry?

I'm not going to let a bunch of Godless dogs define "God" for me,
So how should sociologists, pyschologists and anthropologists -- who may study faith across cultures, define 'god'? Should they accept your definition, or seek to find some commonality across culture?

And if they do find such commonality, is there some reason that is not legitimate to use in general conversation, respecting that individual faiths might also have specific nuanced meanings?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:31:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The same spirit behind a person who interrupts another man before he can finish what he is saying is the same spirit I get from people who break posts apart to respond to them.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:44:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 6:25:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I know that the topic started out this way, but I'm really not into the whole "break up posts" way of communicating.

Maybe instead of trying to dismantle everything, you should attempt to see how what I'm saying is true.

Breaking up the response is the most concise and clear-cut means of addressing specific points with specific and precise replies in an organized fashion. The devil's in the details, and I need to know what you mean if I find them to be erroneous, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear. This also helps prevent bad points or statements from being glossed over and omitted.

At 6/17/2016 6:31:28 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
The same spirit behind a person who interrupts another man before he can finish what he is saying is the same spirit I get from people who break posts apart to respond to them.

I read the whole post in its entirety prior to responding. This isn't akin to interrupting someone while they're speaking; written communication conducted differently than spoken, and requires different dynamics. I assure you, there is no disrespect in this practice, as it's typical of forum discourse.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:44:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 6:29:49 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/17/2016 5:11:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"Scientist" is a religion, and lets not kid ourselves, it is.
Because independent experts such as sociologists think so, S&T, or because everything you say is true?


As long as you keep thinking that I'm as arbitrary as you are, you are probably going to struggle a lot.

If you have a problem with this, it is because you misunderstand or are averse to the word "religion", not because it isn't true.
So there are no legitimate arguments otherwise, whatever the arguments might be?

You have absolute and inerrant knowledge then that science is religion?

May I ask how you acquired it, and how you tested to ensure that it was knowledge and not (say) ignorant and self-serving bigotry?

"Science" means "knowledge". The method to receive the knowledge would be the religion.

Gnosticism or knowingism is a stumbling block that comes from putting too much faith in created things.

How do I know these things? It's inherent in the language. I understand language without letting my partiality get in the way.

The fact that you think me calling the scientific method religion can be "ignorant and self serving bigotry" is a testament to the partiality you show with language. You have a narrow understanding of language, and the effect this has on your comprehension is compounded by the fact that you also attach too much unnecessary baggage to these words.

I'm not going to let a bunch of Godless dogs define "God" for me,
So how should sociologists, pyschologists and anthropologists -- who may study faith across cultures, define 'god'? Should they accept your definition, or seek to find some commonality across culture?

There is a difference between "God" and "god".

Once again, this is not my definition, but the definition accepted universally by theologians and even the dictionary.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:48:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 6:44:16 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/17/2016 6:25:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I know that the topic started out this way, but I'm really not into the whole "break up posts" way of communicating.

Maybe instead of trying to dismantle everything, you should attempt to see how what I'm saying is true.

Breaking up the response is the most concise and clear-cut means of addressing specific points with specific and precise replies in an organized fashion. The devil's in the details, and I need to know what you mean if I find them to be erroneous, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear. This also helps prevent bad points or statements from being glossed over and omitted.

I understand the rational people will use for this method, but I'm simply in disagreement.

If you need me to clarify something, find a different way of asking. Please humor me on this.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:03:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 6:25:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I know that the topic started out this way, but I'm really not into the whole "break up posts" way of communicating.

Maybe instead of trying to dismantle everything, you should attempt to see how what I'm saying is true.

Unlike your age.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:23:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 6:44:44 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/17/2016 6:29:49 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/17/2016 5:11:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"Scientist" is a religion, and lets not kid ourselves, it is.
Because independent experts such as sociologists think so, S&T, or because everything you say is true?
As long as you keep thinking that I'm as arbitrary as you are, you are probably going to struggle a lot.
It seems to me that a good way to avoid seeming arbitrary is to present meticulously-accumulated evidence and accountable, reasoned conclusions, while a good way to seem arbitrary is to ask others to accept one's views on faith alone.

So are you committing to the former, or blaming others for the consequences of the latter?

If you have a problem with this, it is because you misunderstand or are averse to the word "religion", not because it isn't true.
So there are no legitimate arguments otherwise, whatever the arguments might be?
You have absolute and inerrant knowledge then that science is religion?
May I ask how you acquired it, and how you tested to ensure that it was knowledge and not (say) ignorant and self-serving bigotry?
"Science" means "knowledge". The method to receive the knowledge would be the religion.
Yes, "science" comes from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. [http://www.etymonline.com...] The term was around in the mid 1300s to mean "book learning", but by 1400 it began to mean 'experience'. The modern sense of systematic, empirical, contestable, best-practice observations is attested from 1725 -- that's almost three centuries of current usage. [http://www.etymonline.com...]

However, you began by arguing that science was a religion. Now you seem to be arguing that revelation is a science.

Which is it you wish to argue?

And at no point have you demonstrated that your knowledge was absolute and inerrant. So how is it not arbitrary to claim that, yet not submit that claim to scrutiny?

Since you've endorsed the use of dictionaries:
arbitrary: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence [http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Gnosticism or knowingism is a stumbling block that comes from putting too much faith in created things.
A great benefit of observation is that anyone can do it, and if it's done methodically using precise tools and standards, it can produce the same results. That has huge benefits in mutual accountability, the elimination of bias and error, and the development of best practice -- and that's why scientific knowledge is so accurate, so precise, so repeatable. Yet despite the rigour and effort needed to pursue it, scientific investigation has been able to reach the limits of the observable universe, and the earliest points of observable history -- far outside the scope discussed accurately by ancient religions from revelation and conjecture alone.

But let's suppose you think some revelation also offers knowledge. That's a fair enough claim to entertain, but clearly, all claims to revelation can't produce knowledge: they're not even consistent. So how do you mean to test a claim of revelation for the presence of knowledge, when most claims of revelation can only be false?

Should we just trust you, or do you mean to adopt an approach more accountable and less arbitrary than that?

How do I know these things? It's inherent in the language. I understand language without letting my partiality get in the way.
Do you understand language better than a linguist or philologist?

Is it possible that some linguists and philologists are of faiths other than yours?

How can you claim knowledge from language when others with more expertise in language than you, differ on what they believe?

And while we're on the subject of knowledge from language, are you aware that the oldest scientific society still in existence today may be the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge? [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Abbreviated the Royal Society, it was founded in November 1660 -- that's 45 years before the word 'science' had its modern meaning.

I mention this because of its motto: Nullius in Verba.

Since you claim extensive linguistic knowledge and draw a great deal of authority from language, can you explain to the forum please what this means, and why the oldest scientific society in the world adopted it?

The fact that you think me calling the scientific method religion can be "ignorant and self serving bigotry"
Actually I asked you how you can separate a belief of absolute and inerrant knowledge from ignorant and self-serving bigotry.

So have you an answer for that?

You have a narrow understanding of language
Truly?

How would you know if I didn't?

One way might be to test how I extend my knowledge of language, and examine what that has actually produced.

For example, I just explained the origin of the word 'science' in detail to you, while you didn't bother explaining that to this thread. Meanwhile, beside my computer, my bookshelf contains some dozen dictionaries and thesauruses including dictionaries of German, Latin, Italian and Japanese, plus two volumes of the Historical Thesaurus of the OED capturing the synonyms of all English words from the earliest inception of English -- all purchased at my own expense. Are you willing to take me at my word, or do you need me to post a picture of my bookshelf?

Does that seem to you like the sort of investment made by someone happy with a narrow understanding of language?

And if you'd like to know what that sort of investment can produce, could I ask you to explain to the forum what the word 'shapeling' meant in the history of English, and when it was used for that meaning?

If you can't, I can. (And good luck Googling it.)

I'm not going to let a bunch of Godless dogs define "God" for me,
So how should sociologists, pyschologists and anthropologists -- who may study faith across cultures, define 'god'? Should they accept your definition, or seek to find some commonality across culture?
There is a difference between "God" and "god".
Did you read the other part of what I wrote? Here it is again with its context restored, in case you skipped it:

So how should sociologists, pyschologists and anthropologists -- who may study faith across cultures, define 'god'? Should they accept your definition, or seek to find some commonality across culture?
And if they do find such commonality, is there some reason that is not legitimate to use in general conversation, respecting that individual faiths might also have specific nuanced meanings?

You have a lot of questions to answer here, S&T. My hope is that you'll now stop evading and launching counter-accusations, and actually answer them.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:30:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
So many assumptions, I can't work with this.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:32:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'm being interrogated by Bill O'Reilly.

If you can't see how the scientific method can be classified as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"....

...Well hey....
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:43:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 7:32:52 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I'm being interrogated by Bill O'Reilly.

If you can't see how the scientific method can be classified as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"....

...Well hey....

Dude. Science is a "method" of knowledge acquisition about the world, not a cause, principle or system of beliefs. And so far, it's embraced because it's our most reliable method; if another, more reliable method is discovered, then we will quickly toss this in the trash. It's not held with "ardor and faith".
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:46:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 6:48:13 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/17/2016 6:44:16 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/17/2016 6:25:46 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I know that the topic started out this way, but I'm really not into the whole "break up posts" way of communicating.

Maybe instead of trying to dismantle everything, you should attempt to see how what I'm saying is true.

Breaking up the response is the most concise and clear-cut means of addressing specific points with specific and precise replies in an organized fashion. The devil's in the details, and I need to know what you mean if I find them to be erroneous, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear. This also helps prevent bad points or statements from being glossed over and omitted.

I understand the rational people will use for this method, but I'm simply in disagreement.

If you need me to clarify something, find a different way of asking. Please humor me on this.

Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way to efficiently accommodate this... somewhat odd... request. I would strongly suggest not submitting such lengthy posts in the future if you don't like such responses.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:54:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 7:43:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:32:52 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I'm being interrogated by Bill O'Reilly.

If you can't see how the scientific method can be classified as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"....

...Well hey....

Dude. Science is a "method" of knowledge acquisition about the world, not a cause, principle or system of beliefs.

+1

it's embraced because it's our most reliable method; if another, more reliable method is discovered, then we will quickly toss this in the trash. It's not held with "ardor and faith".

Indeed. And scientific ontology (what exists) methodology (how to explore it) and epistemology (how to evaluate the knowledge we have) are undergoing constant revision.

If you wanted to claim knowledge from revelation you could have that recognised scientifically provided that certain quite-reasonable criteria were met.

I sense that S&T is about to flee this discussion, but S&T or any member interested is welcome to ask how divine revelations might be validated and verified scientifically.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 7:57:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 7:43:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:32:52 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I'm being interrogated by Bill O'Reilly.

If you can't see how the scientific method can be classified as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"....

...Well hey....

Dude. Science is a "method" of knowledge acquisition about the world, not a cause, principle or system of beliefs. And so far, it's embraced because it's our most reliable method; if another, more reliable method is discovered, then we will quickly toss this in the trash. It's not held with "ardor and faith".

Heh..... Well, the fact that you believe it is t he most reliable method shows that you have faith. It takes a certain type of ardor and faith in order to be an effective scientist.

One definition of faith is "something that is believed especially with strong conviction".

You obviously believe in the scientific method with strong conviction. You have faith in it. It would be silly to deny this after all those glowing words.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 8:06:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 7:57:16 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:43:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:32:52 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I'm being interrogated by Bill O'Reilly.

If you can't see how the scientific method can be classified as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"....

...Well hey....

Dude. Science is a "method" of knowledge acquisition about the world, not a cause, principle or system of beliefs. And so far, it's embraced because it's our most reliable method; if another, more reliable method is discovered, then we will quickly toss this in the trash. It's not held with "ardor and faith".

Heh..... Well, the fact that you believe it is t he most reliable method shows that you have faith. It takes a certain type of ardor and faith in order to be an effective scientist.

One definition of faith is "something that is believed especially with strong conviction".

You obviously believe in the scientific method with strong conviction. You have faith in it. It would be silly to deny this after all those glowing words.

What "glowing words"? It's still quite far from perfect; it's just the best we have at the moment. ~shrugs~ Can you think of a better one? I still treat such conclusions with a warranted degree of skepticism, anyway, especially if there isn't sufficient experimentation or there's conflicting data present.

Why are you trying to spin the language like this; what conclusion are you trying to reach??
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 8:10:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 8:06:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:57:16 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:43:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:32:52 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
I'm being interrogated by Bill O'Reilly.

If you can't see how the scientific method can be classified as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"....

...Well hey....

Dude. Science is a "method" of knowledge acquisition about the world, not a cause, principle or system of beliefs. And so far, it's embraced because it's our most reliable method; if another, more reliable method is discovered, then we will quickly toss this in the trash. It's not held with "ardor and faith".

Heh..... Well, the fact that you believe it is t he most reliable method shows that you have faith. It takes a certain type of ardor and faith in order to be an effective scientist.

One definition of faith is "something that is believed especially with strong conviction".

You obviously believe in the scientific method with strong conviction. You have faith in it. It would be silly to deny this after all those glowing words.

What "glowing words"? It's still quite far from perfect; it's just the best we have at the moment. ~shrugs~ Can you think of a better one? I still treat such conclusions with a warranted degree of skepticism, anyway, especially if there isn't sufficient experimentation or there's conflicting data present.

Why are you trying to spin the language like this; what conclusion are you trying to reach??

I'm not spinning anything at all, I'm trying to demonstrate how language HAS been spun in order to make scripture unintelligible to people.

You still have faith, don't kid yourself.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
People who believe that their religious myths are historical fact and/or current reality have forfeited their reason in favor of their faith. Which is unfortunate, because these two intellectual tools were meant to work in conjunction with each other, and not as opponents of each other.

Once reason has been jettisoned, and faith becomes the believer's truth, their religion becomes their reality, and likewise, reality becomes a religion.

And this is why we see these folks claim that atheism is a religion, or that everyone else's religion is "false". Because, from their irrational conception of reality, their own religion is everything, and EVERYTHING ELSE is a false" religion. Reason becomes a a false religion, to them. Science becomes a false religion, to them. Self-determination and human autonomy become self-idolization and spiritual hedonism, to them - false gods.

And there will be no explaining any of this, to them, because their beliefs have become their reality. And have become self-proving. As the logical rationale necessary to effectively doubt or test their belief-as-reality paradigm has been jettisoned. They are 'trapped' in an illusion of their own making. And they have thrown away the key to the way, out. --- Reason.