Religious

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you have an argument to make about something, make it in your own words, otherwise I'm not interested.

Me too.
I'm more interested in words people say (post) than videos, although I am not against videos if I have the time or interest to view them.

[Actor]

[hcap]

Originally Posted by nomad1102

Originally Posted by hcap
Another case please where science uses unjustified faith as religion does?

Are you a religionist? Beliefist? Lumping all religions together like a racist does because of the color of a human beings skin?

I am close to a Perenialist, "Perenialism , is a perspective in the philosophy of religion which views each of the world’s religious traditions as sharing a single, universal truth on which foundation all religious knowledge and doctrine has grown."

I include the best tools for understanding the world around us. Science and technology of the modern era must be included in the mix, or we fall into wrong and unjustified "beliefs" such as geocentrism, and bloodletting, and witch hunting.

I am dead against the literal in religious thought and search for the symbolic and allegorical commonalities shared by the great religious thinkers. I do not ever consider fundamentalists of any religion worth including in the mix.

Unfortunately some posters here are scientifically illiterate and if they were not they would understand unjustified belief or the use of faith is not part of the scientific method if used properly.

Personally I have had moments of otherworldly understandings and what might be called religious experiences. The trick is living day to day remembering those brief glimpses into a larger world and applying lessons learned in one's life. I am partial to Zen, Sufism, and other esoteric studies that view man as a multiplicity of "I's", our consciousnesses flickering from one fragment of our total being to another without our day to day awareness realizing it. Wholeness or the "holy" quest can be understood in many ways. Science can help as other intellectual frameworks may. I appreciate the sense of awe it brings, but then again the architecture and beauty a great cathedral or temple also generates aw. As does certain music, literature and art.

BUT the actual quest must drop ALL intellectual shells that may lead us to setting out on the search and we must not get caught up in confusing the map for the territory. One can get buried in one's words losing track of the ideas behind those words

"Zen masters have often spoken of Enlightenment as like the moon shining brightly in the dark sky, while the Zen Buddhist teachings are like a finger pointing up toward the moon. Too many people, however, instead of gazing at the great moon, prefer to relentlessly suck on the finger!"

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Me too.
I'm more interested in words people say (post) than videos, although I am not against videos if I have the time or interest to view them.

Please! I have argued for years with words as have both of you.
Sometimes one picture is worth a thousand POSTS, particularly when some here are oblivious to concepts other than their own.

One more time. The various videos I posted demolish boxcars opinion that cause and effect occur simultaneously. But neither of you will discuss the science the videos demonstrate preferring either to believe science is just as faith driven as certain religions, or scientists who accept such obvious truths are evil unbelievers

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

preferring either to believe science is just as faith driven as certain religions, or scientists who accept such obvious truths are evil unbelievers

There you go again twisting words that I never said.
1. I did not say science was just as faith driven, although scientists tentatively put faith in their models until better models are found

2. I did not say scientists are evil unbelievers

From the young lass in your peace photo, you're becoming a bitter old shrew.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

There you go again twisting words that I never said.
1. I did not say science was just as faith driven, although scientists tentatively put faith in their models until better models are found

2. I did not say scientists are evil unbelievers

From the young lass in your peace photo, you're becoming a bitter old shrew.

You told us science has "tentative faith" and would abandon that "momentary faith" as new scientific theories come along. I have already pointed out just how absurd that is.

Boxcar goes on and on about evil unbelievers and how scientists are such, I would say at least once in every 5 or 6 his absurd posts

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

You told us science has "tentative faith" and would abandon that "momentary faith" as new scientific theories come along. I have already pointed out just how absurd that is.

Boxcar goes on and on about evil unbelievers and how scientists are such, I would say at least once in every 5 or 6 his absurd posts

1. Of course science has tentative faith. That does not mean "it is just as faith driven."

2. The post about evil unbelievers was addressed to my avotar. If you meant it for boxcar alone, you wouldn't have included it in your post to me.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

1. Of course science has tentative faith. That does not mean "it is just as faith driven."

2. The post about evil unbelievers was addressed to my avotar. If you meant it for boxcar alone, you wouldn't have included it in your post to me.

Earlier you said:

....Science is about tentative commitment. Science has faith in the new model only

You said has faith. So if you like I will amend faith "driven" to faith "motivated" from one theory to the next.

I said clearly "Boxcar goes on and on about evil unbelievers and how scientists are such, I would say at least once in every 5 or 6 his absurd posts"

Did you misread "Boxcar" for Greyfox?

I know you guys are close, but I did make a clear distinction. If you like, I could always stop making that distinction.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you have an argument to make about something, make it in your own words, otherwise I'm not interested.

Look at this! The guy who always uses never-ending verses copied straight from the bible whenever he gets backed into a corner in a debate...is telling someone else to use his own words when making an argument.

Truth is stranger than fiction...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you have an argument to make about something, make it in your own words, otherwise I'm not interested.

I spent pages and pages explaining causality and many other subjects to you in my own words supported by well documented sources. My posted videos on that subject simply cut you down at your mistaken pseudo-scientific legs.

WHICH YOU STILL WON'T ADMIT

You would do better not entering into discussions of subjects other than your narrow minded biblical misinterpreted Christianity. Hint: you know zilch about everything else----especially science.

Then again your biblical parroting is not exactly a strong point either

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Look at this! The guy who always uses never-ending verses copied straight from the bible whenever he gets backed into a corner in a debate...is telling someone else to use his own words when making an argument.

Truth is stranger than fiction...

I use scripture since the bible or truth itself is often the topic of debate. If someone doubts Jesus' divinity, what am I supposed to use to support the doctrine -- last year's NY Slimes? But when I do use scripture, I most often support scripture with my own commentary as well, since unbelievers tend to have a very difficult time understanding truth even when it's spelled out plain and simple in scripture.

And by the way, how often have you used scripture to point to your visions of contradictions?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am dead...

Truer words have never been spoken by you. I wonder if your universal religious truth (so called) has revealed this biblical truth to you, as well.

John 5:24
24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
NASB

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=hcap]BUT the actual quest must drop ALL intellectual shells that may lead us to setting out on the search and we must not get caught up in confusing the map for the territory. One can get buried in one's words losing track of the ideas behind those words.[/ii]

But aren't ideas expressed in words among rational beings? In fact, what good are ideas if not expressed coherently?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by nomad1102

Originally Posted by hcap
Another case please where science uses unjustified faith as religion does?

Are you a religionist? Beliefist? Lumping all religions together like a racist does because of the color of a human beings skin?

Hcap is like an Everything Bagel. It's all good.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Please! I have argued for years with words as have both of you.
Sometimes one picture is worth a thousand POSTS, particularly when some here are oblivious to concepts other than their own.

One more time. The various videos I posted demolish boxcars opinion that cause and effect occur simultaneously. But neither of you will discuss the science the videos demonstrate preferring either to believe science is just as faith driven as certain religions, or scientists who accept such obvious truths are evil unbelievers

I just broke up a huge piece of glass that I need to toss out for garbage pick-up tomorrow. The darndest thing happened. The glass never shattered until the moment my hammer made contact with it.