Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Faith is based on the subjective perception of the individual.

objective and subjective seem a duality. I don't think you can successfully have one without the other.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Faith is based on the subjective perception of the individual.

Is there a difference between the words "hear" and "listen." We might hear a crack in the forest but do we understand what it means?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Faith is based on the subjective perception of the individual.

Here's the thing... we face worldwide disaster. 50% of our population is chronically ill, we lose topsoil at alarming rates, we're polluting our water so essentially we're raping the future so we can indulge today. Do you see anything wrong in that picture? Or do you think it's just gonna all work itself out?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I take very little on faith. I look at all the data is objectively as I can and try to make my decisions based on truth. That means you have to take in all the information scientific data philosophical data historical data fossil data Religious data folklore data and combine them all into one objective picture

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

If you leave out a large portion of the data because you are biased against it it it's very hard to be objective.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

I take very little on faith. I look at all the data is objectively as I can and try to make my decisions based on truth. That means you have to take in all the information scientific data philosophical data historical data fossil data Religious data folklore data and combine them all into one objective picture

How do you know the Bible wasn't composed to destroy the world? That it isn't a lie buried deep within truth? That is isn't actually the work of the false "God?" It seems to lead us to that ultimate apocalyptic event. I mean.. the mind of man is now being led away from the earth and into outer space?

2 Replies

@jerlands,

That is a great question. I will give you a great answer just give me a little time

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

No, if you're perceiving information then, information was there before you perceived it. Unless you're creating the information in your mind at that moment.

Consider this: Information is in the mind of the perceiver. 1+1=2 are just squiggles on a page unless we perceive it as having meaning. The marks themselves don't contain any information. They are symbols that we as a people agree mean something. Information doesn't exist independent of the perceiver.
Your assertion is that since there is information, it is proof of the mind of God. I say since we perceive information, it is proof that WE are conscious.

3 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

Information doesn't exist independent of the perceiver.

Does reality exist if we don't recognize it?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Depends on your definition of reality...

2 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

jerlands wrote:

TomTomBinks wrote:

Information doesn't exist independent of the perceiver.

Does reality exist if we don't recognize it?

Depends on your definition of reality...

Reality is "that which is."

Quote:

the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

0 Replies

@TomTomBinks,

maybe I should have asked if reality is information?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

You guys are merely engaged in "word hockey", where substance is pushed away and you spend your time discussing the meaning of "is".

I have this, a TS ELIOT line, on my office wall;

"WE SHALL NEVER CEASE FROM EXPLORATION
AND THE END OF OUR EXPLORING
WILL BE TO ARRIVE WHERE WE STARTED
AND KNOW THE PLACE FOR THE FIRST TIME".

We cant begin with a notion and just search for proof of its reality, sometimes what we find will uproot our world. Are you guys ready for that?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We cant begin with a notion and just search for proof of its reality, sometimes what we find will uproot our world. Are you guys ready for that?

A highly telling comment coming from someone who purports to be a scientist.

That is exactly what real scientists always do, Farmer, with no regard as to whether it uproots their world.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

jerlands wrote:

brianjakub wrote:

I take very little on faith. I look at all the data is objectively as I can and try to make my decisions based on truth. That means you have to take in all the information scientific data philosophical data historical data fossil data Religious data folklore data and combine them all into one objective picture

How do you know the Bible wasn't composed to destroy the world? That it isn't a lie buried deep within truth? That is isn't actually the work of the false "God?" It seems to lead us to that ultimate apocalyptic event. I mean.. the mind of man is now being led away from the earth and into outer space?

That is a great question. I will give you a great answer just give me a little time

Well in your answer think about artificial intelligence vs natural intelligence
A major theme in the Old Testament is never to return to Egypt. Now I find Ancient Egyptian theology based and founded upon observance of natural phenomena. Why would the "God" of the Old Testament lead us away from this form of intelligence?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
Really? That's interesting given the source of the quote.
He's a very intelligent man, a great communicator and salesman. He bought into a different line of thinking than you and I (or are you a follower of Deepak Chopra). Which line of thinking best fits the patterns presented in the data, from the initiation of matter, and then the initiation of life to now?

You and Jerlands don't seem to be able to differentiate between sentences created randomly by a computer and actual "ideas" (as demonstrated by the fact that you think the wisomofchopra site is an actual person, even though I provided you with a description of what it was doing in my original post).

If you can't differentiate between thoughts and random words, then that doesn't bod well for discussions you are engaged in (like those in this thread).

Real ideas are not simply fancy words strung together in grammatical form (as the machine is doing). You two are not discussing anything. It isn't even a mental exercise, because you are not learning anything or producing any information or value. Babbling is not thinking.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

You and Jerlands don't seem to be able to differentiate between sentences created randomly by a computer and actual "ideas" (as demonstrated by the fact that you think the wisomofchopra site is an actual person, even though I provided you with a description of what it was doing in my original post).

The fact is YOU are the one unable to differentiate. It's not possible to explore possibilities confined to any particular set of constraints.

0 Replies

@camlok,

On behalf of several A2K posters, I want you to know that we are (at least I am) highly gratified that we can provide your otherwise empty life with a modicum of meaning.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Recall bck in the 80's when it was populr to create 3 word nonsense phrases by randomly combining words from 3 columns of science, philosophy or govt terms?

like
Cyclic anastemosing pertuberances?
Thats what most of these "Chopra-isms" are.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Thats what most of these "Chopra-isms" are.

Are they a lot like "farmermanisms"?

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know