God & Science Proved!
- Thread starter RadoX
- Start date
That would be an internal God and would not necessarily be solipsit but more akin to Monism.
Stop making a fool of yourself. Go badger someone else or contribute constructively to the discussion.
I love and respect lord of the rings, but its still a load of hogwash and not real, same as dungeons and dragons, Thomas the tank engine and the powerpuff girls, all amazing things, but all hogwash! Flying fluffy pink unicorns too and magical invisible teapots orbitting mars
This is getting fun again, thank you.
Hmmmm...so you think that dismissing the beliefs of someone is respecting those beliefs......Ypu don't have to believe in them, however dismissing them as hogwash is hardly the most respective way to refer to them.
Anyway it is clear that you are intentionally badgering me, so I will ask you once again to refrain and contribute constructively....
In the hope that you actually want a sensible debate maybe Stoicism would suit you.......
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 18,423
And by 'true' solipsist, would you be refering to metaphysical, epistemological or methodological?
Well you could believe that the world was created by your own mind (a view I would personally consider arrogant), or was created by a 'god' of some kind and percieved by the mind. There are too many possibilities!
I like making a fool of myself, its entertaining and brings out the weaknesses in others.
I do however have a huge issue with anyone claiming to be the most intelligent person on this forum yet clearly displays such a poor lack of basic judgement, comprehension and conclusive skills.
Last edited:
well, the metaphysical would negate any possibility that anything outside of the mind existed independently of the mind......
Epistemological would simply think the question of whether anything outside the mind was unanswerable to begin with.
And methodological is somewhat less of an actual philosophy and more of an idea......
I think that with holding a solipsist wordview yet holding with a belief in God is easier to reconcile with Monistic Idealism....where the subject believes that Consciousness is the only 'reality' and that Consciousness is God and everything is part of or a creation of that single consciousness.... a pantheist view, rather than a specifically monotheist view. While you would not be God, you would be an aspect of God if you will......
I agree, the possibilities are endless....
Last edited:
I have never claimed to be the most intelligent person on this forum.......
Like I said go badger someone else......
These threads always descend into pedantic technicalities in each other's arguments and no longer have any substance to them.As soon as you start discussing specific definitions you know you've lost the real meaning of the debate.
The problem is, when people keep using incorrect or uncommon definitions without clarifying them, it becomes very hard for people with a broader education to engage them in sensible debate until they've either corrected the error or clarified the position of the other poster, because much of the time their definition is taken to support a position, and hence their position becomes circular on their definition.
So its funny that people with a broader education lack the ability to use a dictionary. Even funnier is when they see someone using a perfectly valid and widely regarded as correct definition, yet the highly educated snobs only post tell that person how wrong they are, while the definitions that were used would have been regarded as correct just about anywhere in the world, and on any university essay or exam.
These 'broadly educated people' also seem to be incapable of answering any university essay question to me with their unbelievable self projected views and opinions which they hold to be 100% correct, yet unsourcable by any valid references.
These 'broadly educated people' also seem to be incapable of answering any university essay question to me with their unbelievable self projected views and opinions which they hold to be 100% correct, yet unsourcable by any valid references.
Last edited:
Your inability to use references correctly due to a lack of underlying knowledge is not the fault of other posters, nor is your close-minded belief structure or your misguided belief that philosophy is irrelevant in a philosophy based thread....
Furthermore, your arrogance about the fact that you've been to university is rather undermined by the fact that other posters have too. As I said, I have a degree in chemistry. Is your degree in physical sciences or something softer?
Last edited:
A badger is a mammalian animal, I have no idea how I am doing anything to you with a badger.
Funilly enough, you, dolph and spawn all only entered this thread to start replying and arguing with nobody other than me, yet you display a victim syndrome and think its my fault when you get called out for how ridiclously and blatantly your posts lack in intelligence and clear logical judgement (on both accounts of which you manage to pull off far worse than I ever do). I don't even understand how you managed to pull off any level of university education.... Oh wait right, Theology or some other related mickey mouse course
Last edited:
Which illustrates amply what Dolph is saying about you.
It seems that you cannot effectively elucidate your opinions or defend you position from a basis of rational objectivity so your default position is to disparage those that disagree with you instead....this actually says far more about your shortcomings and relative level of ability than it does those that you seek to offend.
I have said just about everything I want to say and have no intention of wasting such a lovely Sunday on arguing with you over inconsequential trivialities, so I will leave you to your rabid ranting.....
Enjoy your Sunday....go out get some fresh air or something....clear your mind and maybe consider why you have the attitude to others that you do.
Last edited:
A badger is a mammalian animal, I have no idea how I am doing anything to you with a badger.
Funilly enough, you, dolph and spawn all only entered this thread to start replying and arguing with nobody other than me, yet you display a victim syndrome and think its my fault when you get called out for how ridiclously and blatantly your posts lack in intelligence and clear logical judgement (on both accounts of which you manage to pull off far worse than I ever do). I don't even understand how you managed to pull off any level of university education.... Oh wait right, Theology or some other related mickey mouse course
Oh dear. You are the one who has shown a distinct lack of critical thinking, confused logic, rationality and assumptions, dismissed the entire basis of any discussion on the subject as stupid and pointless (in lieu of actually answering questions) and generally be downright rude, abrasive and closed minded about how your beliefs are gospel and everyone who doesn't share them has something wrong (putting you in a direct relationship with religious fundamentalists all over the world).
Your reading comprehension is also clearly faulty, as twice I've stated clearly that I have a degree in Chemistry, and twice you've failed to answer what discipline you read at university. So again, was it a physical science (Physics, Chemistry or Earth Sciences) or something softer (Biology, Environmental science, psychology etc)?
You appear to believe that anyone who disagrees with you lacks intelligence, whereas your closed-minded statements about how your unprovable beliefs and single interpretation is correct and cannot be changed in any way leads me to take your position as one of rote learning rather than actual understanding, underpinned by faith that your interpretation feels right to you.
Incidentally, my first post in this thread was post 24, long before you entered and started preaching your faith based position.
I've mentioned what I've studied something like 10 times over the last day or two here, I thought that someone as intelligent as you would be able to look that up easily.
P.S. I know someone who has a Pharmacy degree and is now a wealthy high earning pharmacist, yet in his GCSE biology mock exam he answered that babies develop in the stomach.
So no, your education is of no importance to me.
I don't think that anyone who disagrees with anyone else lacks intelligence. But people who disagree but cannot backup their arguments with supportive evidence are poorly educated and making personal faith based assumptions.
If I have evidence, which in this thread was very very strongly supportive of my possition, then this absolutely is not a faith based assumption.
P.S. I know someone who has a Pharmacy degree and is now a wealthy high earning pharmacist, yet in his GCSE biology mock exam he answered that babies develop in the stomach
.So no, your education is of no importance to me.
I don't think that anyone who disagrees with anyone else lacks intelligence. But people who disagree but cannot backup their arguments with supportive evidence are poorly educated and making personal faith based assumptions.
If I have evidence, which in this thread was very very strongly supportive of my possition, then this absolutely is not a faith based assumption.
Last edited:
I've mentioned what I've studied something like 10 times over the last day or two here, I thought that someone as intelligent as you would be able to look that up easily.
P.S. I know someone who has a Pharmacy degree and is now a wealthy high earning pharmacist, yet in his GCSE biology mock exam he answered that babies develop in the stomach
So no, your education is of no importance to me.
Yes, it's a life science isn't it
I guess that explains a lot, as life sciences don't tend to deal with the great mysteries of the universe in the same way that physical sciences do. Not as much deep thinking required about great unknowns.However, this post just further proves my point. You aren't interested in any sort of critical evaluation of your position, because you have faith in it. You show exactly the same attitude as Christians who just constantly refer to the bible regardless of evidence.
Unfortunately, you can't reason someone out of a position they don't actually understand why they hold. I'm actually shocked that, at no point during your education, you were taught the principles of critical thinking, they should be a key part of any scientific education as they are vital to the discipline, but you either failed to learn them, or wilfully fail to apply them, and for that I'm sorry.
Plenty of evidence has been provided, both by myself/Castiel, and by you that supports my position. Your unwillingness to interpret it within the correct context, rather than one you've decided on because it suits your position, doesn't change that.
No it absolutely wasn't. Neither of you posted a single link other than Wikipedia (lol seriously?) to back up anything you wrote.
Did your chemistry degree allow you to pass with only referencing to Wikipedia or something? In what definition is a single source classifiable as 'plenty of evidence'.
FYI I've also emailed Richard Dawkins for some definitions and meanings of atheist and atheos, if I ever get a reply I'll let you know.
Last edited:
And the only link you posted was to a biased site at Cambridge university, and some misquoted dictionary references.
No, weren't allowed to use internet references of any kind. Did yours allow you to only reference a single, biased source?
If you prefer, I can reference this to support my view (used as a source for the Wiki Page btw)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
Of course, it's philosophical rubbish, because atheism is a philosophical position, but hey