mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly Jesus, define "reason", define "clearly". Happy to help. Didn't this get covered in high school or even junior high? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason : a statement or fact that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way : a fact, condition, or situation that makes it proper or appropriate to do something, feel something, etc. : the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clearly : in a clear manner : in a way that is easy to see, hear, or understand : in a way that is certain : without doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly Jesus, define "reason", define "clearly". Happy to help. Didn't this get covered in high school or even junior high? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason : a statement or fact that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way : a fact, condition, or situation that makes it proper or appropriate to do something, feel something, etc. : the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clearly : in a clear manner : in a way that is easy to see, hear, or understand : in a way that is certain : without doubt Ha ha, we really got these definitions down to some high level of certainty....i.e. "why someone does, thinks, or says something". Yeah boy, we got those covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha ha, we really got these definitions down to some high level of certainty....i.e. "why someone does, thinks, or says something". Yeah boy, we got those covered. Maybe if you were to give up some of your willful ignorance then you could understand it better. But remember nobody can take it away from you against your will. That is yours and only you can give it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha ha, we really got these definitions down to some high level of certainty....i.e. "why someone does, thinks, or says something". Yeah boy, we got those covered. Maybe if you were to give up some of your willful ignorance then you could understand it better. But remember nobody can take it away from you against your will. That is yours and only you can give it up. No, you moron, y'all wish to convict me on definitions that have no hard scientific basis, i.e. the physiology that defines them.....words like reasoning, and logic. What you have now is feelings mixed with culture with some facts mixed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 The definition police have arrived....finally. They have taken over End3's body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 The definition police have arrived....finally. They have taken over End3's body. It's worse than that. It's overtaken the whole thread. I think everybody is infected to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha ha, we really got these definitions down to some high level of certainty....i.e. "why someone does, thinks, or says something". Yeah boy, we got those covered. Maybe if you were to give up some of your willful ignorance then you could understand it better. But remember nobody can take it away from you against your will. That is yours and only you can give it up. No, you moron, y'all wish to convict educate me on definitions that have no hard scientific basis, i.e. the physiology that defines them.....words like reasoning, and logic. What you have now is feelings mixed with culture with some facts mixed in oh wait, science and language are different fields so never mind . That is okay End, Take all the time you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 What you have now is feelings mixed with culture with some facts mixed in. What do you have, End? Feelings mixed with culture with no facts thrown in? And by facts I mean proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha, the problem is Thing 1 and Thing 2 are lacking the necessary mechanisms to support their convictions.....you know, good science. I'm trying to point this out to them, but they know science already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha, the problem is Thing 1 and Thing 2 are lacking the necessary mechanisms to support their convictions.....you know, good science. I'm trying to point this out to them, but they know science already... Yes, you are the only one who understand science. The rest of the world gets science wrong and they just won't listen to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha ha, we really got these definitions down to some high level of certainty....i.e. "why someone does, thinks, or says something". Yeah boy, we got those covered. Maybe if you were to give up some of your willful ignorance then you could understand it better. But remember nobody can take it away from you against your will. That is yours and only you can give it up. No, you moron, y'all wish to convict me on definitions that have no hard scientific basis, i.e. the physiology that defines them.....words like reasoning, and logic. What you have now is feelings mixed with culture with some facts mixed in. No End, the discipline of science is not exclusively defined by physiology. It has an established historical record of successfully describing and explaining the natural universe. You are using the 'physiology' angle to negate science's objectivity and to say that everything is subjective. By making everything subjective you can then legitimize your conflation of science with religion, when in fact, these are two separate and distinct disciplines. 'Subjectivity' is the tool you misuse to legitimize your refusal to accept external standards that you don't like. Any rule or reg you don't want to be bound by gets 'subjectivized' so that you can claim it doesn't really apply to you. Which is a considered, conscious and deliberate choice on your part, when you interact with us in this forum. But when you interact with others, elsewhere in society, you happily accept their external standards. You are making a choice, End. Refusing to accept an external standard here...but accepting and living by external standards elsewhere. There's a word for that kind of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha ha, we really got these definitions down to some high level of certainty....i.e. "why someone does, thinks, or says something". Yeah boy, we got those covered. Maybe if you were to give up some of your willful ignorance then you could understand it better. But remember nobody can take it away from you against your will. That is yours and only you can give it up. No, you moron, y'all wish to convict me on definitions that have no hard scientific basis, i.e. the physiology that defines them.....words like reasoning, and logic. What you have now is feelings mixed with culture with some facts mixed in. No End, the discipline of science is not exclusively defined by physiology. It has an established historical record of successfully describing and explaining the natural universe. You are using the 'physiology' angle to negate science's objectivity and to say that everything is subjective. By making everything subjective you can then legitimize your conflation of science with religion, when in fact, these are two separate and distinct disciplines. 'Subjectivity' is the tool you misuse to legitimize your refusal to accept external standards that you don't like. Any rule or reg you don't want to be bound by gets 'subjectivized' so that you can claim it doesn't really apply to you. Which is a considered, conscious and deliberate choice on your part, when you interact with us in this forum. But when you interact with others, elsewhere in society, you happily accept their external standards. You are making a choice, End. Refusing to accept an external standard here...but accepting and living by external standards elsewhere. There's a word for that kind of choice. But it certainly doesn't happen the other way around... But if you will notice, I am the one who is advocating a wider range of testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 We are much more forgiving of ourselves than others because we know ourselves. If we took the time to know others as well as we know ourselves, then we might find a little more grace for each other. Jesus says he would like our relationships to be analogous to his and God's.....which is eternal life. Double dog dare you atheist types to refute this. Heaven is no place any sane person would want to go. There is no food in Heaven because there's no hunger. Nothing to drink because there's no thirst. There is no marriage or sex in Heaven. Matthew 22:30 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. It's, couldn't -- couldn't care less. Just sayin'. No - I could care less. I don't care very much right now, but if I were pushed, I could care even less. Like end3 - I still think I'm right. Both could and couldn't care less are both used. I couldn't care less vs. I could care less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Ha ha, we really got these definitions down to some high level of certainty....i.e. "why someone does, thinks, or says something". Yeah boy, we got those covered. Maybe if you were to give up some of your willful ignorance then you could understand it better. But remember nobody can take it away from you against your will. That is yours and only you can give it up. No, you moron, y'all wish to convict me on definitions that have no hard scientific basis, i.e. the physiology that defines them.....words like reasoning, and logic. What you have now is feelings mixed with culture with some facts mixed in. No End, the discipline of science is not exclusively defined by physiology. It has an established historical record of successfully describing and explaining the natural universe. You are using the 'physiology' angle to negate science's objectivity and to say that everything is subjective. By making everything subjective you can then legitimize your conflation of science with religion, when in fact, these are two separate and distinct disciplines. 'Subjectivity' is the tool you misuse to legitimize your refusal to accept external standards that you don't like. Any rule or reg you don't want to be bound by gets 'subjectivized' so that you can claim it doesn't really apply to you. Which is a considered, conscious and deliberate choice on your part, when you interact with us in this forum. But when you interact with others, elsewhere in society, you happily accept their external standards. You are making a choice, End. Refusing to accept an external standard here...but accepting and living by external standards elsewhere. There's a word for that kind of choice. But it certainly doesn't happen the other way around... But if you will notice, I am the one who is advocating a wider range of testing. No End. You are the one advocating cross-discipline testing, by freely mixing science and religion as you see fit. You refuse to abide by the right and proper separation of these disciplines. You also refuse to abide by their standards, picking and choosing what you want. And when called upon to be do things objectively and correctly, you 'subjectivize' to get out of doing so. As I said, you're choosing to accept external standards outside this forum, but refusing to do so in it. Oh and btw, wider doesn't mean better and wider doesn't mean right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Everybody, I should say before I go any further that I'm not wandering off towards Pantheism or any other ism. Like I said, I'm serious, but I'm also having a wee bit of fun with this. It helps me pick up on some of the nuances regarding science and debating. If I'm clogging up the thread unnecessarily, please forgive me. I was only joking when i said "going into pantheist territory." You're not clogging up anything. It's good to ask questions. You're still man dude. The good news is that we're all getting an education from BAA, and it's free of charge. Thanks BAA. And from StillLooking, Alien! Kudos to her too. I humbly apologise. Thank you StillLooking for educating me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 End. May I suggest you ask someone outside this forum their opinion about your approach to science? If you consistently get the response that you are wrong in your thinking, maybe you will get the idea that you should reevaluate your position. This may help you in many aspects of life and you'd be pleasantly surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 End. May I suggest you ask someone outside this forum their opinion about your approach to science? If you consistently get the response that you are wrong in your thinking, maybe you will get the idea that you should reevaluate your position. This may help you in many aspects of life and you'd be pleasantly surprised. Thanks, science doesn't propose to participate in supernatural, morals, etc. If science could figure out the mind, then it could participate in these areas. But BAA and SL want to rigidly hold onto science does not do that. I get their point, I just happen to think maybe someday it will. No biggie. Long story short, I am advocating a more complete stance that science could achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 10, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2015 I am advocating a more complete stance that science could achieve. Science can't verify, quantify or examine in any way the "supernatural" concepts that people have imagined in so many various ways. When neuroscientists and other scientists investigate FOR DECADES ghosts, psychokinesis, clairvoyance or religious visions and ecstatic states and find that the cause of such perceived phenomena is the rather mundane effect of chemical and electrical states in the brain, True Believers say science isn't doing its job! Sorry, True Believers just don't like the answers. There is no ghost to examine, but we can know why you see him anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Yes I know I read the thread and I see what you're saying. I'm more concerned with how hard you are clinging to what sounds to me like a bad viewpoint. You won't listen to the folks here so check yourself elsewhere. The purpose of this site is to help people deconvert. I like you and I think your ideas are a mess sometimes. I can't convince you but maybe if you're open to being wrong, maybe someone outside this site can convince you. No one would laugh if you find out that your thinking is wrong and you see things a different way. We would be happy for you as a group I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I am advocating a more complete stance that science could achieve.Science can't verify, quantify or examine in any way the "supernatural" concepts that people have imagined in so many various ways. When neuroscientists and other scientists investigate FOR DECADES ghosts, psychokinesis, clairvoyance or religious visions and ecstatic states and find that the cause of such perceived phenomena is the rather mundane effect of chemical and electrical states in the brain, True Believers say science isn't doing its job! Sorry, True Believers just don't like the answers. There is no ghost to examine, but we can know why you see him anyway. C, it comes down to put up or shut up, doesn't it? Science doesn't really know....and that's the problem. Least you could do is be intellectually honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 C, it comes down to put up or shut up, doesn't it? Science doesn't really know....and that's the problem. Least you could do is be intellectually honest. There is no cure for willful ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 10, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2015 Science doesn't really know WHAT? A way to prove someone's mental constructs are actually real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Science doesn't really know WHAT? A way to prove someone's mental constructs are actually real? Yes. Edit: Are my constructs the same as yours chemically, blah blah, the same as everyone's, and the science behind that. Give me some of that certain data. For example, what does "reasoning" look like from a physiological standpoint. What set of chemistry and electricity give us "reasoning". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 C, it comes down to put up or shut up, doesn't it? Science doesn't really know....and that's the problem. Least you could do is be intellectually honest. There is no cure for willful ignorance. You are welcome to provide data to back up your assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Isn't it telling that we can agree subjectively what "reasoning" is but not scientifically. Is that not proof enough? True Non Believers just can't live with the uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts