21 Nov 05
Originally posted by JVG7With Howardgee and his ilk around it has become a case of gloves off, no-holds-barred; one needs to adapt to suit the situation - there are still some folks around here, where modesty would prevent my use of the f**t word around them.
I'd like to say that modesty prohibited me from going farther, but that just ain't the case. More like, I was afraid I might offend the delicate sensibilities of some by uttering the word 'fart.'
However, you were able to convey the same sentiment without darkening this fine web site with such crassness. A tip of the hat.😉
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeThere is nothing serious about this discussion. Your posts are like no1's - minus the good bits.
This is classic; in the middle of a serious discussion, some God botherers have a little discussion about a completely un-related topic.
Thanks a bundle for proving my point about your lack of sanity.
When you're ready to graduate from your high-school thought processes, we'll talk. Until then, enjoy the discussion with other like-minded adolescents.
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by JVG7OK - seeing as you are new to the site and clearly need a lesson - here goes:
You are mixing your metaphors. Is faith greater than empricism, or is that which faith is based upon greater? Obviously, that which faith is based upon is greater. Put another way, which is greater: knowledge of gravity being 32 feet per second, or the fact itself?
Empiricism is arrogance at it's most juvenille. Only what one knows is important. Therefor ...[text shortened]... r second, or are you taking it in faith? Pi? George Washington?
George Bush, for that matter?
"Empiricism is arrogance at it's most juvenille"
Disregarding your gramatical and spelling mistakes in this sentence, what does it mean?
Tell me JVG7, have you ever taken medicine, or been to hospital for treatment? Both are based on empirical observation required for medical advancement.
Have you ever driven a car, or travelled on a bike, bus, aeroplane or any form of transport?
All rely upon scientific advancements made possible only from observation and empiricism.
Indeed, the very computer you are using to post your tripe on this web site would not exist were it not for empirical observation and invention.
"Therefore, a dog could be God, for all he knows"
How can a Dog be God? If the dog thinks he is God, then it is mistaken. Deluded. Like you.
"He alone can decree what he can and will act upon."
Dogs do not control their whole fate. Wrong again.
"And if he decides to drink anti-freeze off the driveway, because (empirically) it smells sweet, tastes sweet, he will empirically die"
If the Dog empirically dies, then you are asked on faith to accept that the dog is really still alive; what would you believe? If the dog is rotting and starting to smell and has not moved for months, then by your criteria, you must accept that the dog is still alive. Because as you said; "Obviously, that which faith is based upon is greater".
In short, your post is the most confused and idiotic one that I have ever seen on this site - and with people like RBHill on this site, that is no mean feat!
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeThe doG metaphor is a masterpiece. You gotta have faith.
OK - seeing as you are new to the site and clearly need a lesson - here goes:
"Empiricism is arrogance at it's most juvenille"
Disregarding your gramatical and spelling mistakes in this sentence, what does it mean?
Tell me JVG7, have you ever taken medicine, or been to hospital for treatment? Both are based on empirical observation required for ...[text shortened]... I have ever seen on this site - and with people like RBHill on this site, that is no mean feat!
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeBy "gramatical," I assume you mean grammatical, and by "mistakes," I assume you mean mistake.
[b]OK - seeing as you are new to the site and clearly need a lesson - here goes:
"Empiricism is arrogance at it's most juvenille"
Disregarding your gramatical and spelling mistakes in this sentence, what does it mean?
One, there is no error in grammar in the sentence.
Two, there is but one spelling error; coincidentally, that word most adequately decribes your antics.
Three, empiricism is the very short-sighted rationale that only what one is able to sense has any bearing on anything. The arrogance stems from the belief that all of life revolves the one ascribing to that perspective.
If these concepts are too much for your mind to grasp, I humbly suggest you go, polish up your act, and try again later.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeUncertain where you take your medical treatment, but the hospitals and medical practitioners my family attend are steeped in the scientific method.
Tell me JVG7, have you ever taken medicine, or been to hospital for treatment? Both are based on empirical observation required for medical advancement.
Have you ever driven a car, or travelled on a bike, bus, aeroplane or any form of transport?
All rely upon scientific advancements made possible only from observation and empiricism.
Because you are obviously adjusting to the newfound freedoms of your teen years, you likely were unaware that empiricism, as it applies to medicine, refers to those practices which disregard the scientific theory, in favor of practical experience.
For me, I'd rather not trust my physical well-being to someone else's practical experience. You do what you have to do, though, once you get your own medical insurance.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeNot taking anything away from the scientific methods of the inventors alluded to here, once you actually study the milestones you tout as evidence, you will discover the absolute LACK of scientific method utilized by the same.
Have you ever driven a car, or travelled on a bike, bus, aeroplane or any form of transport?
All rely upon scientific advancements made possible only from observation and empiricism.
Indeed, the very computer you are using to post your tripe on this web site would not exist were it not for empirical observation and invention.
Many of these advancements came about from intuition and imagination, with a total (at the time) lack of supporting evidence otherwise. Did Einstein have mathematical support for his theory of relativity?
This is not to equate intuition with faith, despite the similarities, but rather, to show you that these specious arguments you are using are sophomoric, at best.
Again, you need to go polish up your act and try later when you acquire more ammunition.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by JVG7even after having the grammatical error pointed out, you are so ignorant that you still cannot see it.
By "gramatical," I assume you mean grammatical, and by "mistakes," I assume you mean mistake.
One, there is no error in grammar in the sentence.
Two, there is but one spelling error; coincidentally, that word most adequately decribes your antics.
Three, empiricism is the very short-sighted rationale that only what one is able to sense has any bearing o ...[text shortened]... o much for your mind to grasp, I humbly suggest you go, polish up your act, and try again later.
IT'S a shame, it really is.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by JVG7Many of these advancements came about from intuition and imagination, with a total (at the time) lack of supporting evidence otherwise.
Not taking anything away from the scientific methods of the inventors alluded to here, once you actually study the milestones you tout as evidence, you will discover the absolute LACK of scientific method utilized by the same.
Many of these advancements came about from intuition and imagination, with a total (at the time) lack of supporting evidence otherwis ...[text shortened]... best.
Again, you need to go polish up your act and try later when you acquire more ammunition.
Perhaps you could give examples of these 'many' advancements?
22 Nov 05
I notice you completely fail to respond to the following point:
"And if he decides to drink anti-freeze off the driveway, because (empirically) it smells sweet, tastes sweet, he will empirically die"
If the Dog empirically dies, then you are asked on faith to accept that the dog is really still alive; what would you believe? If the dog is rotting and starting to smell and has not moved for months, then by your criteria, you must accept that the dog is still alive. Because as you said; "Obviously, that which faith is based upon is greater".
Realise what a crock of crap you were talking?
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeActually it was a very good analogy - I would have expect you to get it as you're so fond of 'em.
I notice you completely fail to respond to the following point:
"And if he decides to drink anti-freeze off the driveway, because (empirically) it smells sweet, tastes sweet, he will empirically die"
If the Dog empirically dies, then you are asked on faith to accept that the dog is really still alive; what would you believe? If the dog is rotting an ...[text shortened]... that which faith is based upon is greater".
Realise what a crock of crap you were talking?
The dog, with its limited perception and knowledge, can decide that it is the highest point of the intellectual food-chain - it can make decisions and judgments based on its profound experiences of sweet tasting anti-freeze.
You seem to fit the analogy quite well. Do you know everything HG? Do you know it for a fact and can empirically prove it that God doesn't exist? If not, your childish judgmental prejudice is unfounded, as God may exist outside your myopic, materialistic perspective on life.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseAnd yet, the inverse holds as well. God might not exist inside or outside of the christian worldview. Unfounded, childish, judgmental prejudice is a two-way street, you know? What a conundrum!
If not, your childish judgmental prejudice is unfounded, as God may exist outside your myopic, materialistic perspective on life.
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by David CSure, but I don’t question the sanity of people whose beliefs are different to mine, as I would readily acknowledge the empirical and in Hg’s case philosophical shortcomings of my belief.
And yet, the inverse holds as well. God might not exist inside or outside of the christian worldview. Unfounded, childish, judgmental prejudice is a two-way street, you know? What a conundrum!
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseHowever, Howie simply pointed out an apparent similarity between clinically diagnosed psychoses and observed behaviours of rabid believers. From there, it devolved into a shouting match, and an attempted threadjacking. You might not agree with his approach or his choice of words...but I have yet to see any christian 'readily acknowledge' the shortcomings of their chosen religion. At least, not in this forum.
Sure, but I don’t question the sanity of people whose beliefs are different to mine, as I would readily acknowledge the empirical and in Hg’s case philosophical shortcomings of my belief.