Naturalism v. Theism

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ushomefree

Alliance
Do i have to take you down point by point?

Grand_Moff_Gav
I thought it was quite good...sort of...Aquinas ...

Alliance
*ahem* false dualism.

Grand_Moff_Gav
I implore you to go on, point by point. smile

DigiMark007
Alliance summed it up well. I could "side" with some of those, but usually they'd have to be amended with more information, since the dichotomies he presents are needlessly dualistic. Life is rarely an either/or situation, and to perceive it as such is harmful and divisive.

Grand_Moff_Gav
I disagree, in these examples the base level is always this or that.



Bar that one actually....and some others.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Alliance
Do i have to take you down point by point? I love you.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by lord xyz
I love you.

Lets not reward arrogance, even if an argument is filled with contradictions and flaws its still expected for someone to respond to it with an argument of their own.

No marks are given for one line responses. EVER!

Fire Ninja
Theistic concept is subjective.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
Theistic concept is subjective. Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No marks are given for one line responses. EVER!

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alliance
*ahem* false dualism.

Why is it false?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is it false?

Exactly, you can't just make a statement, even if its true you have to qualify what your saying!

Mark Question
Naturalism is clearly a wiser prospect... It moves forward, not backwards like theism.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Mark Question
Naturalism is clearly a wiser prospect... It moves forward, not backwards like theism.

Go on...

chickenlover98
Originally posted by lord xyz
I love you.

LOL

lord xyz
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Lets not reward arrogance, even if an argument is filled with contradictions and flaws its still expected for someone to respond to it with an argument of their own.

No marks are given for one line responses. EVER! I award appropiate ridicule. It's accurate, short and to the point.

Also, that was more of a joke, seein as he was being arrogant, me "loving" him is, in effect, ridiculing him back with praise he was aiming for.

Take my post either of the two ways, DON'T see me as a cheerleader debator. I don't like that.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Then stop cheerleading.

Alliance
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is it false?

Because it prevents dumbed down and absolutist views of "naturalism" and "theism" that aren't even actually relevant in society.

Alliance
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I implore you to go on, point by point. smile

It simply extends to the language being used, the order in which things are presented, the two-year-old size 5 font and blue text, etc. Besides, knowing ush, he just copied and pasted them of some website he thinks was written by god.

For example, if this was actually non-biased the responses might actually reflect the questions being asked. Fabulous example:

Originally posted by ushomefree


To the "theist point" How is a god being conscious reflective in any way of man's consciousness?

To the "naturalist" point How can a process be wither conscious or nonconcess, they're not beings, just actions. Thus, words like "mindless" are just subtext saying "this answer is bad and you should not choose it"

Originally posted by ushomefree
Human beings have intrinsic value/dignity and rights.

1) God is the supremely valuable Being.

2) Human beings were produced by valueless processes.

Again...what does God being valuable have to do with us. I could just as naievely write "God is supremely valuble so you are worth sh*t"

as to #2, how does a "valueless" process impart in any way "valueless" on man? It doesn't its just a crock.


Originally posted by ushomefree
The universe is finely-tuned for human life (known as "the Goldilocks effect"—the universe is "just right" for life).

1) God is a wise, intelligent Designer.

2) All the cosmos constants just happened to be right; given enough time and/or many possible worlds, a finely-tuned world eventually emerged.

Again...#1since when does theism imply intelligent design? Since never.

#2..."just happend" makes is sound *gasp* illogical! Just like "God siad so". The problem is that naturalism doesn't imply happenstance, it simply implies the lack of active processses.


I can go on and on with these.
Besides...how many of you're posts in this thread are one liners?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I thought it was quite good...sort of...Aquinas ... Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I disagree, in these examples the base level is always this or that.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Bar that one actually....and some others. Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Exactly, you can't just make a statement, even if its true you have to qualify what your saying!
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Then stop cheerleading.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Alliance
Besides...how many of your'e posts in this thread are one liners?


Irony laughing

However, I'm not an upstanding member of this board with his own fanclub- people seem to look to you for wisdom, I just like to ensure your using this power responsibly, it doesnt apply to me. smile

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alliance
Do i have to take you down point by point?

I encourage that actually. Give it a try.

Explain to us how life suddenly "poofed" into existence from metals and gases.

Shakyamunison

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
None of the above.

Humans cannot understand the true nature of reality.



None of the above.

The universe is a complex chaotic system. There is not difference between life and non-life beyond the simple misunderstandings of humans.



None of the above.

See above.



# 2 and beyond our understanding.



None of the above.

Color, smells, sounds, tastes, textures are subjective human understanding of complex chaotic phenomena beyond our understanding.



None of the above.

We do not understand the true nature of reality.



None of the above.

Humans are egotistical and rarely capable of understanding their true place in the universe.



None of the above.

Morality is a human invention that allows us the cooperate and survive. To say a natural process was moral or non-moral is nonsense.



None of the above.

Time is an illusion. Space-time is a physical aspect of the universe. It is possible for the universe to have a finite beginning without having a time before.



None of the above.

The universe is a complex chaotic system. There is no difference between life and non-life beyond the simple misunderstandings of humans.



None of the above.

Life has always been.



None of the above.

Beauty is a subjective human experience.



None of the above.

Causality is the purpose of the universe. We are part of the Karma of the universe.


Good and evil are paths that humans can take. Nothing just happens; cause and effect is why we suffer.

You have a very narrow view on life I suggest you get out more and read some books.

You answer of "None of the above" for everything is pathetic and cop out.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You answer of "None of the above" for everything is pathetic and cop out.

Not at all. He/she did not include the correct answer in their list.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. He/she did not include the correct answer in their list.

He posed questions, presented 2 common beleifs regarding them, and left it up to the reader as to which one makes the most sense.

Alliance
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I encourage that actually. Give it a try.

Explain to us how life suddenly "poofed" into existence from metals and gases.

Explain how your god "poofed" everything.

Honestly, "metals and gasses"? You apparently know very little about the origin of the earth.

I can't offer you fact, only hypothesis on how it could have happened given what we know today. And why should I have to tell you when dozens of scientists are doing the research now? Too many people sit around and wait for people to "tell" them things without actually learning it themselves. Honestly, if I even spent the time to tell you, would you have the ability to critique what I'm saying as wrong or right?

All science can offer you logical responses as opposed to the irrational "god did it" (which, being based off of nothing in its own right is clearly a more incorrect answer). Most people learn in childhood that magic isn't real.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Life has always been.


That's a pretty strong assertion, now can you prove it?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Shakyamunison was pointing out that his choices aren't complete.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alliance
I can't offer you fact, only hypothesis on how it could have happened

Thank you. You need not go further.

Alliance
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Thank you. You need not go further.

What are you offering, ignorance?

Neither can you prove that when you step off a cliff, you will fall. Yet, science can give you that answer, but not others. Is that hypocrisay?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You answer of "None of the above" for everything is pathetic and cop out.
Or intelligent and discretionary.

Why choose between two FALSE false choices (the answers are wrong for the choices which are wrong) when only psychotic sychophants adhere to one or the other?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alliance
What are you offering, ignorance?


Or intelligent and discretionary.

Why choose between two FALSE false choices (the answers are wrong for the choices which are wrong) when only psychotic sychophants adhere to one or the other?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He posed questions, presented 2 common beleifs regarding them, and left it up to the reader as to which one makes the most sense.

Alliance
I edited and explained that neither choice makes sense. Even if the CHOICES made sense, the answers for each choice don't make sense either. Its nothing but bullshit.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Alliance
I can't offer you fact, only hypothesis on how it could have happened

Isn't God a possibility?

lord xyz
Shakya forgot to read "better explains".

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alliance
I edited and explained that neither choice makes sense. Even if the CHOICES made sense, the answers for each choice don't make sense either. Its nothing but bullshit.

Why are you so adamant and unflinching to call it all bullshit?

Did you read the entire list and give it thought?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He posed questions, presented 2 common beleifs regarding them, and left it up to the reader as to which one makes the most sense.

They were ignorant and biased.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's a pretty strong assertion, now can you prove it?

If there is no difference between life and death, then life and death has always been.

Alliance
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are you so adamant and unflinching to call it all bullshit?

Because I read it and understand its purpose.Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Isn't God a possibility?

Did i say it wasnt?

Maybe a giant orange birthed existance and gives it meaning.

Is god a reasonable possibility? No.

Grand_Moff_Gav
We should remember that there is no Science...when people say Science gives us answers, it is ofcourse untrue.

Scientists give us answers, but not all scientists agree...so the idea that there is a religion vs. science doesnt make sense, and this is where this is going.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Alliance
Is god a reasonable possibility? No.

Why not?

Alliance
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
We should remember that there is no Science...when people say Science gives us answers, it is ofcourse untrue.

Scientists give us answers, but not all scientists agree...so the idea that there is a religion vs. science doesnt make sense, and this is where this is going.

The thread is titled "theism" vs "naturalism" and you thought it was going where?

The question is, is it ever possible to know anythting completely...is there Truth?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Why not?

It would depend on the definition of the word god.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They were ignorant and biased.


No, not really. Those are the 2 most common ideas regarding existance.

A) God was behind it.

B) Everything is one big accident.

It wasn't biased at all.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Alliance
The thread is titled "theism" vs "naturalism" and you thought it was going where?

My point, is that there is no religion vs. science, there are no clear cut lines. Besides this debate strikes me as being more Philosophy of Religion than Religion and Science.


Originally posted by Alliance
The question is, is it ever possible to know anythting completely...is there Truth?

Thats what religion and science are here for right?


And whats with the aggression here? We're all friends right?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, not really. Those are the 2 most common ideas regarding existance.

A) God was behind it.

B) Everything is one big accident.

It wasn't biased at all.

Then you are biased.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It would depend on the definition of the word god.

I had a good week long argument about that...omnipotence in particular.

Alliance
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats what religion and science are here for right?
Thats not an answer.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
And whats with the aggression here? We're all friends right?
There's no agression. You can't hear my voice or see my face. You read agression because you want to.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats not an answer.
I thought it was rhetorical.

Originally posted by Alliance
There's no agression. You can't hear my voice or see my face. You read agression because you want to.

I don't want to read aggression, but even this response indicates a degree of anger...if there wasn't any I'd expect a reply like, "dont worry, im not trying to seem angry :P"

Alliance
laughing out loud

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Alliance
laughing

Im pathetic I know! laughing out loud

debbiejo
I lean towards Naturalism but with a different slant...An intelligent process.

Melcórë
I would say that I am a bit of an in-between. I find them both rather simplistic when considered alone.

Mark Question
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Go on...

The scientific method>God of the gaps.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are biased.

Why am I biased? Please point it out to me.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quiero Mota


Everything is one big accident.



more like every condition was just right, which made the big bang. apparently if something was off by a lil bit, nothing would have happened.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Mark Question
The scientific method>God of the gaps.

Powerful argument.

lord xyz
Originally posted by debbiejo
I lean towards Naturalism but with a different slant...An intelligent process. Yeah, there's a video for people like you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why am I biased? Please point it out to me.

Because all you know it the "Christian point of view". If you knew say Buddhism, you would be able to see the bias in the original post.

debbiejo
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, there's a video for people like you. Really?? laughing out loud

lord xyz
Originally posted by debbiejo
Really?? laughing out loud KdocQHsPCNM

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because all you know it the "Christian point of view". If you knew say Buddhism, you would be able to see the bias in the original post.

You can't blame a person for arguing what they know.

Alliance
But arguing that what you know is the only thing to know is the problem.

Besides, its pretty well documented that Quiero can't accurately grasp natrualistic concepts.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because all you know it the "Christian point of view". If you knew say Buddhism, you would be able to see the bias in the original post.

I'm not close minded. Ok, say "Baby Jesus" didn't create the universe...fine, something else did.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not close minded. Ok, say "Baby Jesus" didn't create the universe...fine, something else did.

I don't consider bias to mean closed minded.

For example: Was the universe created by god or by natural forces? That question has a bias to the idea that the universe was created. It does not give the option for the universe never being created.

debbiejo
Originally posted by lord xyz
KdocQHsPCNM As I've said before, little debbiejo doesn't have a sound card........crybaby


Could you print it out paragraph by paragraph for me...

ushomefree

debbiejo
Okay, thanks.......lol

Melcórë
It was funny, if simplistic.

Grand_Moff_Gav

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.