Richard Dawkins Vs Religion

  • #251
857
2
So... why use the word "faith" if what you really mean is "mental activity"? I suspect your not-so-hidden agenda is to promote the idea the everything is "faith-based", just in different amounts. Nice try! :rofl:
I was specifically talking about believing something to be true, but not knowing it for sure. When people on here claim that consciousness can be explained by physics (some day in the future), or that it has been demonstrated that it originates in the brain, or that it is inseperable from the brain, that there is no evidence for consciousness as something else than the brain, then these are absolutely statements of faith. I didnt even say religious faith, but now that ive seen more comments from SF, it actually is starting to look like religious faith(scientism). Personally i am no great fan of religion, the godly type or the scientism type.

Btw ur correct that i think almost all of our concepts can be seen as 'faith', except maybe the ones which we are sure about (that which we experience directly).

If you have no hidden agenda, then I assume you will readily agree to drop the contentious word "faith" and say what you really mean. Right? :rolleyes:
What hidden agenda would i have? Im not religious if thats what u mean, otherwise uve lost me. I have been saying what i wanted to say.
 
  • #252
857
2
Notice alteration of meaning of original quote to now include ‘truths’?
1 truth, 2 truths. Anything wrong with that?
I see my computer screen, and i also see a whole pack of snickers on my desk. Statements 1 is true, and statement 2 is also true.

Oh, so it is in the method is it? But not the scientific method promoted on this physics forum, correct? I suppose this method is the ‘true’ way then, yes?
It is currently not part of the scientific method, that is correct. Yes, the other method may lead to truths aswell. I dont claim that this other method is the only way to truth. There is nothing shocking in what i claim.
 
Last edited:
  • #253
Interposer
Then despite the denial of agenda made to Doc Al it is a method you wish to promote, yes?
 
  • #254
Interposer
I believe you have been exposed as masquarade fraud with agenda, yes?
 
  • #255
SF
PIT2 said:
Good point, and the same point can be made about the people who claim to experience god during meditation. Many others throughout the world and over a timespan of thousands of years have tried it and reported similar experiences. Even u could experience it urself, though it apparently takes many years of practice.
Which god(s) would I experience?

people have experienced alii, yahwii and jesii all the time, but those myhical figures contradict eachother.
allah sais jesus is not his son, but jesus claims he is.. and so on and so forth.
Contradictory! => something is wrong. Either the people are lying or the god(s) don't exist. I suspect both.
 
  • #256
857
2
Then despite the denial of agenda made to Doc Al it is a method you wish to promote, yes?
Are u joking?
 
  • #258
Interposer
At last we have the agenda and ware being promoted;
U can read Les Sleeths his own experience here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=883156#post883156

Are u joking?
You are joke; I testify to see god and response is;
Go ahead and describe it. Then tell how u have managed to do it. Then find many thousands of others, spanning back thousands of years, who have also seen the same thing u have, using the same method u have used.
Thus you turn table to establish requirement of ‘method used by thousands of others for thousands of years’ and so forth. Who says there must be a method at all and what method must it now be for acceptance as evidence?
Don’t be irrational, you must believe me. It’s all faith, it all evidence, it all good, remember?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #259
Interposer
You are a complete utter fraud who dare to ask if it a joke made about having agenda in post#256 and then in very next post#257 gives agenda for all to see. How simple to expose non-science/nonsense!
 
  • #260
857
2
At last we have the agenda and ware being promoted;
Thats called a 'hyperlink' :wink:
 
  • #261
Interposer
You are candidate worthy of ban consideration; promote non-science/nonsense, belittle what this physics forums represents and what science minded members value. Trouble stirrer who enjoy the torment, yes?
This should be possibly my last post in thread so hopelessly off topic no small thanks to yourself wishing to promote hidden agenda at last revealed. I have done what needed doing to expose your wordplay games and pseudo science silliness, thank you.
 
  • #262
Evo
Mentor
23,112
2,463
This thread has been going in circles too long.
 

Related Threads for: Richard Dawkins Vs Religion

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
18K
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
Replies
148
Views
13K
Replies
150
Views
21K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
Top