Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
2. No, you shouldn't. Its their conversation. To be part of their conversation you have to be a member of their club.

Good, you can now stop criticizing the Democrats, the Middle East, and every other foreign body which you don't like.

SilverMK2 wrote:

dogma wrote:No you aren't. If you were actually interested in an answer, instead of trolling and thread derailment, you wouldn't have half the people posting here on ignore.

At least he can't just lock the thread any more

No but CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT can!

Question, I've read nearly all ten pages but I cannot say I once saw a link of Hawkings proof.

Could someone post it? I am curious.

I assure you by my good word I am not trolling. I just can't grasp how you disprove the supernatural.

*Edit* saw the link I am spit shining the glasses as we speak.

Frazzled wrote:
No, again thats your problem not mine. Its means we're saved and you're ed. WE're not superior, we just got on the lifeboat and you said "what ocean?"

I'm not superior to you, I'm merely better educated, better paid, more perceptive, more attractive, younger, and generally more popular.

Is that roughly the argument being made here? Because that's what it seems like to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowbrand wrote:Question, I've read nearly all ten pages but I cannot say I once saw a link of Hawkings proof.

Could someone post it? I am curious.

I assure you by my good word I am not trolling. I just can't grasp how you disprove the supernatural.

*Edit* saw the link I am spit shining the glasses as we speak.

I imagine that he is taking the positivist tack, which is basically what I mentioned earlier: all evidence which does not support the existence of a thing is evidence that the thing does not exist.

Yeah Dogma I think you got it. Their view means they get heaven ours means we burn in hell but really their both equally good views.

4M2A wrote:Yeah Dogma I think you got it. Their view means they get heaven ours means we burn in hell but really their both equally good views.

All I can say is

4M2A wrote:Yeah Dogma I think you got it. Their view means they get heaven ours means we burn in hell but really their both equally good views.

lol.

Its worth remembering that Christianity is not itself directed towards exclusive salvation, despite what some people happen to believe.

dogma wrote:Its worth remembering that Christianity is not itself directed towards exclusive salvation, despite what some people happen to believe.

I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven. This outlook is based upon the definition of Christianity, found here, as well as the word Christian, found here. While it may be slightly off, that is the general meaning of Christianity -- if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?

As for a user earlier in the thread saying that Hawking cannot say "Heaven can't exist" as he lacks the empirical and objective knowledge to do so (and I paraphrase) -- first such evidence must be supplied first in order to establish the basis that Heaven can exist. In order to claim that it does, you must demonstrate a number of things, not limited to discovering the components of the human spirit and how it can travel faster than anything in the universe (it is implied that Heaven is outside the bounds of our reality, thus, our universe) as well as proof that such a place CAN exist in the fashion described by religious texts.

The Airman wrote:I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven.

I think that's incorrect. Christianity is the belief in the divinity of Christ. You can be "Christ-like" without being Christian.

Muslims teach that Jesus was a prophet and that his teachings should be followed (insofar as they don't contradict with later prophets, namely Mohammad), but they aren't Christian because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ.

The Airman wrote:if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?

For every Christian there is another that would say that the former isn't really a Christian. It isn't that homogeneous a group with a wide array of expressions. The "True Scottsman" argument is not a very good one and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

biccat wrote:I think that's incorrect. Christianity is the belief in the divinity of Christ. You can be "Christ-like" without being Christian.

Muslims teach that Jesus was a prophet and that his teachings should be followed (insofar as they don't contradict with later prophets, namely Mohammad), but they aren't Christian because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ.

I'm operating off of the definitions of Christianity, which believes in the divinity of Jesus. I didn't specify that this was so because I thought it was understood. Your argument is forgetting that Islam requires a belief in Allah who sent his prophet, Muhammad, to Earth. Or at least that's what I'm gathering so far -- correct me if I've been misled.

Ahtman wrote:

The Airman wrote:if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?

For every Christian there is another that would say that the former isn't really a Christian. It isn't that homogeneous a group with a wide array of expressions. The "True Scottsman" argument is not a very good one and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

Sects, you mean? I'm simply establishing the basis that Christians share the same baseline belief. I understand this is wrong in a few instances, as Christianity encompasses a wide variety of ideas, but I don't see why I should make such notes when I'm already using widely-accepted definitions (I consider Merriam-Webster to be widely accepted, though there are a few iffy definitions -- the one they had for 'Atheism' was wildly inaccurate). The point I'm trying to make as a whole is Christianity is a path to salvation, thus should be considered as such. I'm by no means saying it is THE path to salvation (I'm an atheist. Take a guess what I think about it :| ) but that it is one pathway society perceives as such.

If my basis is entirely incorrect, feel free to let me know; criticism and correction helps one to become a finer individual.

The Airman wrote:
I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven.

Some Christians believe that, sure, but it is hardly definitive.

The Airman wrote:
While it may be slightly off, that is the general meaning of Christianity -- if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?

Sure, but what Christ's teaching constitute is a matter of great debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
For every Christian there is another that would say that the former isn't really a Christian. It isn't that homogeneous a group with a wide array of expressions. The "True Scottsman" argument is not a very good one and doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Airman wrote: (I consider Merriam-Webster to be widely accepted, though there are a few iffy definitions -- the one they had for 'Atheism' was wildly inaccurate).

If Merriam-Webster is wildly inaccurate in one case, then why are they not wildly inaccurate in other cases?

What he's teaching is irrelevant, just that he's often held in high regard.

The Airman wrote:What he's teaching is irrelevant, just that he's often held in high regard.

Then why did you explicitly mention Christ's teachings?

The Airman wrote:

dogma wrote:Its worth remembering that Christianity is not itself directed towards exclusive salvation, despite what some people happen to believe.

I disagree, Dogma. Christianity is based upon the teachings of a figure called Jesus, unsurprisingly called Christ. You're to follow in his example to remain "pure", and thus, achieve salvation and earn your reward of a seat in heaven. This outlook is based upon the definition of Christianity, found here, as well as the word Christian, found here. While it may be slightly off, that is the general meaning of Christianity -- if you don't follow Christ's teachings, then are you a Christian?

As for a user earlier in the thread saying that Hawking cannot say "Heaven can't exist" as he lacks the empirical and objective knowledge to do so (and I paraphrase) -- first such evidence must be supplied first in order to establish the basis that Heaven can exist. In order to claim that it does, you must demonstrate a number of things, not limited to discovering the components of the human spirit and how it can travel faster than anything in the universe (it is implied that Heaven is outside the bounds of our reality, thus, our universe) as well as proof that such a place CAN exist in the fashion described by religious texts.

I would like to place the input that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Supporting my own statement would require a lengthy explanation of my beliefs.

dogma wrote:

The Airman wrote:What he's teaching is irrelevant, just that he's often held in high regard.

Then why did you explicitly mention Christ's teachings?

Because I explicitly mean that his teachings are generally held in a high regard and thus they believe in Jesus as a means to, eventually, salvation. If Christianity cannot be defined, then simply say so and let's get on with our day.

Kasrkai wrote:I would like to place the input that nothing material can be applied to spirit.

Then there is no observable and objective way of determining the existence of spirits, thus your point holds no weight rationally.

The Airman wrote:
Because I explicitly mean that his teachings are generally held in a high regard and thus they believe in Jesus as a means to, eventually, salvation. If Christianity cannot be defined, then simply say so and let's get on with our day.

Then you meant that Christ's teachings were central to the question at hand, which means you either lied, or didn't know what you were saying.

In any case, Christ's teachings can be defined, but it would take a book, or many books, as the argument's 2000 year life might indicate to anyone who isn't an idiot.

The Airman wrote:
Then there is no observable and objective way of determining the existence of spirits, thus your point holds no weight rationally.

That isn't what "rational" means.

The Airman wrote:

dogma wrote:

The Airman wrote:What he's teaching is irrelevant, just that he's often held in high regard.

Then why did you explicitly mention Christ's teachings?

Because I explicitly mean that his teachings are generally held in a high regard and thus they believe in Jesus as a means to, eventually, salvation. If Christianity cannot be defined, then simply say so and let's get on with our day.

Kasrkai wrote:I would like to place the input that nothing material can be applied to spirit.

Then there is no observable and objective way of determining the existence of spirits, thus your point holds no weight rationally.

I would like to repeat that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Observation is material. To imagine an afterlife is to try and make a sixth sense. Or try to imagine a color outside of our spectrum of observable light. Metaphorically speaking.

Kasrkai wrote:I would like to repeat that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Observation is material. To imagine an afterlife is to try and make a sixth sense. Or try to imagine a color outside of our spectrum of observable light. Metaphorically speaking.

Then how do you know it exists?

dogma wrote:Then you meant that Christ's teachings were central to the question at hand, which means you either lied, or didn't know what you were saying.

In any case, Christ's teachings can be defined, but it would take a book, or many books, as the argument's 2000 year life might indicate to anyone who isn't an idiot.

Look up the word 'Christian' and get back to me.

dogma wrote:That isn't what "rational" means.

Ra·tion·al
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible; 5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers.

Rea·son
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.; 2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.

I don't mean to be obtuse (though I'm sure you would strongly disagree), but isn't the belief in something with no evidence not reasonable, thus not rational? I'll admit right now that I'm not exactly an intellectual, but this seems to me what 'rational' means.

The Airman wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:I would like to repeat that nothing material can be applied to spirit.
Observation is material. To imagine an afterlife is to try and make a sixth sense. Or try to imagine a color outside of our spectrum of observable light. Metaphorically speaking.

Then how do you know it exists?

Faith.

The Airman wrote:
Look up the word 'Christian' and get back to me.

Hilarious.

Are you under the impression that dictionaries, or any indirect source for that matter, have anything to do with argument regarding what a thing is?

The Airman wrote:
I don't mean to be obtuse (though I'm sure you would strongly disagree), but isn't the belief in something with no evidence not reasonable, thus not rational? I'll admit right now that I'm not exactly an intellectual, but this seems to me what 'rational' means.

No, rational relates only to reason. I can have reason to believe in X without evidence that X is real.

For example, I might believe my mother loves me because that belief helps me get up in the morning, and I want to do that, even if my mother does not actually love me; therefore the belief has utility per reason.

dogma wrote:No, rational relates only to reason. I can have reason to believe in X without evidence that X is real.

Please provide examples of what is reasonable when it comes to the existence of things and places we can't interact with in the natural world.

dogma wrote:No, rational relates only to reason. I can have reason to believe in X without evidence that X is real.

For example, I might believe my mother loves me because that belief helps me get up in the morning, and I want to do that, even if my mother does not actually love me; therefore the belief has utility per reason.

But, even if your mother does not actually love you, to rationally come to the conclusion that she does means there'd have to be some sort of evidence that suggested she did indeed love you.

The Airman wrote:
Please provide examples of what is reasonable when it comes to the existence of things and places we can't interact with in the natural world.

If my belief in God allows me to continue living, and I want to live, then believing in God is rational.

Its a generalized form of Pascale's Wager.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
But, even if your mother does not actually love you, to rationally come to the conclusion that she does means there'd have to be some sort of evidence that suggested she did indeed love you.

Nah, it just has to be possible. So, if some mothers love their children I might conclude that my mother does because I want to believe my mother does in order to continue with my life.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
But, even if your mother does not actually love you, to rationally come to the conclusion that she does means there'd have to be some sort of evidence that suggested she did indeed love you.

Nah, it just has to be possible. So, if some mothers love their children I might conclude that my mother does because I want to believe my mother does in order to continue with my life.

Ah, but there is evidence then. The observation that some mothers love their children.

Stephen Hawkings has an opinion?

Stop the presses.

Fafnir wrote:I'm aware of the peanut butter joke. I spent a while laughing at that video.

'Cogito ergo sum' is a logcal conclusion to various existential questions. It doesn't go into explore any depths, but rather accept the rules of the world around the individual based on their individual perception of it.
Souls on the other hand, are just an abstract concept with no real logical base.

People have reported seeing ghosts and apparitions, the reasoning behind that may vary as either delusion or some other sort of mental trickery however there may be times that actual ghosts exist. If a ghost exists then it is possible for souls to exist seeing as though ghosts are supposed to be earth bound souls.

I mean Descarte was on to something with the Cogito Ergo Sum discovery, but he was stranded in a cabin alone for some period of time before he came up with it and he pretty much said that he knows he exists because of universal standards and truths such as '2+2=4'. Sure, that's cool but if the possiblity of infinite numbers of parallel universes is to be true then its possible for '2+2=5' in some cases as opposed to '2+2=4'. In which case we were wrong about an infinite number of parallel universes being present or we were wrong about being real.

Us being real is an abstract concept and we really can't prove it besides believing it to be true for some arbitrary reason. 2+2=4 at all times on Earth so I know that Earth is real, I could accept that or I could look at it and say that it was a really good bit of programming as well. Can't really prove that we are or aren't a computer program but most people tend to believe that we are an organic life force for some arbitrary reason.

I believe that ghosts exist and therefor souls exist, that's a nice little arbitrary reason right there. Its based in logic as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Airman wrote:

dogma wrote:No, rational relates only to reason. I can have reason to believe in X without evidence that X is real.

Please provide examples of what is reasonable when it comes to the existence of things and places we can't interact with in the natural world.

I can believe in the good of mankind despite the fact that there's a messload of evil ot there.

I'm wondering if The Airman is a certain Cynical Brit, or a follower thereof.

dogma wrote:I'm wondering if The Airman is a certain Cynical Brit, or a follower thereof.

I don't know, but I find it funny that you're arguing for the possible existence of something despite the lack of physical proof funny in this context. I'm talking about your sig BTW.