Claiming you know Vs. actually Knowing

[_dartagnan]

Mercury I’m afraid you’re being disingenuous and just as pompous as the religious zealots you wish to demean. You speak of things provable and unprovable, but you fail to mention the “fact” that the scientist who proposed this “God gene” theory, Dr. Hamer, admits it is just a theory, which means it is not a fact. Further, he doesn’t agree with your dogmatic conclusions.

== Faith in a God is a useless construct to the individual.

Not according to Hamer, who said religious belief tends to make people more optimistic, which in turn means they will be healthier and more likely to procreate. He also says his studies do not undermine the existence of a personal God. His findings are not incompatible with this: "If there's a God, there's a God. Just knowing what brain chemicals are involved in acknowledging that is not going to change the fact."

==Humanity is screwed until we depart from the useless behavior in believing things unseen. Until we ditch faith we cannot progress as a species.

This is the elitist mentality that makes you no better than the “we have the only true Church” crowd. You actually think your faith in non-belief, places you at the cutting edge of human evolution! Amazing. And what scientific study “proves” this? None, which makes your entire rant one pile of nonsense and wishful thinking. Stop pretending you have science on your side; this type of thinking represents a skid-mark on the underpants of science.

== Rational thought has been around for a while now.

It has been around just as long as religion. The two are not mutually exclusive.

== It works better than reliance on an unseen, unknowable unquantifiable "whatever" that those in religion have constructed elaborate (yes, even the "simple" explanations are elaborate) stories around to ensure they are not afraid of dying. But if you like fairy tales that make you sleep at night because you have an irrational fear of the unknown (what happens after you die) then I guess there is utility in faith. That being said, its still pretty useless.

This is the epitome of reductionist thinking, which I would venture to say is just as much a defect in the evolution of human thinking as anything else.

== Here is the thing GIMR, the blood clot in your head exists. This can be proven.

But electrons cannot be seen, yet we “know” they exist. By your logic we should reject that belief. There is so much in science that we assume to be true out of necessity. Is this all due to one giant gene defect?

== You can see love, which deflates your argument. If you cannot see love then it does not exist.

You cannot see love because love is an emotion. GIMR was correct in that you can see the product of love but then even in this case, how do you really know it was love that produced it? This goes back to circular reasoning just the same as religious confirmation. Love is an emotion. Love is something you feel and it is an expression based on a feeling. You don’t see love when you look into your daughter’s eyes. You might think you do, but a real scientist would have to conclude that all you’re really looking at is are a couple of corneas and pupils.

I agree with some of your points about organized religion, but your broad brush attack and your jump to the opposite extreme of the spectrum is uncalled for. Stop pretending you're just followng science. Your followng your own brand of science that is hardly conclusive "fact."

edit: and interesting article - "Science and Religion Share Fascination in Things Unseen"- LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html

[_Sam Harris]

Merc, I'm sorry but you are wrong. You cannot see love. You can only see the effects of it. There goes all your rationale.

I'm sorry GIMR but you are wrong. You can see love, which deflates your argument. If you cannot see love then it does not exist.

God is not love. God is pain, misery and oppression. God is racism, mysogyny and pain. God is a false construct you use to identify unknowns you wish were true.

I am not going to convince you of this just as I could not convince a schitzohrenic that he shouldn't cut himself to make "the spirits" go away while on my 2 year waste of time in the service of a corporation masquerading as a religion..

Merc, I know you have been using this board as "cheap therapy", but I think it's high time you invested in yourself. You're worth it, my dear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

This is what you're doing. Ray and Cog do the same thing. You claim it's they who are the problem, when the real problem is internal, the real problem lies with you. You mask your pain with a few scattered words that you think sound intelligent here and there, and when your constructs get squashed, you resort back to your typical immature anti BS. You are struggling with the reality of an LDS family and the pain of, and I quote myself, "a s****y Mormon childhood". Grow up and deal with the adult reality of the fact that not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion about the church as you did, and just because they didn't doesn't mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with them. The fact that you would assume this might indicate that there is something intrinsically wrong with you, in fact I would lay some money on that, because that would mean I could go shopping today. Shoes, anyone? I saw some patent leather red Mary Janes at payless I wanted. $12 bucks.

Dartangan was right, you are just as extremist as those you condemn. You remind me of the fat dirty little schoolyard bullies from elementary school, you really don't have anything backing you except air and issues. Deal with your s***, man! Stop bringing it here in the form of useless conversations and ad-homs against Mormons. I disagree with LDS inc wholeheartedly but I'm sorry, you need to quit it with insulting everyone who believes in the "unseen", just because you can't get over your personal emotional hangups. That's your problem.

And if you still want cheap therapy, each state has government-run psychiatric facilities. Not institutions, but people you can go to who will talk to you. It can be free, or on a sliding scale. And who knows, you might be better of than me, and actually have a job with insurance, and you can go to some nice posh private office and pay $20-$50 copy per sitting, to tell this person your woes. We are not your therapists, stop dumping your mental nuclear waste here. I could see if you were actually trying to heal like some here, you have chosen to be sick. You have chosen to be a nuisance and to be angry and to be hateful. Get some help with that, because it's not healthy. Cheap therapy, indeed. I think that's just lazy and irresponsible, and you compromise the entire board by your actions.

And no, you cannot see love. You can see the manifestation of the emotions, and I wonder, just reading your posts, if you know what love is. Seriously...is love just personal validation to you, or is love something deeper? Can you love someone who chooses not to do what you think they should do with religion? Can you love someone who might even spurn you because of it? Because if you can, then you're better than them. But if all you can do is come here and crap from the brain onto the keyboard, then you are no better, and you have no right to put yourself above anyone.


Dartangan, thank you.

[_Sam Harris]

Someone needs to learn the difference between the fundamentalist version of God and the real-life version of God. It's all in the worldview...

[_The Nehor]

Overlooking the Bednar thread the irritating assurance of knowledge concerning the unknowable makes me uneasy. Remember folks, just because you say something is known by you does not make it true.

The Mormon method of proving something true is an exercise in circular reasoning and convincing oneself that obvious contradictions do not exist. Saying that you know joe saw god in the grove does not make it so. The ONLY thing that makes it so is hard evidence. Emotional experiences do not confirm truth. They just confirm that there was a shift in your brain chemistry, an easy thing to induce in a gullible party.

Not true at all. If nothing without hard evidence is true then virtually nothing is true. I can't provide hard evidence as to what time I got up this morning. Want to dispute with me over it? It can't be true without HARD EVIDENCE. Calling what I call the Spirit an emotional experience is to not know the experience.

[_Mercury]

Someone needs to learn the difference between the fundamentalist version of God and the real-life version of God. It's all in the worldview...

This is assinine. I am merely stating that there is a difference between knowing something and claiming you know something.

Your pissed because, sadly I am showing ou that God is a figment of your imagination.

Do not, under any circumstances get me wrong on ths point. I do not need therapy. Your tirade on my character on a theological matter is now pesonal because you have no answers to my questions.

We'll leave it at that. I am not going to say anything else on this matter as you are quick to use the "get help, you are disturbed" b***s***.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Then again, your imaginary friend is telling you that you are in teh right. Can't argue with that I guess.

[_Mercury]

Overlooking the Bednar thread the irritating assurance of knowledge concerning the unknowable makes me uneasy. Remember folks, just because you say something is known by you does not make it true.

The Mormon method of proving something true is an exercise in circular reasoning and convincing oneself that obvious contradictions do not exist. Saying that you know joe saw god in the grove does not make it so. The ONLY thing that makes it so is hard evidence. Emotional experiences do not confirm truth. They just confirm that there was a shift in your brain chemistry, an easy thing to induce in a gullible party.

Not true at all. If nothing without hard evidence is true then virtually nothing is true. I can't provide hard evidence as to what time I got up this morning. Want to dispute with me over it? It can't be true without HARD EVIDENCE. Calling what I call the Spirit an emotional experience is to not know the experience.

Your silly semantics games are an attempt at justifying your denial of the fact I made a valid point.

You got up on time. That is hard to dispute as i am sure you get up every day. How often does hard evidence for God come accost? Never.

[_Jersey Girl]

Is the world and human relationships that black and white? What you think of as "seeing love" is your interpretation of what you see. Plenty of people fake. Can you read people's minds?

What do their words and gestures mean?

Are they conning you? Using you?
Trying to placate you to avoid conflict of some sort?
Are they simly acting like they love you because they're dependent on you in some way?

You've traded one absolute for another. Try the grey area. Grey is a good thing.

[_Sam Harris]

Someone needs to learn the difference between the fundamentalist version of God and the real-life version of God. It's all in the worldview...

This is assinine. I am merely stating that there is a difference between knowing something and claiming you know something.

Your pissed because, sadly I am showing ou that God is a figment of your imagination.

Do not, under any circumstances get me wrong on ths point. I do not need therapy. Your tirade on my character on a theological matter is now pesonal because you have no answers to my questions.

We'll leave it at that. I am not going to say anything else on this matter as you are quick to use the "get help, you are disturbed" b***s***.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Then again, your imaginary friend is telling you that you are in teh right. Can't argue with that I guess.

LOL, are we foaming at the mouth again? Where did you PROVE that God is a figment of my imagination? All you have done is rant and make rediculous statements. I'm not ashamed of myself, I'm not the one making jokes about someone's mortality, and then retreating with white flags when called on it.

My "imaginary friend" isn't telling me anything. I don't need for God to tell me that you have some issues. Like I said, your sh***y Mormon childhood is not an excuse. Get over it or get help.

[_Sam Harris]

Someone needs to learn the difference between the fundamentalist version of God and the real-life version of God. It's all in the worldview...

This is assinine. I am merely stating that there is a difference between knowing something and claiming you know something.

Your pissed because, sadly I am showing ou that God is a figment of your imagination.

Do not, under any circumstances get me wrong on ths point. I do not need therapy. Your tirade on my character on a theological matter is now pesonal because you have no answers to my questions.

We'll leave it at that. I am not going to say anything else on this matter as you are quick to use the "get help, you are disturbed" b***s***.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Then again, your imaginary friend is telling you that you are in teh right. Can't argue with that I guess.

See the bolded part. You still failed to unveil your "great plan". All you've done is attack people who believe in God, and blame God for all that is wrong with the world. You haven't even brought forth a theological matter, you've erected a wet soap box, and now it's collapsing under your weight.

[_Mr. Coffee]

LOL, are we foaming at the mouth again? Where did you PROVE that God is a figment of my imagination?

GIMR, for all of your education and you resort to a "prove a negitive" fallacy? You're calling on someone to prove that something for which there is no physical evidence to not existing, sweety. Think about that for a bit.