- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Theists and Atheists
I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html
It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.[U]Quote (kowalskil @ April 04 2011,03:13) Theists and Atheists I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html
It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.[U]
Arguments are for the sake of discovery, they are needed.All Realizations come from the falsification of previous insights
Hi Kowalski,
FYI that God exists cannot be proven via logic or mathematics. The existance of God can only be realized in an individual via relevation. The solution is to co-exist in peace. If you believe in God and believe he can give you the peace of mind to manage this practical solution you are doing well. If you don't believe in God and believe through your own moral or ethical value system the that you can co-exist in a peaceful manner then you are doing well. The solution is clear. Everyone walking the path to that solution in something akin to harmony is the work of individuals who want the solution to exist in reality.Love and Respect,
WispringQuote Peaceful coexistence and mutual respect, between theists and atheist, is a small part of a much broader issue. Scientists also disagree with each other, but they have established a method for dealing with controversies. What prevents theologists from following their example? Something has befallen you which causes you to hold a sincere belief in an Imaginary Friend, the existence of which is supported by no unambiguous evidence whatever. Why should you not be considered a candidate for treatment by mental health professionals? Maybe your functioning is high enough and your crazy celestial conspiracy theory sufficiently irrelevant on a day-to-day basis that this delusion does not put the rest of us in any peril at your hands, but nevertheless, it is you who appears to believe in things that are apparently not really there.
Would you say my tendency to have you incarcerated in a mental asylum the first time you call someone a “sinner” or anything equally socially backward is unreasonable?
Why?
I'm not convinced you are entering into the spirit of things on this forum. You have posted only 6 times here (as at 4 April 2011) and four of those times were when you started a new thread. In none of those new threads have you engaged in any kind of correspondence: your opening post was your only appearance, you cut and ran.
Are we supposed to be your research subjects? Do you have ethics committee permission to experiment on us?
Please engage! I would really like to see how you defend your belief system, a religion that I consider immoral.
Stuart
Stu,April wrote:[/quote]
Stuart wroteQuote
Something has befallen you which causes you to hold a sincere belief in an Imaginary Friend, the existence of which is supported by no unambiguous evidence whatever. Why should you not be considered a candidate for treatment by mental health professionals? Maybe your functioning is high enough and your crazy celestial conspiracy theory sufficiently irrelevant on a day-to-day basis that this delusion does not put the rest of us in any peril at your hands, but nevertheless, it is you who appears to believe in things that are apparently not really there.Would you say my tendency to have you incarcerated in a mental asylum the first time you call someone a “sinner” or anything equally socially backward is unreasonable?
Why?
I'm not convinced you are entering into the spirit of things on this forum. You have posted only 6 times here (as at 4 April 2011) and four of those times were when you started a new thread. In none of those new threads have you engaged in any kind of correspondence: your opening post was your only appearance, you cut and ran.
Are we supposed to be your research subjects? Do you have ethics committee permission to experiment on us?
Please engage! I would really like to see how you defend your belief system, a religion that I consider immoral.
Stuart
I do not think that my religion is immoral.
Ludwik
.
.Hi Ludwik,
Shalom. If you do not interact with people on the thread you created the thread will not continue. I realize you are looking for information and view-points to postulate a working solution. Are you using a type of “sampling” method to derive usable concepts to present your own solution. Is this the rational scientific method you are utilizing to gather “data”? Kind of like professional marketers? What is your objective or desired outcome?With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (kowalskil @ April 05 2011,14:13) Stu,April wrote:[/quote]
Stuart wroteQuote
Something has befallen you which causes you to hold a sincere belief in an Imaginary Friend, the existence of which is supported by no unambiguous evidence whatever. Why should you not be considered a candidate for treatment by mental health professionals? Maybe your functioning is high enough and your crazy celestial conspiracy theory sufficiently irrelevant on a day-to-day basis that this delusion does not put the rest of us in any peril at your hands, but nevertheless, it is you who appears to believe in things that are apparently not really there.Would you say my tendency to have you incarcerated in a mental asylum the first time you call someone a “sinner” or anything equally socially backward is unreasonable?
Why?
I'm not convinced you are entering into the spirit of things on this forum. You have posted only 6 times here (as at 4 April 2011) and four of those times were when you started a new thread. In none of those new threads have you engaged in any kind of correspondence: your opening post was your only appearance, you cut and ran.
Are we supposed to be your research subjects? Do you have ethics committee permission to experiment on us?
Please engage! I would really like to see how you defend your belief system, a religion that I consider immoral.
Stuart
I do not think that my religion is immoral.
Ludwik
.
.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that your responsibility for your own wrongdoing can be removed from you through an historical human sacrifice. You accept that a god can demand compulsory love on pain of punishment. You do not appear to object to the concept of non-stop divine surveillance of all humans.Can I also assume you think it is OK to teach all this to children, without warning them that it is only stuff you reckon is true but that none of it is substantiated by unambiguous evidence?
There are four arguments in support of the contention that christianity is an immoral proposition. The most ethical thing about it is that it is not really true!
Stuart
Stu are you still here arguing against a God that supposedly doesn't exist.
I mean, why waste your time?
I can tell you now that you will not receive a Nobel Prize for arguing about something you do not believe exists.
You are better off discovering something than discovering nothing within your limited range.BTW, even with your limited range, your mission is so far a failure. Might be time to look at something else. Have you tried bowls? All you need is a white uniform, and some balls.
Quote (Stu @ April 05 2011,17:37) Quote (kowalskil @ April 05 2011,14:13) Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,18:28)
Stuart wroteQuote
Something has befallen you which causes you to hold a sincere belief in an Imaginary Friend, the existence of which is supported by no unambiguous evidence whatever. Why should you not be considered a candidate for treatment by mental health professionals? Maybe your functioning is high enough and your crazy celestial conspiracy theory sufficiently irrelevant on a day-to-day basis that this delusion does not put the rest of us in any peril at your hands, but nevertheless, it is you who appears to believe in things that are apparently not really there.Would you say my tendency to have you incarcerated in a mental asylum the first time you call someone a “sinner” or anything equally socially backward is unreasonable?
Why?
I'm not convinced you are entering into the spirit of things on this forum. You have posted only 6 times here (as at 4 April 2011) and four of those times were when you started a new thread. In none of those new threads have you engaged in any kind of correspondence: your opening post was your only appearance, you cut and ran.
Are we supposed to be your research subjects? Do you have ethics committee permission to experiment on us?
Please engage! I would really like to see how you defend your belief system, a religion that I consider immoral.
Stuart
I do not think that my religion is immoral.
Ludwik
.
.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that your responsibility for your own wrongdoing can be removed from you through an historical human sacrifice. You accept that a god can demand compulsory love on pain of punishment. You do not appear to object to the concept of non-stop divine surveillance of all humans.Can I also assume you think it is OK to teach all this to children, without warning them that it is only stuff you reckon is true but that none of it is substantiated by unambiguous evidence?
There are four arguments in support of the contention that christianity is an immoral proposition. The most ethical thing about it is that it is not really true!
Stuart
Evolution and Ethics? If evolution is not progressive how is it you consider ethics as being evolved ?Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:50) Evolution and Ethics? If evolution is not progressive how is it you consider ethics as being evolved ?
Define progressive, and we can see if your use of the word lines up with evolution by natural selection or not.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2011,10:16) Stu are you still here arguing against a God that supposedly doesn't exist.
I mean, why waste your time?
I can tell you now that you will not receive a Nobel Prize for arguing about something you do not believe exists.
You are better off discovering something than discovering nothing within your limited range.BTW, even with your limited range, your mission is so far a failure. Might be time to look at something else. Have you tried bowls? All you need is a white uniform, and some balls.
Plenty of balls t8, I promise you.I assume you are familiar with the concept of putting yourself in another person's shoes for the purpose of discussion. Perhaps I should not assume that as I can't remember you putting yourself in my shoes with any sincerity. Perhaps that is too dangerous a concession to make to reality, albeit intended only temporarily. Despite that, I am happy to pretend your Imaginary Friend exists for the purposes of discussion. I accept that as something which will be necessary on a forum full of people who worship things that are not really there, but it is an incidentally interesting point that christians expect everyone to do this in public. They talk about god doing this or that, but not a single one of them ever stops to think that perhaps others have no clue what they mean by that three-letter word. After all, no one has ever seen a god. Do you ever stop to think whether others believe you to be mad for talking in commonplace terms about something that appears to exist only in your own head?
Regarding my beliefs, the Good News of Jesus is that he was probably a nice bloke but all the supernatural nonsense and political prophecy-fulfilling historical fiction of the Judeo-christian scriptures is just that: fiction.
There are other works of fiction that deal with ethical questions, including propositions that are immoral. I imagine you would not consider it absurd for me to discuss those. In this case though people really live as if the fictional and immoral proposition of christianity is a real and defendable choice.
Stuart
Hi Kowalski,
I gave you a doable solution. What is your purpose and objective for posting if you do not respond? If you haven't figured it out yet, Stu is athiest and not shy about it. Try using the knowledge you have gained in life to co-exist peacefully with him. Even if it only virtually on a web-site post board. Unless you post more information about the questions I have asked of you this will be my last post. Be warned if you decide to debate with Stu it will be a time-consuming process. By the way, have you read the content of any of the threads on this web-site? I will tell you honestly, to me it appears that you are data-farming. I have presented what data I have to answer your initial post. It's a matter of practicality and requires a practical answer. How about answering my questions? Shalom.
With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ April 05 2011,16:26) Hi Ludwik,
Shalom. If you do not interact with people on the thread you created the thread will not continue. I realize you are looking for information and view-points to postulate a working solution. Are you using a type of “sampling” method to derive usable concepts to present your own solution. Is this the rational scientific method you are utilizing to gather “data”? Kind of like professional marketers? What is your objective or desired outcome?With Love and Respect,
Wispring
My goal is to gain knowledge, and to promote a discussion. My tentative ideas were identified by the LK initials. The topic is interesting and important.Ludwik
.What is interesting about it?
Theists believe in Imaginary Friends. They expect atheists to respect their delusions but they do not respect the concept of the burden of proof.
I feel no particular conflict with theists. If they need my help in their struggle to distinguish reality from fantasy then I am here to help.
The only problem I do have is when they insist that their immoral belief system have some special place in the lives of others who can see already that it is nonsense.
Stuart
Hi kowalksil,
This is from your on-line paper:Quote That is how I became aware that we humans live in two different worlds, material and spiritual.
This awareness that you achieved and the way you express it in words already imply two worlds that are either a.)diametrically opposed or b.)two world-views that should not overlap one another. Simply through this word usage you make your road to peaceful co-existance a difficult one.
On the other hand or by taking the middle path my awareness is that we co-exist on one world with many world-views. Therefore, unity is already a given and not something to be resolved. Peaceful unity is not a given. Theology is the study of God(s). Science is the study of creation that theologians believe was created by God and that many scientists believe was created by God. Theology from a scientific perspective is a soft science like psychology in that it deals with relationships between beings, moral codes and behavioural models. The only real difference between a professional and non-professional anyone given congruent levels of knowledge and ability in any given field of endeavour is that one is paid and the other is not. One persues a profession in order to achieve results one expects to achieve while being involved with any given profession. While using the word professional to decribe ones activites is certainly professional, it in no way denigrates non-professional involvement when performed by a non-professional of congruent knowledge or ability. Many scientific breakthroughs and innovations have been brought into the world by non-professionals.
Quote Mathematics is like theology
Mathematics is a science. It is a study of numbers and numbering systems and their application in both the physical and non-physical world. The science of mathematics is integral to most if not all other sciences. Here is a good article that explains this.
Is math a science?
I will say to that semantically the verbiage you used in section one and two of you paper guarantees that you will get a flood of responses from an active cyber-world community. Were you raised from childhood to believe that science and spiritual orientation or religion are mutually exclusive? I wasn't. It appears that many that responded to your post weren't either.Quote Spirituality is God, and everything associated with God
No. God is God. Spirituality is a much broader topice with many world-views. Here is a link for you to begin your journey into some of these world views.
SpiritualityQuote Comment 17 is a good reminder. Peaceful coexistence and mutual respect, between theists and atheist, is a small part of a much broader issue. Scientists also disagree with each other, but they have established a method for dealing with controversies. What prevents theologists from following their example?
Most theologists have an axe to grind to support a religions' doctrine. A true lover of God has no axe to grind. A true lover of God is already at peace with God and with the people of the world. It is the people of the world that do not have a peaceful nature within themselves who create conflict. An athiest can have peace within themselves and with the people they co-exist with. While an athiest may think they created this peace all by themselves through personal developement. I, as a lover of God like to think God helped them whether they acknowledge God or not. That they have this peace and outwardly express it is sufficient for peaceful co-existance. I hope this post has given you something good or leads you to something good in your search for knowledge.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (kowalskil @ April 04 2011,03:13) Theists and Atheists I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html
It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.[U]
Greetings…. Is it neccessary to flaunt your credentials….Why can't you enter the forum for discussion without trying to seize a position of authority by virtue of pieces of paper attesting to your brilliance….what makes you think this point of your interest is something that could be topical in this forum…Quote (kowalskil @ April 17 2011,08:33) Quote (Wispring @ April 05 2011,16:26) Hi Ludwik,
Shalom. If you do not interact with people on the thread you created the thread will not continue. I realize you are looking for information and view-points to postulate a working solution. Are you using a type of “sampling” method to derive usable concepts to present your own solution. Is this the rational scientific method you are utilizing to gather “data”? Kind of like professional marketers? What is your objective or desired outcome?With Love and Respect,
Wispring
My goal is to gain knowledge, and to promote a discussion. My tentative ideas were identified by the LK initials. The topic is interesting and important.Ludwik
.
Greetings My Learned Professor…..Let us not forget some elementry Russian History,and that is …..It was the bolshivik communists that deposed the the Romanoffs and created the government that gave us the likes of Stalin along with his butchery…..If iam not mistaken from what I have read you are rooted in the communist philosophy that gave us the likes of marks,lenin and stalin….God bless America and we are all aforded the opportunity to change…Quote (theodorej @ April 18 2011,00:33) Quote (kowalskil @ April 04 2011,03:13) Theists and Atheists I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html
It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.[U]
Greetings…. Is it neccessary to flaunt your credentials….Why can't you enter the forum for discussion without trying to seize a position of authority by virtue of pieces of paper attesting to your brilliance….what makes you think this point of your interest is something that could be topical in this forum…
Hear hear.The flashing of credentials can't be the appeal to his own authority, because he has not really claimed anything yet!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 18 2011,13:59) Quote (theodorej @ April 18 2011,00:33) Quote (kowalskil @ April 04 2011,03:13) Theists and Atheists I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html
It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.[U]
Greetings…. Is it neccessary to flaunt your credentials….Why can't you enter the forum for discussion without trying to seize a position of authority by virtue of pieces of paper attesting to your brilliance….what makes you think this point of your interest is something that could be topical in this forum…
Hear hear.The flashing of credentials can't be the appeal to his own authority, because he has not really claimed anything yet!
Stuart
Greetings Stu….. You interact in this forum in an iteligent fashion and by virtue of you style of debate one can ascertain that you have control of the language and possess inteligence that could be considered above average…You do not have to enter a forum announcing that you are a PHD or a professor Emeritus with a reference to WIKI pedia to inform all involved of your interlect….I would enjoy dialog with Kowalski on eye level….it is always interesting to speak with a repentent communist…Quote (theodorej @ April 19 2011,02:33) Greetings Stu….. You interact in this forum in an iteligent fashion and by virtue of you style of debate one can ascertain that you have control of the language and possess inteligence that could be considered above average…You do not have to enter a forum announcing that you are a PHD or a professor Emeritus with a reference to WIKI pedia to inform all involved of your interlect….I would enjoy dialog with Kowalski on eye level….it is always interesting to speak with a repentent communist…
…assuming that he really has repented from communism! Maybe he wrote about his path from communism somewhere and I have missed it, however would it be possible to be a christian and follow a brand of communism that did not require allegiance to a dictator or the party, to the exclusion of god belief?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
