• U.S. Triathlete Hunter Kemper Says God Healed Injury
    115 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37135857]the things you learn in school aren't beliefs..... [editline]9th August 2012[/editline] school is not about teaching belief?[/QUOTE] Think about it.. you go in as a kid, not knowing what anything is or what anything means. Teachers point at letters, you learn the alphabet, you learn to read and you learn to identify objects. That's what makes the letter 'S' what we identify it as, or a bottle sitting on your desk. Remove context and what is there? A squiggly shape and some shaped plastic. Whoops! I just described it using more words. See how this just runs in circles? Peel back the layers of stuff taught to you by other people, and what's left? Undiluted reality where nothing is apart from anything else. Whoops! I just described it using more words. If it's truth you're after, wake up and smell the coffee.
[QUOTE=Cone;37135846]not as thick as he's made out to be though, giving God credit for something some doctors did isn't anywhere near as thick as turning down treatment.[/QUOTE] well Hitler [I]could[/I] have killed more people infalliable argument would not take seriously again 0/10
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135906]Think about it.. you go in as a kid, not knowing what anything is or what anything means. Teachers point at letters, you learn the alphabet, you learn to read and you learn to identify objects. That's what makes the letter 'S' what we identify it as, or a bottle sitting on your desk. Remove context and what is there? A squiggly shape and some shaped plastic. Whoops! I just described it using more words. See how this just runs in circles? Peel back the layers of stuff taught to you by other people, and what's left? Undiluted reality where nothing is apart from anything else. Whoops! I just described it using more words. If it's truth you're after, wake up and smell the coffee.[/QUOTE] are you trying to compare religious belief with knowing the alphabet? what??????? you're not saying anything smart here mate just stupid pointless cyclical crap
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135906]Think about it.. you go in as a kid, not knowing what anything is or what anything means. Teachers point at letters, you learn the alphabet, you learn to read and you learn to identify objects. That's what makes the letter 'S' what we identify it as, or a bottle sitting on your desk. Remove context and what is there? A squiggly shape and some shaped plastic. Whoops! I just described it using more words. See how this just runs in circles? Peel back the layers of stuff taught to you by other people, and what's left? Undiluted reality where nothing is apart from anything else. Whoops! I just described it using more words. If it's truth you're after, wake up and smell the coffee.[/QUOTE] That was a lot of words considering you said absolutely nothing.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135906]Think about it.. you go in as a kid, not knowing what anything is or what anything means. Teachers point at letters, you learn the alphabet, you learn to read and you learn to identify objects. That's what makes the letter 'S' what we identify it as, or a bottle sitting on your desk. Remove context and what is there? A squiggly shape and some shaped plastic. Whoops! I just described it using more words. See how this just runs in circles? Peel back the layers of stuff taught to you by other people, and what's left? Undiluted reality where nothing is apart from anything else. Whoops! I just described it using more words. If it's truth you're after, wake up and smell the coffee.[/QUOTE] What are you doing? You are sounding really uninformed on the topic. Also, your formatting leaves a lot to be desired.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135906]Think about it.. you go in as a kid, not knowing what anything is or what anything means. Teachers point at letters, you learn the alphabet, you learn to read and you learn to identify objects. That's what makes the letter 'S' what we identify it as, or a bottle sitting on your desk. Remove context and what is there? A squiggly shape and some shaped plastic. Whoops! I just described it using more words. See how this just runs in circles? Peel back the layers of stuff taught to you by other people, and what's left? Undiluted reality where nothing is apart from anything else. Whoops! I just described it using more words. If it's truth you're after, wake up and smell the coffee.[/QUOTE] Except that I could take the bottle, run tests on it proving that it is both made out of plastic and is a bottle, draw conclusions from my tests, write a paper on it that is approved by peers, and that the only logical conclusion is that it is a plastic bottle. Thus, it is a plastic bottle. Sufficient testing along with peer review give facts. Bullshit about how "you only believe it because you were told it" is not true, as you have it demonstrated, and are asked to draw your own conclusions from the results, which (suprise suprise) conclude that it is a plastic bottle.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135906]Think about it.. you go in as a kid, not knowing what anything is or what anything means. Teachers point at letters, you learn the alphabet, you learn to read and you learn to identify objects. That's what makes the letter 'S' what we identify it as, or a bottle sitting on your desk. Remove context and what is there? A squiggly shape and some shaped plastic. Whoops! I just described it using more words. See how this just runs in circles? Peel back the layers of stuff taught to you by other people, and what's left? Undiluted reality where nothing is apart from anything else. Whoops! I just described it using more words. If it's truth you're after, wake up and smell the coffee.[/QUOTE] That doesn't even make any sense unless you're trying to tell us our way of communicating is a fictional fairy tale which can't be proven to exist.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;37135948]Except that I could take the bottle, run tests on it proving that it is both made out of plastic and is a bottle, draw conclusions from my tests, write a paper on it that is approved by peers, and that the only logical conclusion is that it is a plastic bottle. Thus, it is a plastic bottle. Sufficient testing along with peer review give facts. Bullshit about how "you only believe it because you were told it" is not true, as you have it demonstrated, and are asked to draw your own conclusions from the results, which (suprise suprise) conclude that it is a plastic bottle.[/QUOTE] Scientific method, huzzah! Let's stop quoting Scope because of his awful text formatting.
I'm not arguing that I know or believe anything anymore, simply challenging you to question what you know, or rather what you think you know. "I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135970]I'm not arguing that I know or believe anything anymore, simply challenging you to question what you know, or rather what you think you know. "I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates.[/QUOTE] Paradox and Straw Man. Next argument.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;37135948]Except that I could take the bottle, run tests on it proving that it is both made out of plastic and is a bottle, draw conclusions from my tests, write a paper on it that is approved by peers, and that the only logical conclusion is that it is a plastic bottle. Thus, it is a plastic bottle. Sufficient testing along with peer review give facts. Bullshit about how "you only believe it because you were told it" is not true, as you have it demonstrated, and are asked to draw your own conclusions from the results, which (suprise suprise) conclude that it is a plastic bottle.[/QUOTE] But you see, the words plastic, and bottle are fictional, you only believe it's plastic because you were told it's called plastic, see, it even has an 'S' in it see how this runs in circles?
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;37135698]Well if he was healed by doctors and he's giving god credit I'm more inclined to think he's thick.[/QUOTE] You know there's this joke about flooded guy and prayers for help? I highly doubt the guy said into the doctors face "THANKS DOC BUT GOD DID THIS" The doctor got paid (and quite generously considering this guy is American), for doing his work. He probably also thanked him. Thing is that the doctors very often shrug with "you might not be okay ever again we will try to do our best". The doctor doesn't promise him for it to work. There is no reason for him to plead to the doctor to work harder - he already is probably doing the best. And there is no need to praise him publicly - he did the job everyone expected. If he feels the need to put a third party which might have or might not have had a word in his chance to heal, I would leave him at that, it's his own deal.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135970]I'm not arguing that I know or believe anything anymore, simply challenging you to question what you know, or rather what you think you know. "I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates.[/QUOTE] You know that the scientific method [b]is[/b] testing what you think and drawing results from it? Also, quoting Socrates or anyone else doesn't make you as smart as them or prove anything, we all know that quote anyway and you didn't even bother with the full quote.
[img]http://blog.lib.umn.edu/snackeru/greet/images/morpheus.jpg[/img] What if I told you, that plastic isn't plastic, and that the 's' at the end of my name isn't actually an 's', but a figure of your imagination?...question (.) everything, Neo.
I think the argument here is that he used both paths, yet for once, in this case, the materialists have become butthurt over basically nothing. When usually it is the religious nuts. My point is that if you were to talk to him in person and divulge the subject more, Im sure he would/had thanked the surgeons many times. Those who do not lean on one side of the extreme (i.e. refusing treatment because 'god' will save them) tend to use the argument that god acts through others and creates the circumstance for healing. Be it through slight ph changes which the body can achieve, or through the success of a surgical procedure (depending on the severity of the ailment). God is something completely sensationalized and misunderstood among the western materialist culture. The concept is segregated as a fixed axiom of an idea which religious and non-religious people alike seem to pretend to understand completely (by assigning the idea of a bearded man, or pure love or etc.) In my opinion god is a concept which I can most accurately describe in my opinion as the overlying subtext in the universe. God to me is the connection to our consciousness. Several objective studies have shown the effect of consciousness and intention upon matter. Be it through the double slit experiment, or through probability trials. I do not really wish to elaborate to much on this topic as it is vastly unestabilished on many levels. However I will say a bit that this eventually just comes to the law of attraction which IMO is not truly a law as we have not established it fully empirically, however If nothing else it does indeed come down to the idea of the placebo effect. If nothing else prayer and wishful thinking come down to this well established idea of intention and hope affecting, atleast minimally, the outcomes of things with many variables (type probability and quantum effects). In conclusion I just want to say, dont condemn one who does as he believes. For as far as I can tell, in this case, the man is well balanced between the material, and his spiritual/religious side. Those I disagree with are those who push to the extreme of either side. Be it the religious nuts, or the atheist crusaders. We barely have started to understand the quantum world, and even then we have maybe 10000 years before we can even begin to build a picture of this that we live in. Do not act like you know everything, religious or material. We are all barely toddlers as a species, yet our individual egos present information as some sort of axiom. The problem with this is that we no longer look at things objectively, but rather close ourselves off to things that wreck our world view, one way or another. Chill the fuck out facepunch.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37136022]I think the argument here is that he used both paths, yet for once, in this case, the materialists have become butthurt over basically nothing. When usually it is the religious nuts. My point is that if you were to talk to him in person and divulge the subject more, Im sure he would/had thanked the surgeons many times. Those who do not lean on one side of the extreme (i.e. refusing treatment because 'god' will save them) tend to use the argument that god acts through others and creates the circumstance for healing. Be it through slight ph changes which the body can achieve, or through the success of a surgical procedure (depending on the severity of the ailment). God is something completely sensationalized and misunderstood among the western materialist culture. The concept is segregated as a fixed axiom of an idea which religious and non-religious people alike seem to pretend to understand completely (by assigning the idea of a bearded man, or pure love or etc.) In my opinion god is a concept which I can most accurately describe in my opinion as the overlying subtext in the universe. God to me is the connection to our consciousness. Several objective studies have shown the effect of consciousness and intention upon matter. Be it through the double slit experiment, or through probability trials. I do not really wish to elaborate to much on this topic as it is vastly unestabilished on many levels. However I will say a bit that this eventually just comes to the law of attraction which IMO is not truly a law as we have not established it fully empirically, however If nothing else it does indeed come down to the idea of the placebo effect. If nothing else prayer and wishful thinking come down to this well established idea of intention and hope affecting, atleast minimally, the outcomes of things with many variables (type probability and quantum effects). In conclusion I just want to say, dont condemn one who does as he believes. For as far as I can tell, in this case, the man is well balanced between the material, and his spiritual/religious side. Those I disagree with are those who push to the extreme of either side. Be it the religious nuts, or the atheist crusaders. We barely have started to understand the quantum world, and even then we have maybe 10000 years before we can even begin to build a picture of this that we live in. Do not act like you know everything, religious or material. We are all barely toddlers as a species, yet our individual egos present information as some sort of axiom. The problem with this is that we no longer look at things objectively, but rather close ourselves off to things that wreck our world view, one way or another. Chill the fuck out facepunch.[/QUOTE] Probably too long there, bud. I do agree with a lot of what you said and the consciousness point is rather interesting.
why are you even bringing up materialism? especially in the context of this being about the olympics, you know, that thing where athletes compete for medals made out of valuable materials?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37135956]That doesn't even make any sense unless you're trying to tell us our way of communicating is a fictional fairy tale which can't be proven to exist.[/QUOTE] I guess so. I mean we watch the matrix and assume it's not reality because it's just a movie, but us living here under some similar abstract literacy is as hilariously likely or unlikely as anything else. [QUOTE=mobrockers2;37135978]But you see, the words plastic, and bottle are fictional, you only believe it's plastic because you were told it's called plastic, see, it even has an 'S' in it see how this runs in circles?[/QUOTE] Yeah more or less. [QUOTE=Terminutter;37135988]Also, quoting Socrates or anyone else doesn't make you as smart as them or prove anything, we all know that quote anyway and you didn't even bother with the full quote.[/QUOTE] Lol. [QUOTE=Cypher_09;37136013][img]http://blog.lib.umn.edu/snackeru/greet/images/morpheus.jpg[/img] What if I told you, that plastic isn't plastic, and that the 's' at the end of my name isn't actually an 's', but a figure of your imagination?...question (.) everything, Neo.[/QUOTE] Wow, total coincidence we both mention the Matrix.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136044]I guess so. I mean we watch the matrix and assume it's not reality because it's just a movie, but us living here under some similar abstract literacy is as hilariously likely or unlikely as anything else. Yeah more or less. [B]Lol.[/B][/QUOTE] ~socrates
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37135970]I'm not arguing that I know or believe anything anymore, simply challenging you to question what you know, or rather what you think you know. "I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates.[/QUOTE] What Socrates was getting at was that 100% confirmed knowledge is impossible. But what it does not mean, is that you can give equal credence to any two statements which is what you are saying. You are saying that because we dont empiricly know things (which is true), that a belief in god is equal to a belief in science. It does not mean the sun rising and pink unicorns are on equal footing. One can be tested and predicted, the other can't. Going back to the main topic though, its a small deal, but its very annoying. The doctors set the wound, dressed it and I'm sure gave him antibiotics. People who jump at the opportunity to praise god whenever something good happens but never question the whole idea when things don't work out annoy me. These same people who thank god for saving them, would sue the doctor if it didn't go right.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37136034]why are you even bringing up materialism? especially in the context of this being about the olympics, you know, that thing where athletes compete for medals made out of valuable materials?[/QUOTE] Materialism does not only apply to the idea of wanting and valueing things. It is also the philosophy of denial of anything that one cannot see or touch or measure. An example would be consciousness and free will. Hardcore materialists would argue that all free will is a biochemical by-product of the brain. And they would emphasis this point by quoting the neural experiments in which certain emotions could be triggered by electrical stimulation in certain parts of the brain. However they ignore the argument, or rather question of where those emotions arise from when not electrically stimulated. It is true our bodies are basically an advanced bio robot, but the input is self-referential, and the question of consciousness and free will remains unanswered.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136044]I guess so. I mean we watch the matrix and assume it's not reality because it's just a movie, but us living here under some similar abstract literacy is as hilariously likely or unlikely as anything else. Yeah more or less. Lol. Wow, total coincidence we both mention the Matrix.[/QUOTE] How would you propose we have any form of efficient communication without that then?
[QUOTE=Tiersin;37136059]What Socrates was getting at was that 100% confirmed knowledge is impossible. But what it does not mean, is that you can give equal credence to any two statements which is what you are saying. It does not mean the sun rising and pink unicorns are on equal footing. One can be tested and predicted.[/QUOTE] This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7b-ewi9NrMw/TXeAdG7yljI/AAAAAAAACo0/uUs7zs2FMr8/s1600/platosCave%2Bcopy.jpg[/img] If all you ever saw was the shadows on the wall, you would believe that to be reality. It would not make it reality.
ugh overly-abstract pseudo-philosophical shit is annoying
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37136090]How would you propose we have any form of efficient communication without that then?[/QUOTE] I'm not really. I'm just saying if you want to discuss truth or belief, immolate your own first.
According to the Buddhist philosophy, material attachment is the cause of suffering (although their definition of suffering varies to the general public's, but it is certainly interesting and I believe a lot of their admirable philosophies to be vital for a happy life.) Also, whilst watching a documentary about ancient humans, they mentioned the possibility of there being some form of mutation some 25,000 years ago dubbed "The Day We Learned to Think", and there is substantial evidence proving that Neanderthals also thought like us (they had art, and language).
There's no reason to get worked up about this. It's rather silly seeing you guys getting worked about it too. I guess anything that you guys are against, you guys will be against no matter what the situation is. He is just a religious man. To be against this man just because of this makes you just as ignorant.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;37136126]There's no reason to get worked up about this. It's rather silly seeing you guys getting worked about it too. I guess anything that you guys are against, you guys will be against no matter what the situation is. He is just a religious man. To be against this man just because of this makes you just as ignorant.[/QUOTE] I'm not worked up, and shame on you for condemning healthy debate when you yourself are indulging.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136109]I'm not really. I'm just saying if you want to discuss truth or belief, immolate your own first.[/QUOTE] You want me to WHAT?? [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2012-08-08_1508.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;37136112]According to the Buddhist philosophy, material attachment is the cause of suffering (although their definition of suffering varies to the general public's, but it is certainly interesting and I believe a lot of their admirable philosophies to be vital for a happy life.)[/QUOTE] It's not solely material attachment, it's attachment in it's entirety. Attachment to objects, attachments to meanings, and eventually attachment to any context at all what-so-ever. Annihilating it all and seeing what is left.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.