U.S. Triathlete Hunter Kemper Says God Healed Injury
115 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37136145]You want me to WHAT??
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2012-08-08_1508.png[/img][/QUOTE]
pseudo-intellectuality
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;37136135]I'm not worked up, and shame on you for condemning healthy debate when you yourself are indulging.[/QUOTE]
Healthy debate? To debate about a man praying? I'm sorry, but the source of debating material is barely there. If you want to pick on someone just because of their belief I see no reason and I wouldn't let it get to me either on what he believes.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136154]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.[/QUOTE]
Correct, my bad; but many Buddhists also believe that attachment to Family is vital and claim that monastic lifestyle, though beneficial, is too harmful in other ways. (The major way being separation from family and society)
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=choco cookie;37136169]Healthy debate? To debate about a man praying? I'm sorry, but the source of debating material is barely there. If you want to pick on someone just because of their belief I see no reason and I wouldn't let it get to me either on what he believes.[/QUOTE]
You are sounding like the only worked up person here :v:
[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]
Being against ignorance does not make you ignorant.
He stated that a being who he believes in cured him, when all evidence leads to a crack team of surgeons and doctors being responsible for curing him. No evidence leads towards a deity doing it, so we assume that the doctors did it unless further testing proves that a deity cured him and that the doctors did not.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136094]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.[/QUOTE]
And science, being a self correcting system, upon realizing that reality needs to change would change it. Science does not assert its self as true or all knowing.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;37135918]well Hitler [I]could[/I] have killed more people
infalliable argument would not take seriously again 0/10[/QUOTE]
think of it like Janus was saying the person in this article had a certain amount of stupidity, and I say that he had less. I can see where you're coming from, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_Ad_Absurdum"]but, well, you know.[/URL]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37136145]You want me to WHAT??
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2012-08-08_1508.png[/img][/QUOTE]
If you think you know something for sure, in a discussion it is best to suppose you know nothing, and then take into account all information objectively, rather than being set on a idea before you even start sending or recieving arguments.
If you are a prophet, then let yourself become a novice so that you can actually learn something.
In other words
[QUOTE=Terminutter;37136179]Being against ignorance does not make you ignorant.
He stated that a being who he believes in cured him, when all evidence leads to a crack team of surgeons and doctors being responsible for curing him. No evidence leads towards a deity doing it, so we assume that the doctors did it unless further testing proves that a deity cured him and that the doctors did not.[/QUOTE]
No, but the fact that it had gotten itself a news article and people actually getting worked up by it is just plain silly.
And Cypher_09, I'm not worked up by it at all. I really wish there was more to say than that, but I don't want to get it off subject.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;37136179]Being against ignorance does not make you ignorant.
He stated that a being who he believes in cured him, when all evidence leads to a crack team of surgeons and doctors being responsible for curing him. No evidence leads towards a deity doing it, so we assume that the doctors did it unless further testing proves that a deity cured him and that the doctors did not.[/QUOTE]
I give up
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37136219]I give up[/QUOTE]
Scientific method got your tongue?
i'll admit this news story doesn't qualify as news at all and this is a pretty pointless discussion. basically just a thread to circle-jerk over how dumb some christians are
[QUOTE=znk666;37135101]I didn't know mentally insane could participate in the Olympics...[/QUOTE]
Sad to see you haven't gotten any new perspectives, oh well.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;37136231]Scientific method got your tongue?[/QUOTE]
No, my tongue fears not scientific method, I actually support it completely. Its just that your comment is exactly what I was talking about earlier. I give up in the sense that I dont think there is any amount of friendy argument I can do with you. I hope its just that you didnt read my comment. That would be more understandable.
[QUOTE=Tiersin;37136184]Science does not assert its self as true[/QUOTE]
Exactly, that's been my point throughout the whole thread..
If i were that doctor (or ANY doctor / surgeon) and i had to operate someone and got no thanks and instead whoever i operated thanked 'god' instead of me, i'd tell said person to go fuck himself.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37136271]No, my tongue fears not scientific method, I actually support it completely. Its just that your comment is exactly what I was talking about earlier. I give up in the sense that I dont think there is any amount of friendy argument I can do with you. I hope its just that you didnt read my comment. That would be more understandable.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37136022]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.
[/QUOTE]
You are taking experiments and drawing conclusions from them that do not make sense. The double slit experiment was to test wave-particle duality, and how subatomic particles behave, it had nothing to do with consciousness or intent, thus you can't draw any conclusion about consciousness and intent from it.
You cannot support the scientific method completely whilst you are drawing conclusions with no relation to the experiment and coming out with a conclusion that is not supported by the test.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136280]Exactly, that's been my point throughout the whole thread..[/QUOTE]
No it hasn't, your point was that science is comparable to religion, which simply is not true.
I really feel doctors should get more credit. This happens way too often.
[IMG]http://i.qkme.me/35umxo.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37136355]No it hasn't, your point was that science is comparable to religion, which simply is not true.[/QUOTE]
Neither 'assert themselves' as true.
You treat your beliefs as such, whilst another treats religion as such.
That's based on how you were brought up and what beliefs were instilled in you compared to him/ his.
That is the obvious-to-see mutual bond here, without going into context, etc.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;37136347]You are taking experiments and drawing conclusions from them that do not make sense. The double slit experiment was to test wave-particle duality, and how subatomic particles behave, it had nothing to do with consciousness or intent, thus you can't draw any conclusion about consciousness and intent from it.
You cannot support the scientific method completely whilst you are drawing conclusions with no relation to the experiment and coming out with a conclusion that is not supported by the test.[/QUOTE]
The measurement problem.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136280]Exactly, that's been my point throughout the whole thread..[/QUOTE]
But you want that to put it on equal footing with religious belief and it just doesn't. Science survives because it can be disproved. When it is, new theories will emerge to replace the bad one.
On the other hand religion asserts itself as true no mater the evidence. Socrates prisoners in the cave if you will. Honestly your argument works against your point because its an attack on asserting knowledge which is exactly what many religions do.
(Religion = Theism) now apparently
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136397]Neither 'assert themselves' as true.
You treat your beliefs as such, whilst another treats religion as such.
That's based on how you were brought up and what beliefs were instilled in you compared to him/ his.
That is the obvious-to-see mutual bond here, without going into context, etc.[/QUOTE]
My parents are religious, actually. And what you're saying is false, religion does assert itself as truth, it must. If religion did not assert itself as truth it would not work.
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37136419](Religion = Theism) now apparently[/QUOTE]
It usually is.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37136470]My parents are religious, actually. And what you're saying is false, religion does assert itself as truth, it must. If religion did not assert itself as truth it would not work.
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
It usually is.[/QUOTE]
True, my argument is that it is logical fallacity to discredit any notion of a greater complexity of truth to consciousness, to which spirituality and yes religion too, have been alluding to for our entire history. Accepting the fact that as it is today, it is dogmatic and backwards in nature usually.
It's in the first pages of the bible that we ate from the tree of 'knowledge' instead of the tree of 'life' - and I understand that to mean that knowledge, or rather thinking one knows anything, is the origin of 'bad' (or rather the definition of bad and good, which exists through knowledge).
The rest of the book may as well be discarded entirely.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136638]It's in the first pages of the bible that we ate from the tree of 'knowledge' instead of the tree of 'life' - and I understand that to mean that knowledge, or rather thinking one knows anything, is the origin of 'bad' (or rather the definition of bad and good, which exists through knowledge).
The rest of the book may as well be discarded entirely.[/QUOTE]
The same chapter with the talking snake. Okay.
By which, of course, I mean that these people thought that fruits could contain knowledge as well as talking snakes actually existing. They are not metaphors, they are remnants of bronze age culture creation tales. They didn't know any better.
worst SH debate 2012
0/10 would not read again
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136638]It's in the first pages of the bible that we ate from the tree of 'knowledge' instead of the tree of 'life' - and I understand that to mean that knowledge, or rather thinking one knows anything, is the origin of 'bad' (or rather the definition of bad and good, which exists through knowledge).
The rest of the book may as well be discarded entirely.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that a book that tells you there's some mystical being out there that can, but does not want to control everything about our lives, also tells you that you should not seek knowledge? How odd.
-snip-
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37136638]It's in the first pages of the bible that we ate from the tree of 'knowledge' instead of the tree of 'life' - and I understand that to mean that knowledge, or rather thinking one knows anything, is the origin of 'bad' (or rather the definition of bad and good, which exists through knowledge).
The rest of the book may as well be discarded entirely.[/QUOTE]
Then we were cast out and prevented from eating from the tree of life. As far as I understand it from the books I've read, the tree of life was eternal life, However without spiritually evolving first by knowlege, intellect, and morals. One could not benefit from the tree of life. We we cast out and the gate to the tree of life was blocked by a "Revolving Sword", whatever that could metaphorically mean.
I do agree with you in that some parts of the bible can be discarded as they have been either changed or encrypted to the point where information no longer is transferable. However, I also believe that the entire discarding of such a book would be foolhardy. Akin to the burning of Alexandria.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.