Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[RevolutionThroughReason]

prove that the idea that 'life, the universe and everything', having a deeper meaning and purpose, is a just a 'deeply flawed assumption':

That's easy a flawed assumption by definition has weak premises which are not necessarily true. Since there's nothing that indicates everything must have a purpose, then it's flawed to assume that things MUST have one.

simple refutation.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

is that why you light your black candles to satan as you recieve the secret knowlede from death metal?

I do no such thing

[faye]

BINGO!

If your religion is true, how can you *possibly* fear what science finds? The only ones that have anything to fear from science are those with doubts.

the only ones who fear beliefs, alternative to their logic and scientific discoveries are those who are insecure in their beliefs.
which is understandable, considering that science changes it's mind about it's conclusions, constantly.

[DaZahroJaam.]

why should an on going process have a conclusion??

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the only ones who fear beliefs, alternative to their logic and scientific discoveries are those who are insecure in their beliefs.
which is understandable, considering that science changes it's mind about it's conclusions, constantly.

which is good because it means science is secure enough to modify itself when new evidence arrives, instead of delusionally and stagnantly holding to something no matter how unsubstantiated it is as we see the Aboruginal australians and their new age drug abusing patrons do.

[faye]

[QUOTE=RevolutionThroughReason;656473]That's easy a flawed assumption by definition has weak premises which are not necessarily true. Since there's nothing that indicates everything must have a purpose, then it's flawed to assume that things MUST have one.
simple refutation.[/QUOT

a bunch of nerds who went to uni and were indoctrinated with a particular idea of what reality is and how to make judgements upon it, think that the rest of humanity should follow their particular way of viewing the world. through the lens of logic and microscopes.
is that not being dogmatic?

sweetie, the real world just don't work like that.
you 2 can play all the word games you want but it will not change what others know and experience.

[faye]

why should an on going process have a conclusion??

did i say an ongoing process should have a conclusion?

if you are going to attempt to be clever, in betweeen your jealousy bitch sessions with other women, be a bit more astute and read peoples comments with more awareness.

[faye]

I do no such thing

oh. i thought aleister crowley was your new role model.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

a bunch of nerds who went to uni and were indoctrinated with a particular idea of what reality is and how to make judgements upon it, think that the rest of humanity should follow their particular way of viewing the world. through the lens of logic and microscopes.
is that not being dogmatic?

sweetie, the real world just don't work like that.
you 2 can play all the word games you want but it will not change what others know and experience.

It's not a way of viewing the world it's a way of deriving information about the world/universe and it works because it produces tangible results. If it didn't THEN you can say it was indoctrination since there could not be any way to explain it.


Your claim is a straw-man on science. Science is not a doctrine it's a technique.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

did i say an ongoing process should have a conclusion?

if you are going to attempt to be clever, in betweeen your jealousy bitch sessions with other women, be a bit more astute and read peoples comments with more awareness.

What she's saying is science does not stop at a set of conclusions; it is INTRINICALLY self refining, the drive is to modify itself as we learn new things. Thereby it doesn't have an "end point" as Aboriginal Australian Voodoo does.

so your rhetoric about "conclusions" acting as if scientific conclusions are supposed to be like brainwashed dogma of Aborigines is way off and a straw-man.

[faye]

There's no such thing as "Greek Logic" in the defacto sense. There is nature, and how nature works, simple sequences of events we can trace back.

Listen it's your LIMITATION of mind that thinks that Logic is not useful for understanding Spirituality or Religion. But if we examine religion and spirituality LOGICALLY. Both are attempts at giving explanations of the UNIVERSE and NATURE and EXISTENCE ITSELF right? Well Logic is the Instrument by which can acertain properties and characteristics about the universe. Therefore it is perfectly suited for testing the claims of Spirituality.

The only reason you're so anxious or desperate to rescue these New Age Pseudo-Spiritual claims from the scrutiny of logic and science is because you feel intimidated that under scrutiny it will show that your beliefs were just self delusion and that's a painful demon (metaphorically speaking) to confront.

i don't have demons in my system of belief, so that is your projection from your own belief in demons.
i certainly have no fear of my beliefs being dislodged by science. it has a long way to go before it even understands the physical realm.
last week it was saying reality is NO THING, according to you, what are they saying this week?

[faye]

What she's saying is science does not stop at a set of conclusions; it is INTRINICALLY self refining, the drive is to modify itself as we learn new things. Thereby it doesn't have an "end point" as Aboriginal Australian Voodoo does.

so your rhetoric about "conclusions" acting as if scientific conclusions are supposed to be like brainwashed dogma of Aborigines is way off and a straw-man.

try to analyse what is being said THEN respond. you and dj are a perfect pair for false accusations from faulty interpretations. YOU do it deliberately though, for your agenda of constantly having to defend you lies and flaky logic.

it is sweet though, to see you defending the dumb broad.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

i don't have demons in my system of belief, so that is your projection from your own belief in demons.
i certainly have no fear of my beliefs being dislodged by science. it has a long way to go before it even understands the physical realm.
last week it was saying reality is NO THING, according to you, what are they saying this week?

Apparently you didn't get the "metaphoric"part; ironic that you tell others to try to analyze and then respond; when you don't do the same, More hypocrisy from your end.

Science has debunked all of your beliefs so far, not hard to do really. The only thing it has a long way to go with is your desperation to cling to them in the face of evidence.


good luck with that.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

try to analyse what is being said THEN respond. you and dj are a perfect pair for false accusations from faulty interpretations. YOU do it deliberately though, for your agenda of constantly having to defend you lies and flaky logic.

it is sweet though, to see you defending the dumb broad.

You mean deliberately, sort of like how you deliberately try to use the Depleted Uranium scapegoat constantly in a deceitful attempt to discredit science or how you cosstantly present STRAWMAN versions of other peoples claims?

It seems you project yourself onto others a lot.

Defending dumb broads? I haven't defended you in months. You hallucinating again? Furthermore it's not anyone I am defending, I explaining how you distort and misrepresent what people are saying, so it is intellectual honesty I'm defending. Not her, she needs none of my defense.

[faye]

you used the description of demon because demons are in your brainwashing, catya.

so far, you have never given any evidence of anything to do with science, religion, spirituality or philosophy that has debunked anything.
the debunking is your fantasy. dream on.