Pretty cool how you attack... .
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(22-07-2015 09:25 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  My personal Faith works flawlessly within scientific fact.

Only because you are evidently so uneducated that you don't understand what science does or how it works. Your attempts to express your ideas are so muddled as to be nearly unintelligible and that also seems to rest on the foundation that you haven't got the first clue what you are talking about. The only thing that does come through clearly is how happy you are to wallow in ignorance. You have my pity.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
22-07-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(22-07-2015 09:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Free,
Surely have not excluded science in any way. It to verifies what I know.

True Faith does indeed produce identical knowledge when not contorted by selfish motives. I did not create my Faith, it was given to me. Real Faith is unchanging. It doesn't deviate at all. When data comes in from any source, it is only confirming of Faith not changing. It may change beliefs. Beliefs and Faith aren't the same though. I appreciate your unbiased approach. Faith does not change. It is not a variable like data or belief.

Speaking with you is comfortable. Thank you.

Please allow me to provide you some of the universally accepted definitions of faith from various sources.

In regards to your position, the following definitions apply:

1. Faith

belief that is not based on proof:

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

2. Faith

belief and trust in and loyalty to God.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith


3. Faith

Belief in God or in a set of religious doctrines.

strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

In all cases, the universally accepted definition of faith explicitly states it as a "belief."

Therefore, it would appear that you have made a choice as to creating a personal definition of what faith actually is, according to all available sources that speak to the contrary.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
22-07-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(22-07-2015 09:39 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 09:35 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  Facepalm
Really productive input. Keep up the good work.

It was an appropriate response to your nonsense.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-07-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(22-07-2015 10:07 AM)Free Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 09:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Free,
Surely have not excluded science in any way. It to verifies what I know.

True Faith does indeed produce identical knowledge when not contorted by selfish motives. I did not create my Faith, it was given to me. Real Faith is unchanging. It doesn't deviate at all. When data comes in from any source, it is only confirming of Faith not changing. It may change beliefs. Beliefs and Faith aren't the same though. I appreciate your unbiased approach. Faith does not change. It is not a variable like data or belief.

Speaking with you is comfortable. Thank you.

Please allow me to provide you some of the universally accepted definitions of faith from various sources.

In regards to your position, the following definitions apply:

1. Faith

belief that is not based on proof:

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

2. Faith

belief and trust in and loyalty to God.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith


3. Faith

Belief in God or in a set of religious doctrines.

strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

In all cases, the universally accepted definition of faith explicitly states it as a "belief."

Therefore, it would appear that you have made a choice as to creating a personal definition of what faith actually is, according to all available sources that speak to the contrary.
Uhm, ok. A belief that is unwavering and not variable is Faith, not a standard belief.
What about the rest of my post?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(22-07-2015 09:39 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 09:35 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  Facepalm
Really productive input. Keep up the good work.

More productive than you creating your own personal definitions for terms and then using them in a debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ohio_drg's post
22-07-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(22-07-2015 10:13 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 10:07 AM)Free Wrote:  Please allow me to provide you some of the universally accepted definitions of faith from various sources.

In regards to your position, the following definitions apply:

1. Faith

belief that is not based on proof:

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

2. Faith

belief and trust in and loyalty to God.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith


3. Faith

Belief in God or in a set of religious doctrines.

strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

In all cases, the universally accepted definition of faith explicitly states it as a "belief."

Therefore, it would appear that you have made a choice as to creating a personal definition of what faith actually is, according to all available sources that speak to the contrary.
Uhm, ok. A belief that is unwavering and not variable is Faith, not a standard belief.


Thank you for acknowledging it, for being truthful with yourself is the only way to advance in the direction you are destined to go to.


Quote:What about the rest of my post?

The rest of your post speaks of that which claims to be "True Faith," and that you possess it. No one here can ever discount your claim as to what you personally believe, except of course yourself.

Sure, many here can provide arguments, some will be venomous with their remarks, but at the end of the day you are only one who can ever make the choice of whether or not your claim of True Faith is valid, or if it is still a belief.

The choice is always in your own hands. You can either allow your beliefs to control you, or you can back off from them so you can get control of them instead.

When beliefs control a person, that person becomes enslaved to a system of beliefs that will either convolute reality to varying degrees, or destroy the person completely. Please understand, beliefs will do either one of the other. It is inevitable.

Again, what you claim to be "True Faith" is still a system of beliefs, and should honestly be recognized as such. Personally, I have no problems with people believing in things such as a god, providing they acknowledge them as beliefs as opposed to it being a truth that cannot be verified and agreed upon by everyone.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free's post
22-07-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(20-07-2015 01:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It Wasn't the carbon dioxide.it was the heat.
I was lacking that detail from your story. I was applying my own reasoning skills to interpret the conclusion.

(20-07-2015 01:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If I killed the truck then the new section would have never grown.

I assume you mean tree trunk. Not the *Beep**Beep* truck.
You said it died. How else should i have interpreted this?

Quote:So yeah the main part if the tree died a couple of years ago.


(20-07-2015 01:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The tree could have given up and ended its pain.

See that's another thing, trees don't feel pain. They don't have a nerve system or a brain that can interpret such an injury as pain.

(20-07-2015 01:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Instead it changed its path of growth in order to survive.

This is the result of millions of years of plant evolution. If a plant ever existed that lacked the ability to adjust to it's environment. Then it would die, and not propagate it species. Thus making room for the ones that could.

(20-07-2015 01:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It's the same tree it was. Not a different tree.

I never even made the suggesting it was a different tree. Doesn't have to be to regrow. So long as it has strong roots. Just like the weeds in most peoples gardens.

(20-07-2015 01:31 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Never said anything about a plant having reasoning skilled as if it had a brain. It does have the will to live though, regardless of the level of pain or difficulty.

I would strongly disagree. You said it very blatantly.

Definition of Reason I am using.
The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Here are excerpts from your story.

Quote:But it's weird because instead of accepting its inevitable demise this fucking plant actually changed its course after realizing it was doomed without adjustment.

This sentence you said "instead of accepting it's inevitable demise". This would imply that the planet had a mind that would give it the ability to interpret or predict the future. You also say "after realizing it was doomed" which would strongly suggest that you are implying that this plant had the ability to reason.


Quote:This one limb is my proof that plants not only obey there path, but actually have the ability to change it.

A lot wrong with this sentence.

But as it applies to your suggestion of Reasoning skills. "Plants not only obey there path...have the ability to change it" Again implying the ability to form judgments and predict alternative outcomes.

Quote:They choose life in the one direction that is most beneficial.

Choose Definition: decide on a course of action, typically after rejecting alternatives.

Forming judgments of an outcome.


Let's try to be scientific about this. We can't come to a conclusion after 1 test. What you need to do is set up about 100 controlled environment. In each of these environments we put one burn pile and one peach tree. Make sure that the same amount of light is being supplied to these trees and find out. Everyday for a year we set a fire to burn piles. At the end of the year we write our results. Then again for another year we preform the same experiment. but this time we give the trees cues. Maybe we come up with some sort of reward when they growing away from the fire or start a tiny fire a safe distance away before we start the large fire. Similar test are done with animals. SO if the plants have some "will" or "reasoning ability" then every single one of them should react the same way.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
22-07-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
Commonsensei,
I suck at this. I'm on a phone. You're educated guess was dead on. Definitely trunk, not truck. Your demeanor is easy to deal with thank you for that.


Trees do not have a central nervous system or a brain to feel pain directly. However, I assure you, when they are damaged. They know it. This is obvious because they generally heal themselves. Also in an indirect fashion.

Yes, evolution is part of existence and part of everything. It can be considered adjustment to surroundings. Look at the Grand Canyon. It's part of the life cycle, kinda related to ice ages.

Plants can change there will as long as it is guided by the right path. This indeed could be tested, but testing in the manner you describe may not be too conclusive. That's the problem with science. It assumes that it replicates real events in its tests. It doesn't really.

This theory doesn't imply a brain. It implies that we are arrogant in our assumptions that life is definable only as we know it to be along strict emperialic lines.
It does not imply the ability to think on its own so much as that we are all connected through existence, and for the sake of good that this plant literally lives for, it can be altered. Does not all natural creation provide for itself?

Choppy, I'm sure, hope you get my argument though.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 05:49 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015 06:17 PM by unfogged.)
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(22-07-2015 04:52 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Trees do not have a central nervous system or a brain to feel pain directly. However, I assure you, when they are damaged. They know it. This is obvious because they generally heal themselves. Also in an indirect fashion.

Repairing a damaged section doesn't imply knowledge. Using the word "know" to describe what is happening is just inane.

Quote:Yes, evolution is part of existence and part of everything. It can be considered adjustment to surroundings. Look at the Grand Canyon. It's part of the life cycle, kinda related to ice ages.

How the fuck do you go from evolution to the grand canyon? You make no sense.

Quote:Plants can change there will as long as it is guided by the right path. This indeed could be tested, but testing in the manner you describe may not be too conclusive. That's the problem with science. It assumes that it replicates real events in its tests. It doesn't really.

Plants don't have "will" and this "right path" nonsense is just tiresome. And you have no understanding of science. Give it up.

Quote:This theory doesn't imply a brain. It implies that we are arrogant in our assumptions that life is definable only as we know it to be along strict emperialic lines.
It does not imply the ability to think on its own so much as that we are all connected through existence, and for the sake of good that this plant literally lives for, it can be altered. Does not all natural creation provide for itself?

Choppy, I'm sure, hope you get my argument though.

Not choppy, just incoherent.

Quote:

WAY overpriced

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
22-07-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
Dogdamnit I need his weed.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: