Uyi Iredia:

It isn't in fact. It dares to question the puzzle of existence without any lazy resort to divine power.

lazy resort?
Puzzle of existence?

Uyi Iredia:

It isn't in fact. It dares to question the puzzle of existence without any lazy resort to divine power.

Uyi dared say this to deepsight? Wow! End Time Things. . .

Deep Sight:

Atheism is a lack of depth and thought.

Sir forgive my intrusion. Please. Your reputation precedes you. I stopped to see what all the fuss was about. I must say, I was highly impressed. Right up until you made this statement. I will speak frankly here, because we are all, surely, wearing our 'big boy' pants. You know very well Sir, that this statement is not completely accurate. You allowed these gentleman to ruffle your feathers, so to speak.

You have impressive skills I'll admit, but here you fall my hand Sir. Forgive me. I realize you don't know me, and may not care. There are many on NL who look up to you, and admire you. Perhaps if you give credit where credit is due, these guys may be more likely to take what you are trying to impart seriously. Probably not, but one can hope. They are for the most part, highly intelligent, with thought provoking questions. Now granted, they are misguided, but they can't help that.

That is all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time, and for taking up this gauntlet. As it were
.

texanomaly:

Sir forgive my intrusion. Please. Your reputation precedes you. I stopped to see what all the fuss was about. I must say, I was highly impressed. Right up until you made this statement. I will speak frankly here, because we are all, surely, wearing our 'big boy' pants. You know very well Sir, that this statement is not completely accurate. You allowed these gentleman to ruffle your feathers, so to speak.

You have impressive skills I'll admit, but here you fall my hand Sir. Forgive me. I realize you don't know me, and may not care. There are many on NL who look up to you, and admire you. Perhaps if you give credit where credit is due, these guys may be more likely to take what you are trying to impart seriously. Probably not, but one can hope. They are for the most part, highly intelligent, with thought provoking questions. Now granted, they are misguided, but they can't help that.

That is all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time, and for taking up this gauntlet. As it were
.

This posts reminds of me of Jesoul- polite, patronizing but false.


Why not cut to the chase and tell him the simple point of your post that his statement about atheists is nonsense? What's all the flattery for?

Who are you to say that atheists are misguided? Typical Jesoul tactic- use a polite post to sneak in a euphemistic attack.....bravo


Youmight not know Jesoul but believe me, she posts in a similar style

@LB
No I do not know her. Perhaps I was a bit patronizing. Maybe even, somewhat condescending, but I think I stopped short of attack.

texanomaly:

Sir forgive my intrusion. Please. Your reputation precedes you. I stopped to see what all the fuss was about. I must say, I was highly impressed. Right up until you made this statement. I will speak frankly here, because we are all, surely, wearing our 'big boy' pants. You know very well Sir, that this statement is not completely accurate. You allowed these gentleman to ruffle your feathers, so to speak.

You have impressive skills I'll admit, but here you fall my hand Sir. Forgive me. I realize you don't know me, and may not care. There are many on NL who look up to you, and admire you. Perhaps if you give credit where credit is due, these guys may be more likely to take what you are trying to impart seriously. Probably not, but one can hope. They are for the most part, highly intelligent, with thought provoking questions. Now granted, they are misguided, but they can't help that.

That is all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time, and for taking up this gauntlet. As it were
.

I speak my mind only: that atheism is a lack of depth of thought is my sincere and earnest opinion, for I do not know what human being will not intuit the existence of God subjectively from any brief introspection, or even from the very incidence of thought as a phenomenon itself. And then speaking objectively and rationally, I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that a man may apprehend the world: improbable protrusion in reality as it is, with even more implausible components in construction, and not be convicted of a creator.

It is my sincere personal view that the atheist is stupefyingly shallow in his perspective, and I say so not as an insult to any atheist but as my sincere and open personal opinion - the theist is free to have and express this view - just as the atheist is free to express similarly dim views of the theist, especially of the religious theist. Surely you do not by your post seek to recommend some sort of hypocritical double-speak; whereby the theist must hide his honest views in order to pet and massage the ego of the atheist?

Now, let us put all that aside, and anyone who will can play the game of thoughts and pictures with me.

Deep Sight:

I speak my mind only: that atheism is a lack of depth of thought is my sincere and earnest opinion, for I do not know what human being will not intuit the existence of God subjectively from any brief introspection, or even from the very incidence of thought as a phenomenon itself. And then speaking objectively and rationally, I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that a man may apprehend the world: improbable protrusion in reality as it is, with even more implausible components in construction, and not be convicted of a creator.

It is my sincere personal view that the atheist is stupefyingly shallow in his perspective, and I say so not as an insult to any atheist but as my sincere and open personal opinion - the theist is free to have and express this view - just as the atheist is free to express similarly dim views of the theist, especially of the religious theist. Surely you do not by your post seek to recommend some sort of hypocritical double-speak; whereby the theist must hide his honest views in order to pet and massage the ego of the atheist?

Now, let us put all that aside, and anyone who will can play the game of thoughts and pictures with me.

Hmmm...it occurs to me, that you simply like the wordplay. You absolutely have every right to your opinion. Thank God. By the way, nice language skills. No wonder you like to paint pictures with words. You excel at it.

texanomaly:
Hmmm...it occurs to me, that you simply like the wordplay. You absolutely have every right to your opinion. Thank God. By the way, nice language skills. No wonder you like to paint pictures with words. You excel at it.

Gbam......Deepsight is the master of sophistry.


The guy can write beautifully and in a verbose manner without making any factual point.

Logicboy03:


Gbam......Deepsight is the master of sophistry.


The guy can write beautifully and in a verbose manner without making any factual point.

Thesaurus Rex

texanomaly:
Thesaurus Rex

lol

Deep Sight:

I speak my mind only: that atheism is a lack of depth of thought is my sincere and earnest opinion, for I do not know what human being will not intuit the existence of God subjectively from any brief introspection, or even from the very incidence of thought as a phenomenon itself. And then speaking objectively and rationally, I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that a man may apprehend the world: improbable protrusion in reality as it is, with even more implausible components in construction, and not be convicted of a creator.

It is my sincere personal view that the atheist is stupefyingly shallow in his perspective, and I say so not as an insult to any atheist but as my sincere and open personal opinion - the theist is free to have and express this view - just as the atheist is free to express similarly dim views of the theist, especially of the religious theist. Surely you do not by your post seek to recommend some sort of hypocritical double-speak; whereby the theist must hide his honest views in order to pet and massage the ego of the atheist?

Now, let us put all that aside, and anyone who will can play the game of thoughts and pictures with me.

Enough of this intuit nonsense.
I have reminded before in another thread that humans, since antiquity, have intuited a whole lot of stuff, and have done a whole lot of shyt on the basis of intuitive insights.

Humans have intuited and committed beastiality on the basis of intuiting this shyt or that shyt.
Humans have intuited and sacrificed their newborns, their children , their daughters to fire gods, water gods, sky gods, earth gods, etc.
The list of atrocious and clearly evil acts perpetuated by misguided humans who relied on one intuition or another , one subjective revelation or another, is simply endless.

Time to stop this intuitive nonsense.

We have a much much better, much much clearer, much much open system of discerning reality than this intuitive nonsense so often and so foolishly touted.

Logicboy03:


Gbam......Deepsight is the master of sophistry.


The guy can write beautifully and in a verbose manner without making any factual point.

Yeah.
God really comes alive when you dress him with mighty, very sophisticated and superlative words.

texanomaly:

Sir forgive my intrusion. Please. Your reputation precedes you. I stopped to see what all the fuss was about. I must say, I was highly impressed. Right up until you made this statement. I will speak frankly here, because we are all, surely, wearing our 'big boy' pants. You know very well Sir, that this statement is not completely accurate. You allowed these gentleman to ruffle your feathers, so to speak.

You have impressive skills I'll admit, but here you fall my hand Sir. Forgive me. I realize you don't know me, and may not care. There are many on NL who look up to you, and admire you. Perhaps if you give credit where credit is due, these guys may be more likely to take what you are trying to impart seriously. Probably not, but one can hope. They are for the most part, highly intelligent, with thought provoking questions. Now granted, they are misguided, but they can't help that.

That is all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time, and for taking up this gauntlet. As it were
.

I agree with the highlighted – have been through it with Deep Sight once or twice. But I think he really believes it when he says it. Atheism is not a lack of deep thought. Deep Sight’s appeal to “intuition” doesn’t help that argument either.

plaetton:

Yeah.
God really comes alive when you dress him with mighty, very sophisticated and superlative words.

That's what happens when you have no simple logical evidence for God

Deep Sight:

I speak my mind only: that atheism is a lack of depth of thought is my sincere and earnest opinion, for I do not know what human being will not intuit the existence of God subjectively from any brief introspection, or even from the very incidence of thought as a phenomenon itself. .

Shallow sophistry at best.
Intuit the existence of god subjectively?
And then what? Why stop there, why not also intuit more attributes of god, like hair color, his likes and dislikes , or does he exist in the form of a snake, a dragon, fire, volcano? and why not?
And why can't we also intuit also the existence of god's ancestry or creator? Why not?.
Why must we just intuit the existence of god and then stop there? Whose rules?

Do you get my drift? I doubt.

Subjective truths are not universal truths.

I feel weird for repeating this so often.

Deep Sight:

I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that a man may apprehend the world: improbable protrusion in reality as it is, with even more implausible components in construction, and not be convicted of a creator.

Again trying to use word play to say nothing.
That the " world is an improbable protrusion in reality" is just crapola.
How is the world an improbable protrusion in reality?.
As compared to what other reality that exists without a world?.
What reality do you know or have outside the world?

Science, in case you have not heard, have very simple explanations on how the worlds, ours , as well as the many billion others, evolve throughout the universe.

If you think that a a fairy super daddy created it, fine, just confine that belief to your head.
The rest of humanity is moving on.

Deep Sight:

It is my sincere personal view that the atheist is stupefyingly shallow in his perspective,.

Well, it is quite obvious that your views are jaundiced by your desperate need for a supper fairy sky daddy to complete your version of the puzzle of existence. I perfectly understand that.

Reminding you that most atheist have been where you presently are, the ones who dare to step out of narrow box and expand their thoughts and queries beyond simplistic fantasies are the ones who show depths of thought.

Asking deeper questions about old answers shows depth of thought , not clinging on to old answers that begs more questions.

From the beginning of time, humans have gazed everyday at the Sun.

Prior to dawn of the scientific system, what absolute and beneficial truth have humans ever intuited by simply gazing at the sun, or the moon for that matter?

The answer is Zero.
Unless, of course, you want to count human sacrifice, Sun worship or Full Moon or.gi.es as intuitive truths.

plaetton:

Asking deeper questions about old answers shows depth of thought , not clinging on to old answers that begs more questions.

Damn...

plaetton:

Shallow sophistry at best.
Intuit the existence of god subjectively?
And then what? Why stop there, why not also intuit more attributes of god, like hair color, his likes and dislikes , or does he exist in the form of a snake, a dragon, fire, volcano? and why not?
And why can't we also intuit also the existence of god's ancestry or creator? Why not?.
Why must we just intuit the existence of god and then stop there? Whose rules?

Do you get my drift? I doubt.

Subjective truths are not universal truths.

I feel weird for repeating this so often.


Again trying to use word play to say nothing.
That the " world is an improbable protrusion in reality" is just crapola.
How is the world an improbable protrusion in reality?.
As compared to what other reality that exists without a world?.
What reality do you know or have outside the world?

Science, in case you have not heard, have very simple explanations on how the worlds, ours , as well as the many billion others, evolve throughout the universe.

If you think that a a fairy super daddy created it, fine, just confine that belief to your head.
The rest of humanity is moving on.



Well, it is quite obvious that your views are jaundiced by your desperate need for a supper fairy sky daddy to complete your version of the puzzle of existence. I perfectly understand that.

Reminding you that most atheist have been where you presently are, the ones who dare to step out of narrow box and expand their thoughts and queries beyond simplistic fantasies are the ones who show depths of thought.

Asking deeper questions about old answers shows depth of thought , not clinging on to old answers that begs more questions.

Tired. Have not bothered to read this. All my points on your responses are cointained in earlier posts already.

Sadly, there is no point in any of your points because they are just your subjective views and thus cannot disclose any objective truth.

Sounds familiar?

Tata.

plaetton:

Shallow sophistry at best.
Intuit the existence of god subjectively?
And then what? Why stop there, why not also intuit more attributes of god, like hair color, his likes and dislikes , or does he exist in the form of a snake, a dragon, fire, volcano? and why not?
And why can't we also intuit also the existence of god's ancestry or creator? Why not?.
Why must we just intuit the existence of god and then stop there? Whose rules?

Do you get my drift? I doubt.

Subjective truths are not universal truths.

I feel weird for repeating this so often.


Again trying to use word play to say nothing.
That the " world is an improbable protrusion in reality" is just crapola.
How is the world an improbable protrusion in reality?.
As compared to what other reality that exists without a world?.
What reality do you know or have outside the world?

Science, in case you have not heard, have very simple explanations on how the worlds, ours , as well as the many billion others, evolve throughout the universe.

If you think that a a fairy super daddy created it, fine, just confine that belief to your head.
The rest of humanity is moving on.



Well, it is quite obvious that your views are jaundiced by your desperate need for a supper fairy sky daddy to complete your version of the puzzle of existence. I perfectly understand that.

Reminding you that most atheist have been where you presently are, the ones who dare to step out of narrow box and expand their thoughts and queries beyond simplistic fantasies are the ones who show depths of thought.

Asking deeper questions about old answers shows depth of thought , not clinging on to old answers that begs more questions.

Knockout punch!

MyJoe:
I agree with the highlighted – have been through it with Deep Sight once or twice. But I think he really believes it when he says it. Atheism is not a lack of deep thought. Deep Sight’s appeal to “intuition” doesn’t help that argument either.

How have you been friend? Been a while. Hope cool.

You know very well that I have always spoken of both intuition and logic. Even in that post, I referred to both. I believe both are central to the matter.

Plaetton's posts on this matter are meaningless. I have explained why already. I am tired and cannot repeat myself.

In summary he says that we cannot know or derive any objective truth from what we see, because what we see is entirely subjective. This really means that no objective truth can ever be known. Not even in science - which he contradictory then flaunts as the answer - as science is based, primarily, on what we see and sense, around us, and our observation of same. He says that this observation cannot be trusted. What this means is that nothing can be known about anything - not even in science.

Its a simple point.

Everything I need to say has been said in my previous posts.

Its as simple as presenting an object for discussion, and being told that no discussion can be had about the object as everything we see about the object is subjective, and as such, nothing objective can be known about the object. This is a killer blow for even all science, and leans in favor of those who say that the world is an illusion, and does not objectively exist.

In short, the word "objective" ceases to exist.

If you look at my earlier response to him, you will see that I did not say that it is necessarily wrong: I said that it is meaningless, empty and escapist.

It's just a meaningless argument to make: a lame, irrelevant and escapist one, and as I said before, can be said in response to anything and everything: including your existence and mine.

.

You can talk without using words that go over the head of average intelligences.

Bravo...Nice

I mean, just have a look at this -

plaetton:

Science, in case you have not heard, have very simple explanations on how the worlds, ours , as well as the many billion others, evolve throughout the universe.

And this is not done through the faculty of observation and thinking on what we see in the universe?

The same faculty of observation that he says is not to be trusted as it is entirely subjective and cannot disclose objective truths.

The contradiction is staggering, you guys really make me feel tired with such.

You have not even bothered to exercise your brain muscles on this simple matter for one second.

Enjoy.

Deep Sight: I mean, just have a look at this -



And this is not done through the faculty of observation and thinking on what we see in the universe?

The same faculty of observation that he says is not to be trusted as it is entirely subjective and cannot disclose objective truths.

The contradiction is staggering, you guys really make me feel tired with such.

You have not even bothered to exercise your brain muscles on this simple matter for one second.

Enjoy.

Laugh a little sir, it will help relieve the stress.

Joshthefirst:
Laugh a little sir, it will help relieve the stress.

Lol.

Maybe I should simplify it to my friends as this -

1. Can observation disclose objective truths?

2. Is Science based on observation or not?

If science is based on observation, and as our friend Plaetton says, observation cannot disclose objective truths, then, quite simply, science cannot disclose objective truths.

End of.

Deep Sight:

Lol.

Maybe I should simplify it to my friends as this -

1. Can observation disclose objective truths?

2. Is Science based on observation or not?

If science is based on observation, and as our friend Plaetton says, observation cannot disclose objective truths, then, quite simply, science cannot disclose objective truths.

End of.

Guy, you are only deceiving yourself. If you like, quote the whole thesaurus, it wont change the sound argument that Plaetton made.


1) Pictures are subjective in the sense that people's perception will be different when it comes to describing what they saw.
2) Intuition is not always right. Infact, the world was not made for us. So, our intuition can not be in exact tune with the world


Following point number 2, it is intuitive that the world is flat. If you meet tribal people in the north of Nigeria, they will tell you tht the world is flat. It takes deep study of sailing, waves and movement of the sun to realise that the earth is not flat, despite standing on flat ground.


If God is intuitive, then it makes it even better to argue against it.

Logicboy03:



Guy, you are only deceiving yourself. If you like, quote the whole thesaurus, it wont change the sound argument that Plaetton made.


1) Pictures are subjective in the sense that people's perception will be different when it comes to describing what they saw.
2) Intuition is not always right. Infact, the world was not made for us. So, our intuition can not be in exact tune with the world


Following point number 2, it is intuitive that the world is flat. If you meet tribal people in the north of Nigeria, they will tell you tht the world is flat. It takes deep study of sailing, waves and movement of the sun to realise that the earth is not flat, despite standing on flat ground.


If God is intuitive, then it makes it even better to argue against it.

Alas you are in the woods, my son. Led astray by a blind guide leading the blind. Pictures, for heavens sake, are not the only subjective thing in this world - everything is. And of course, science relies on pictures of what is seen and observed.

It appears you are not following the discussion at all.

If you wish to follow the discussion, I suggest you start with these simple questions -

- > Is Science based on observation or not?

- > Can observation disclose objective truth?

Deep Sight:

Alas you are in the woods. It appears you are not following the discussion at all.

If you wish to follow the discussion, I suggest you start with this simple question -

- > Is Science based on observation?

Okay, I will play along. I will play and beat you. Logic always defeats sophistry

Science is based on observation and logic.
You can observe something but your conclusion can be illogical-- this is why you need to test and examine what you observed.

Logicboy03:


Okay, I will play along. I will play and beat you. Logic always defeats sophistry

Science is based on observation and logic.
You can observe something but your conclusion can be illogical-- this is why you need to test and examine what you observed.

Good - I added a another question. That should help -

Deep Sight:


If you wish to follow the discussion, I suggest you start with these simple questions -

- > Is Science based on observation or not?

- > Can observation disclose objective truth?

Deep Sight:

Alas you are in the woods, my son. Led astray by a blind guide leading the blind. Pictures, for heavens sake, are not the only subjective thing in this world - everything is. And of course, science relies on pictures of what is seen and observed.

It appears you are not following the discussion at all.

If you wish to follow the discussion, I suggest you start with these simple questions -

- > Is Science based on observation or not?

- > Can observation disclose objective truth?

Oh another question?

Observation that can be properly tested can lead to an objective truth.

Logicboy03:


Okay, I will play along. I will play and beat you. Logic always defeats sophistry

Science is based on observation and logic.
You can observe something but your conclusion can be illogical-- this is why you need to test and examine what you observed.

Add a third -

How do you test what you have observed?

Is it not by further observation?

Or how else?

Tell me.

Logicboy03:


Oh another question?

Observation that can be properly tested can lead to an objective truth.

The results of all tests will be determined through observation, no?

Or how else does one see a test, or an experiment, if not still through observation?

Ha, it appears you have yet to get off the mark, and have been discussing something you have not thought about at all. . .