Are we rational or irrational?

[tonyrey]

Which, precisely? I have responded specifically every time.]

A selection of his statements:

“Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules formed into cells, some making up roots, some the trunk and branches, some leaves.”

“All this complexity** naturally** led to something simple.”

“I don’t recall anyone giving a non-scientific explanation here.”

“Nature does this stuff** naturally**.”

“Your OP claims materialism must be false. Instead of simply repeating that claim ad infinitum, could you make a positive claim for an alternative that you think will stand on its own two feet?”

I’m amazed you deny that he is not propounding materialism.

 

[tonyrey]

:whackadoo:
For a start, are atomic particles conscious or not?
No, they are tiny pieces of God.

That is splendid revelation at one fell swoop of your aggressive and incoherent attitude to religion and your total inability to refute my argument. Thank you very much!

 

[tonyrey]

We are irrationally rational.

Speak for yourself.

You’re trying to have it both ways but let’s concede that people aren’t always rational. The question is whether the majority of human beings are fundamentally reasonable or not… or whether they usually have the opportunity to be reasonable. Whether they take it or not is irrelevant if you believe in free will.

 

[larkin31]

A selection of his statements:

“Zillions of atoms formed into long chain molecules formed into cells, some making up roots, some the trunk and branches, some leaves.”

“All this complexity** naturally** led to something simple.”

“I don’t recall anyone giving a non-scientific explanation here.”

“Nature does this stuff** naturally**.”

“Your OP claims materialism must be false. Instead of simply repeating that claim ad infinitum, could you make a positive claim for an alternative that you think will stand on its own two feet?”

I’m amazed you deny that he is not propounding materialism.

You’re so funny!

I don’t know who you think made these posts, but I did not.

 

[larkin31]

That is splendid revelation at one fell swoop of your aggressive and incoherent attitude to religion and your total inability to refute my argument. Thank you very much!

:extrahappy: :tiphat:

Are you certain about to whom you are responding? Just above you totally misidentify me in an effort to show me what I have been writing. Yet you got the wrong me.

 

[tonyrey]

You’re so funny!

“his” <> “you”

1. You evade refuting the plain facts by resorting to irrelevant remarks and symbols
2. thereby producing yet more evidence of your inability to engage in a reasonable discussion
3. thereby demonstrating that amidst the majority of rational human beings there are others who by choice do not belong to that category…
4. Are atomic particles conscious or not?

 

[larkin31]

“his” <> “you”

Well, since this is blatantly false and an attempt by you to dismiss your lazy error, I am simply going to continue to have fun with your claims!
:bounce: :curtsey:

you <> irrational thinker

hey, this is cool!

 

[tonyrey]

Instead of vague abstractions let’s deal with concrete facts:
*
For a start, are atomic particles conscious or not?*

This is a clear breach of Forum rule 7:

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[larkin31]

This is a clear breach of Forum rule 7:

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

I respect faith just fine!

But your “logical” arguments and obfuscation? No, I don’t respect them much. You use these false tools as a means to criticize others and suggest that they are inferior to you. Self-righteousness is deserving of targeted rejoinder.

Does your “faith” require you to post these “logical” obfuscations here? Does your “faith” require you to repeatedly ignore the specific comments on your “logical” gaps? Does your “faith” require that you misquote me and misidentify me as another poster and then claim, through petty dismissive symbols, that we are the same?

My remark is highlighting your hidden (behind your obfuscation) agenda in a thread in which you dance and dance and will not show your cards, all the while you continue to call your approach “rational” and those opposed to you “irrational” when really you are just hedging and being deceitful and baiting. If you ACTUALLY believe that atoms are “tiny pieces of God,” and that this is what this thread has ACTUALLY been about despite pages and pages of pretend “logic,” then I advise you to be more direct and honest and sincere.

tonyrey <> irrational bluffer See how petty that looks?

 

[Tonitz]

Instead of vague abstractions let’s deal with concrete facts:

For a start, are atomic particles conscious or not?

Yes, “er, ahem…” is a reasoned statement. I made it for a reason.

Your premise question is framed within your personal paradigm even if it is third partied for “validation” and designed to elicit a “no” answer. Imo, it is too narrowly framed. Wrong or faulty premise, wrong or faulty conclusion. And yet I agree with your conclusion that materialism is false. I just don’t like how you got there on grounds of poor and insufficient argument.

Neither do I think that stating a hypothesis or theory, however also insufficiently stated, from another paradigm is a breach of forum rules, nor is it disrespectful to the Faith. It simply presents a difference and in itself carries no malice of disrespect.

 

[tonyrey]

I respect faith just fine!

But your “logical” arguments and obfuscation? No, I don’t respect them much. You use these false tools as a means to criticize others and suggest that they are inferior to you. Self-righteousness is deserving of targeted rejoinder.

Does your “faith” require you to post these “logical” obfuscations here? Does your “faith” require you to repeatedly ignore the specific comments on your “logical” gaps? Does your “faith” require that you misquote me and misidentify me as another poster and then claim, through petty dismissive symbols, that we are the same?

My remark is highlighting your hidden (behind your obfuscation) agenda in a thread in which you dance and dance and will not show your cards, all the while you continue to call your approach “rational” and those opposed to you “irrational” when really you are just hedging and being deceitful and baiting. If you ACTUALLY believe that atoms are “tiny pieces of God,” and that this is what this thread has ACTUALLY been about despite pages and pages of pretend “logic,” then I advise you to be more direct and honest and sincere.

tonyrey <> irrational bluffer See how petty that looks?

All your blustering does not conceal your failure to answer one simple question:

Are atomic particles conscious?

“tiny pieces of God” is an irrelevant and irreverent distortion of Christian belief.

 

[tonyrey]

Your premise question is framed within your personal paradigm even if it is third partied for “validation” and designed to elicit a “no” answer. Imo, it is too narrowly framed. Wrong or faulty premise, wrong or faulty conclusion. And yet I agree with your conclusion that materialism is false. I just don’t like how you got there on grounds of poor and insufficient argument.

 

[jonfawkes]

All your blustering does not conceal your failure to answer one simple question:

Are atomic particles conscious?

“tiny pieces of God” is an irrelevant and irreverent distortion of Christian belief.

It is consistent with omnipresence - if He’s everywhere, he’s in the smallest particle of matter. You could argue that omnipresence means that He is all that there is, every particle of matter (and Anti-matter) are Him. There is nothing but Him.

 

[tonyrey]

It is consistent with omnipresence - if He’s everywhere, he’s in the smallest particle of matter. You could argue that omnipresence means that He is all that there is, every particle of matter (and Anti-matter) are Him. There is nothing but Him.

The acid test is whether you would use the expression “tiny** pieces **of God” accompanied by a whackadoo - which is obviously sarcastic in this context:

For a start, are atomic particles conscious or not?

:whackadoo:

No, they are tiny pieces of God.

NB “Whack-a-doo is slang for mad, insane, eccentric, crazy.”

 

[jonfawkes]

The acid test is whether you would use the expression “tiny** pieces **of God” accompanied by a whackadoo - which is obviously sarcastic in this context:

If you are going to get offended when someone calls you wacky, when debating religion, you are going to be offended - A LOT. It’s a wacky subject. Deep breath - woooooooooooo

 

[Tonitz]

It is consistent with omnipresence - if He’s everywhere, he’s in the smallest particle of matter. You could argue that omnipresence means that He is all that there is, every particle of matter (and Anti-matter) are Him. There is nothing but Him.

I love what you said here. It is pellucidly accurate. You are a “Fawk-ing GENIUS!” (Can I get away with that??? ) I admire your other posts as well. At least you are stable and honest without the emotionalism of many on here.

And actually, Tonyrey, by these lights YOU are the materialist.

 

[larkin31]

All your blustering does not conceal your failure to answer one simple question:

Are atomic particles conscious?

I, and others, have answered this at least 5 times. The WACKADOO is because you keep asking the same question without responding specifically to the replies, except to repeat the same muddled false syllogism time after time.

“tiny pieces of God” is an irrelevant and irreverent distortion of Christian belief.

I NEVER claimed it was a Christian belief. Furthermore, I don’t know why you got defensive about it since it is neither a Christian nor a Catholic specific belief.

Others here have asked you several times to explain your theory for human consciousness if you have one better than that it is the product of a properly functioning human mind.

You still have not answered.

 

[jonfawkes]

I love what you said here. It is pellucidly accurate. You are a “Fawk-ing GENIUS!” (Can I get away with that??? ) I admire your other posts as well. At least you are stable and honest without the emotionalism of many on here.

And actually, Tonyrey, by these lights YOU are the materialist.

I fawk-ing wouldn’t have any other way. Although I’d shy away from genius - I had to look up " pellucidly " I appreciate your insight as well.

 

[inocente]

It is consistent with omnipresence - if He’s everywhere, he’s in the smallest particle of matter. You could argue that omnipresence means that He is all that there is, every particle of matter (and Anti-matter) are Him. There is nothing but Him.

From what I remember of comparative religion that’s called pantheism and is part of many religions, also (I think) used to be one school of thought in Christianity.

Mustard seeds have mass so the comparison “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, …” (Matt 17:20) must mean faith has mass! And there’s more - if Higgs was right then mass is due to the Higgs boson, aka the God particle! How spooky is that! Up and atom!

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

1. Atomic particles are not rational.
2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
5. Therefore materialism must be false.

“If materialism is true, it seems to me that we cannot know that it is true. If my opinions are the result of the chemical processes going on in my brain, they are determined by the laws of chemistry, not those of logic.”. ~ the atheist J. B. S. Haldane