What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

[warpspeedpetey]

What do you mean by Hearsay? And what do you mean by Secular Literature?

**
hearsay** - heard through another rather than directly; “hearsay information”

Unless one is a witness to an event themselves,** all **evidence is hearsay. They are receiving information about the validity of evidence from another. It applies whether we are talking about a gun from a crime scene or the historicity of the Magna Carta.

Good point about “secular” literature. There was no such thing. Especially at that time as everyone was required to belong to the Roman state religion, except Jews, who had their own religion.

 

[AntiTheist]

Hey, just trying to show that not all believers are mindless drones who can’t handle the idea that they might actually be wrong.

I admire the attitude, and I continue to enjoy your relevant and thoughtful posts in this thread.

I know that I could be [wrong]… but I have faith that I’m not

Well, the idea of “faith” is definitely one I would like to discuss with someone who’s intellectually honest. Another thread, perhaps?

Keep up the good work here.

 

[mdrummer5]

Well, the idea of “faith” is definitely one I would like to discuss with someone who’s intellectually honest. Another thread, perhaps?

I honestly don’t know that it’s worth devoting a whole other thread to but I’ll gladly join in on one if you start it From an intellectual perspective faith is entirely subjective. What I’ve seen as signs of God I would assume that an Athiest would view as mere coincidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I admire the attitude, and I continue to enjoy your relevant and thoughtful posts in this thread.

Well, the idea of “faith” is definitely one I would like to discuss with someone who’s intellectually honest. Another thread, perhaps?

Keep up the good work here.

Stay out of the cellar Mdrummer5!! Stay out of the cellar!!!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[mdrummer5]

Stay out of the cellar Mdrummer5!! Stay out of the cellar!!!

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/UnkleTank2008/t-shirtcopy.jpg

I can’t pull the picture up to get the joke lol.

 

[beafedor]

Not to play the devil’s advocate but can I share my experience with back problems? Last year when my physical therapist saw my MRI and massaged a particular spot in my back, he told me he knew that it hurt because my cartilage is gone on that spot and I have degenerative arthritis. I was surprised that he could tell where it hurts even with a slight massage. He couldn’t exactly give a scale for how much it hurts, but he is a doctor of physical therapy and he told me that if you do a massage on the same spot to a normal person, they don’t feel anything. But due to my condition, even the slightest massage on that spot has to be painful for me. He was surprised that I didn’t scream (I could have). He also said that my next pregnancy was going to horrible on my back. And he was right! Too bad he doesn’t have a massage table with the hole for pregnant bellies!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I admire the attitude, and I continue to enjoy your relevant and thoughtful posts in this thread.

Well, the idea of “faith” is definitely one I would like to discuss with someone who’s intellectually honest. Another thread, perhaps?

Keep up the good work here.

What is your standard of intellectual honesty? Why would he need to go somewhere private to engage in it? The implication seems to be that someone(s) here is being intellectually dishonest. If that is the case then who is it and what are they being dishonest about? That’s a very serious charge. If that’s not your implication then why mention it at all? If you randomly mention things without meaning to imply anything from it. Then why didn’t you state some other random fact like “Balloons are round!” or “Rain is wet!”. It seems very much that you are implying that someone(s) here is being intellectually dishonest.

You’re not trying to get someone not yet mature in the Faith to a private place where you can speak without having your arguments examined by more experienced and informed Catholics are you?

I hope not. If an argument cannot stand inspection from informed skeptics than, it must be considered false. Surely you believe that the arguments you make are true don’t you? So there seems to be a contradiction between your implication of intellectual dishonesty and what looks like a desire to avoid having your arguments examined. My standard certainly doesn’t include avoiding criticism of my beliefs. So I am really, just super curious as to what your standard of intellectual honesty is?

 

[mdrummer5]

You’re not trying to get someone not yet mature in the Faith to a private place where you can speak without having your arguments examined by more experienced and informed Catholics are you?

He said “another thread” meaning one where it would not be off topic as it is here…

Your conspiracy theory is yet another thing that begs the question of whether or not faith and intelligence can coexist. Stop it.

Oh and while I appreciate the concern… I’m a big boy and strong in my faith.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can’t pull the picture up to get the joke lol.

If you can’t see the pic here is a similar image. -http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V-3zmtDgoO4/0.jpg If you aren’t a fan of American TV, here is a link to the characters wiki page.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He said “another thread” meaning one where it would not be off topic as it is here…

Your conspiracy theory is yet another thing that brings the question of whether or not faith and intelligence can coexist. Stop it.

Oh and while I appreciate the concern… I’m a big boy and strong in my faith.

If he meant “off topic” then why didn’t he say so? Here is what he actually said.

Well, the idea of “faith” is definitely one I would like to discuss **with someone who’s intellectually honest. Another thread, perhaps?
**

Nothing in that statements implies he is worried about going off topic. Its clear that he is implying that someone(s) is being intellectually dishonest.

Here I am simply pointing out how the implications of his statement would conflict with what I understand intellectual honesty to mean. So I want to know how he might reconcile them.

Further, there is no question that Faith and intelligence can co-exist. The Church is full of educated people. Doctors, physicists, lawyers, etc. It is an insult to billions of Catholics and other Christians to say otherwise.

I am curious as to why you might think that there is any separation between True Faith and True Reason?

And yes, I am sure you are capable of defending yourself, I don’t mean to imply you are not. But you are not the only person on the forum or even that reads our posts.

 

[mdrummer5]

If he meant “off topic” then why didn’t he say so?

I can’t speak for him… but I would assume that he hoped that my power of deduction was such that I would know. Seeing as how it’s a general rule on EVERY online forum to stay on topic it’s a heck of a lot more logical than the idea of him trying to get me secluded so that he can warp my fragile mind…

Further, there is no question that Faith and intelligence can co-exist.

See above… you took a perfectly logical statement and turned it into a theory about how I was going to be dragged into some “private” conversation that might make me denounce my faith.

I know they can co-exist, in fact I consider myself proof of that. But a lot of non-believers feel that the two can’t… stupid arguments like the one that sparked this thread and your conspiracy theory don’t help to prove otherwise.

 

[vz71]

You’re entitled to your opinion of course but to anyone thinking logically in terms of debate, points and counterpoints it’s irrelevant.

Entirely relevant.

It shows an inconsistancy on the side of the atheist.
The atheist believes in the pain of others, but he hasn’t as much evidence of the pain as they do of God.

 

[mdrummer5]

Entirely relevant.

It shows an inconsistancy on the side of the atheist.
The atheist believes in the pain of others, but he hasn’t as much evidence of the pain as they do of God.

Defense attorney (Athiest) “Prove that my client murdered his wife”
Prosecution (Believer) “Prove that John Smith robbed a liqour store last night”

Judge (objective 3rd party) “Irrelevant”

You and anyone who believes this is missing the point. No Athiest is saying that there are things that can’t be proven that they believe to be true. They’re simply saying that they don’t believe there is enough evidence to prove God’s existence. Whether or not it’s consistent is completely irrelevant as it’s still a ridiculous attempt to avoid the simple truth that the only answer to the question of “Is God real?” is “I don’t know” nobody can provide ANY OTHER ANSWER. The only difference is that believers will add in “but I believe he does”.

 

[AntiTheist]

You have not considered that God is experienced internally.

You keep making this mistake.

No one is denying that there is an inner experience that people label “back pain.”

Similarly, no one is denying that there is an inner experience that people label “talking to God” or “talking to Shiva” or “talking to my spirit guide” or “being abducted by UFOs.”

But the existence of these inner states gets you nowhere near establishing that there is an external being responsible for any of these inner states.

Just as someone’s inner experience of talking to a spirit guide doesn’t demonstrate that there really is a spirit guide external to the person, your experience of “talking to god” doesn’t demonstrate that there really is a god out there that you’re talking to.

The fact that you still fail to comprehend this point so many pages into this thread is discouraging.

warpspeedpetey: I think you are nearing a breakdown of some kind. Please consult a doctor.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can’t speak for him… but I would assume that he hoped that my power of deduction was such that I would know. Seeing as how it’s a general rule on EVERY online forum to stay on topic it’s a heck of a lot more logical than the idea of him trying to get me secluded so that he can warp my fragile mind…

In order to form a deduction, you must start with a premise. Which part of his post are you using as a premise to deduce that he meant to go to a private area for the purpose of staying on topic? I don’t see any premise from which such a deduction might be drawn. I could be missing it.

The premises I used for my deduction are bolded here.

Originally Posted by AntiTheist View Post
I admire the attitude, and I continue to enjoy your relevant and thoughtful posts in this thread.

Well, the idea of “faith” is definitely one I would like to discuss with someone who’s intellectually honest.

** Another thread, perhaps?**

Keep up the good work here.

Your deduction isn’t based on any actual premise in his post while mine are. Though that doesn’t prove me right, my use of actual premises as opposed to your use of wishful thinking does put my argument miles ahead in the validity category.

Again, this has nothing to do with you or your intelligence. You are not the only person on the thread.

See above… you took a perfectly logical statement and turned it into a theory about how I was going to be dragged into some “private” conversation that might make me denounce my faith.

Again, this isn’t about you. There are a lot of other people here. Its curious that you seem to think this is about you personally, whats up with that? But as I just demonstrated his statement doesn’t seem logical, though until he defends it I can’t verify that.

I know they can co-exist, in fact I consider myself proof of that. But a lot of non-believers feel that the two can’t… stupid arguments like the one that sparked this thread and your conspiracy theory don’t help to prove otherwise.

the argument that sparked the thread may be stupid, I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But a conspiracy theory is generally considered to be one where unrelated facts are strung together to form a picture of reality that doesn’t really exist.

I am using actual facts, the premises that I bolded above. His very own words. The idea that you are putting forth that he actually meant that he didn’t want to go off topic is completely unsupported by the facts. Unless you can show me some premise that forms the basis of your deductions above. That is much closer to what I understand “conspiracy theories” to be

Now, you may not like my personal style. But that doesn’t matter. If you can’t find fault with my reasoning on the basis of facts then maybe I am not wrong.

 

[mdrummer5]

In order to form a deduction, you must start with a premise. Which part of his post are you using as a premise to deduce that he meant to go to a private area for the purpose of staying on topic? I don’t see any premise from which such a deduction might be drawn. I could be missing it.

The premises I used for my deduction are bolded here.

**Well, the idea of “faith” is definitely one I would like to discuss with someone who’s intellectually honest.

Another thread, perhaps?**

Your deduction isn’t based on any actual premise in his post while mine are. Though that doesn’t prove me right, my use of actual premises as opposed to your use of wishful thinking does put my argument miles ahead in the validity category.

“Another thread” implies another thread on this forum… there’s no way that I’m aware of to make such a discussion private. Nowhere at any point did his post indicate “pst I’ll send you a private message and we can just have a one on one conversation”.

**Your deduction isn’t based on any actual premise **in his post while mine are. Though that doesn’t prove me right, my use of actual premises as opposed to your use of wishful thinking does put my argument miles ahead in the validity category.

Actually, it is… as pointed out above. You on the other hand took it out of context to imply that he and I should chat in private.

If you can’t find fault with my reasoning on the basis of facts then maybe I am not wrong.

The fault with your reasoning is that you took a completely logical statement of “another thread perhaps” (which to reiterate very obviously implies another thread on this forum which is PUBLIC) and turned it into “OH NO HE’S TRYING TO TAKE AN IMMATURE BELIEVER INTO A PRIVATE CONVERSATION TO CHANGE HIS MIND!!!”

You’re wrong.

However since AT is still around let’s ask him…

Anti would you mind elaborating on what I thought was a fairly obvious point? I know it’s silly but yea… you see what I’m dealing with here…

 

[AntiTheist]

In order to form a deduction, you must start with a premise.

Yes, you do. How about these premises:

1. The term “thread” in online communications designates a public form of correspondence on a public messageboard.
2. AntiTheist wrote that he wished to discuss a matter further and suggested “Another thread, perhaps?”
3. Conclusion: AntiTheist was suggesting that we discuss the matter further in a public form of correspondence on a public messageboard.

Obviously, when I write, I don’t spell everything out like this because we are conversing in a relatively informal fashion and I think highly enough of the people reading my posts that I give them the benefit of the doubt that they’ll be able to conclude the bleeding obvious.

On a related note, let me take the time to plug my thread on Zen Meditation, which is relevant to the insanity we’ve seen on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=537049

My meditation thread presents a Zen technique as the antidote for the habit our minds have of fooling us into believing in a false picture of reality, the results of which can be seen in warpspeedpetey’s increasingly-disconnected-from-reality posts.

 

[AntiTheist]

Anti would you mind elaborating on what I thought was a fairly obvious point? I know it’s silly but yea… you see what I’m dealing with here…

I do see what you’re dealing with. As should be clear – from my words – I intended to have further public conversations with you on the subject.

For the record, I dislike extended private message exchanges because I prefer to write for a wider audience and thus reach the most number of people possible.

Warpspeedpetey was jumping to assumptions unjustified by my post. If you read the Zen thread I linked to, you’ll see that this is precisely what our minds do all the time in daily life, and if we’re not careful, we might all end up like the particularly “warped” mind exhibited on this thread.

Consider this thread a cautionary tale.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey: I think you are nearing a breakdown of some kind. Please consult a doctor.

Ad Homs are meaningless, If you think I am wrong, then provide a counter argument.

 

[mdrummer5]

I do see what you’re dealing with. As should be clear – from my words – I intended to have further public conversations with you on the subject.

For the record, I dislike extended private message exchanges because I prefer to write for a wider audience and thus reach the most number of people possible.

Warpspeedpetey was jumping to assumptions unjustified by my post. If you read the Zen thread I linked to, you’ll see that this is precisely what our minds do all the time in daily life, and if we’re not careful, we might all end up like the particularly “warped” mind exhibited on this thread.

Consider this thread a cautionary tale.

Indeed lol. Sadly as a former non-believer I still completely understand why those that don’t believe continue to lack faith.

I did start to read the thread you linked and do appreciate it but honestly it’s too long for me to give it the time it deserves since I’m at work… working diligently of course