redneF vs caposkia 1 on 1

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
redneF vs caposkia 1 on 1

This thread is a private 1 on 1 between myself and caposkia.

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Since you invited me to

Since you invited me to start, caposkia, I will start by asking you some background information, to elaborate on your personal philosphy and the specific brand of theist beliefs you have adopted.

Were either of your parents theists?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Let me make one point here

 

Let me make one point here and then I will back off and just read the thread.

 

When we delete posts, it tends to take all posts below the deletion point at the same time. That is not absolute but it is very common. So if there is a post that needs to be deleted, try sending a mod a PM and then waiting a few hours before replying to something.

 

If you don't, your hard work could go in the bit bucket.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the heads up.I'll

Thanks for the heads up.

I'll make a point to copy and paste as much as I can into Word documents, in case that sort of thing happens.

And I hope caposkia does the same, just for the sake of continuity of the debate...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Since you

redneF wrote:

Since you invited me to start, caposkia, I will start by asking you some background information, to elaborate on your personal philosphy and the specific brand of theist beliefs you have adopted.

Were either of your parents theists?

neither of my parents I would say were theists.  We were what you could call "holiday Christians"  We'd go to church for Christmas and Easter, but that's about it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ok.How did Christianity

Ok.

How did Christianity start becoming more prevalent in your life?

Are you a born again Christian?

I ask because I haven't read enough of your posts, to fully understand your position between atheism and theism. At times it seems like you're a theist, who still is not fully convinced that a god exists.

Do you take the bible literally? Because I know some Christians claim that it's not meant to be taken literally, but rather, as parables and fables. That kind of ambiguity makes it difficult to have dialogue, when there's that ambiguity of the topic.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Ok.How did

redneF wrote:

Ok.

How did Christianity start becoming more prevalent in your life?

to make a long story short... though my family was 'holiday Christians', i still accepted that there was a god and what our particular church taught... Whenever i asked about it, they would just tell me to listen in church and I'd learn something.  I would occasionally go off holiday with my grandparents.  

My parents eventually got divorced and my father remarried a Jehovah's Witness.  I didn't know much about my belief (I went to a catholic church)  but i knew what they were teaching.  I knew what my dad got into was wrong.  So I set out to prove him wrong.  In doing so, i for the first time, opened a Bible and started to read it.  I found out that not only was my dad's belief wrong, but what i understood to be true was not following Biblical teachings as well.  So at this point there were 3 different ways of knowing God.

I started questioning the whole thing. (yes there are gaps in my story, but I'm trying to make a long story short.)

I eventually stepped back and said to myself (and God if he was really there) that with all these different ways of knowing God, I'm not sure if he really is there at all.  I said to a (likely non-existent God) that he needs to show me he's real or I would walk away.  

(*edit*) just to clarify a point:  I fully believed and accepted God up until the divorce... I was with an atheistic mind from that point for a few years.. though young I categorized God with Santa and the Easter Bunny as a story parents told you.

after some new  friends came into my life, they were showing me yet another way of knowing this same God.  I was sure at this point that it was likely all false understandings.  

This theoretical God did put events and people in my life in a way that made it obvious to me that there was someone there. (a little too ironic to claim irony at this point) I started seriously studying what the Bible was teaching.  Turns out most religion got it wrong from what i was learning.  From this point I made it a point not to accept anything that couldn't be proven scripturally. 

God continued to work in my life and I continued studying and challenging all religious people in my life and their beliefs.  When they'd present me some idea, I'd ask for scriptural support.

Jumping ahead again, i did eventually start going to outside sources for support be it that the Jehovah's Witnesses try to back themselves up historically as well.  

Through college I discovered others that had the same state of mind (rejecting religion and accepting biblical truths backed up with other worldly accepted avenues) and found that there were people who knew and accepted what the Bible was teaching and not just what church was telling you to believe.  

(*edit)  I studied the Bible starting in highschool personally and didn't get any outside help in understanding what i was reading until about mid highschool.  That's when the 4th angle of knowing God came into my life.  They were more congruent with scripture and introduced me to the spiritual warfare angle, which from what i've found is very Biblical.  

to this day I use all resources and still challenge all people opposing what I accept to further investigate my beliefs, but of course from what I've seen, I can logically accept the existence of God.  

(*edit)

Ultimately, I don't question the existence of God, it seems pretty clear to me, though i still question everything I know, therefore, if there's reason to not believe there is a God, i'm open to it.  

The thing is, it is the Jehovah's Witnesses, Atheists, and other dispensationalists that have helped me affirm my understanding as correct and not the other way around.  The opposition has forced me to study, open books and look at avenues of research I never considered looking at.  Though some avenues have minimal reasoning to accept the existence of God, so far no avenue has shown me any reasoning to not accept God as real.  Still personal experiences in my life reaffirm any doubt that might creep up from time to time.
 

 

redneF wrote:

 

Are you a born again Christian?

to take it literally as is without the denominational and doctrinal additives, I would say I would have to have had a spiritual rebirth to go through what I did and come out as a Believer.  So yes.

redneF wrote:

I ask because I haven't read enough of your posts, to fully understand your position between atheism and theism. At times it seems like you're a theist, who still is not fully convinced that a god exists.

as you can see from my summary, there was a time of questioning... that was when i was in middle school through highschool and a little bit of college.  I fully accept the existence of God now, but I vowed to myself and God that i would constantly question everything I know  and accept and seek to challenge my own belief so that i wouldn't fall in the religious acceptance and get stuck in a one track state of mind.  

just in case the question would come up, no I didn't go to a seminary or Christian college.  In fact my college was strongly lacking a Christian following.

redneF wrote:

Do you take the bible literally? Because I know some Christians claim that it's not meant to be taken literally, but rather, as parables and fables. That kind of ambiguity makes it difficult to have dialogue, when there's that ambiguity of the topic.

There is no yes or no answer to that.  The reason is because some of it is understood to be taken literal, and some of it is understood to be taken metaphorically.  unlike the atheistic assumption that we can just pick and choose what to take literal and what not to, there is extensive research that goes into understanding what must be taken literal and not.  Most of what should not be taken literally is pretty obvious.  Beyond literal and metaphorical, there are some parts that are known to be parables and some understood to be historical.  

ultimately the answer depends on what part of the Bible you're talking about.  Don't take it the wrong way, the questionable parts are not pertinent to the belief system of Christianity and are only support for the personality of God and/or a progression in a timelilne.  Some are good life lesson stories... e.g. Job is a book in question as to whether it really happened or not... it can be in question because it is understood to be the oldest story in the Bible.  The likelihood of it being a parable and not historically accurate is better in my mind due to some extra spiritual characters that are not exampled through the rest of the Bible.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Ok.

How did Christianity start becoming more prevalent in your life?

to make a long story short... though my family was 'holiday Christians', i still accepted that there was a god and what our particular church taught... Whenever i asked about it, they would just tell me to listen in church and I'd learn something. 

So, did you go to church regularly? I thought you said you only went on Easter and Christmas. 

caposkia wrote:
I would occasionally go off holiday with my grandparents.  

Were they devoutly religious?

caposkia wrote:
 I knew what my dad got into was wrong. 

Wrong about what?

That's pretty vague.

It would be helpful if there were no 'gaps' in our dialogue.

Saying things like 'stuff' was not 'right', is kinda mumbo jumbo, you know?

How did you 'know' he was wrong? Where's the disctinction for you, between a belief, and a knowledge?

caposkia wrote:
 So I set out to prove him wrong.  In doing so, i for the first time, opened a Bible and started to read it. 

So, you concluded he was wrong, based in instinct?

caposkia wrote:
 I found out that not only was my dad's belief wrong

Please clarify what 'specifically' you are referring to.

caposkia wrote:
but what i understood to be true was not following Biblical teachings as well.  So at this point there were 3 different ways of knowing God.

You mean establishing a personal dialogue with a god? Or some kind of 2 way street interaction with a god?

caposkia wrote:
I started questioning the whole thing. (yes there are gaps in my story, but I'm trying to make a long story short.)

With all due respect, there seems to be contradictions from the start in just 'how' prevalent religion was in your life, from your parents.

caposkia wrote:
I eventually stepped back and said to myself (and God if he was really there) that with all these different ways of knowing God, I'm not sure if he really is there at all.  I said to a (likely non-existent God) that he needs to show me he's real or I would walk away.  

So, is this like you are talking to a god, that may/may not be there? You are asking for a god to give you personal signs of his existence?

caposkia wrote:
(*edit*) just to clarify a point:  I fully believed and accepted God up until the divorce... I was with an atheistic mind from that point for a few years.. though young I categorized God with Santa and the Easter Bunny as a story parents told you.

I'm having trouble following this. It seems to contradictory. You fully believed and accepted God, though when you were young you catergorized God as a legend like Santa or the Easter Bunny?

caposkia wrote:
after some new  friends came into my life, they were showing me yet another way of knowing this same God.  I was sure at this point that it was likely all false understandings.  

What does this mean? That 'it' was likely all false understandings? What is 'it'?

And BTW, 'false understandings' is religious rhetoric. The correct term is 'misunderstanding', or 'misinterpretation'.

caposkia wrote:
This theoretical God did put events and people in my life in a way that made it obvious to me that there was someone there.

Explain how you felt absolutely certain that it was not simply by chance. What made the distinction for you?

caposkia wrote:
(a little too ironic to claim irony at this point) I started seriously studying what the Bible was teaching.  Turns out most religion got it wrong from what i was learning.

You're being too vague, for any useful dialogue. Continually referring to 'it', without a qualifier of what 'it' is, is just being rhetorical.

Everytime I see an 'it', it's no better than saying (x). 

caposkia wrote:
From this point I made it a point not to accept anything that couldn't be proven scripturally. 

You mean to say, that you have somehow concluded that scripture was a method of certifying the veracity of the natural world?

That's not very objective.

caposkia wrote:
God continued to work in my life and I continued studying and challenging all religious people in my life and their beliefs. 

It sounds like you simply believed in your personal God, and wanted to see if everyone else's personal God was based in less personal reasoning than what you had done. 

caposkia wrote:
When they'd present me some idea, I'd ask for scriptural support.

It sounds like scripture is something you personally decided was factual. I can't see how you'd arrive at that conclusion objectively.

caposkia wrote:
Ultimately, I don't question the existence of God, it seems pretty clear to me, though i still question everything I know, therefore, if there's reason to not believe there is a God, i'm open to it.  

That's a non sequitur.

You're openly contradicting yourself. You say you don't question the existence of you God, in one instant, then say you're open to looking at reasons to question your beliefs.

In that case, it sounds like God is a working hypothesis for you, in which case, I don't understand the value of adding the 'belief', that may/may not turn out to be real.

It becomes quite superfluous (in my mind), and kinda like an 'I can take it, or leave it' proposition.

caposkia wrote:
The thing is, it is the Jehovah's Witnesses, Atheists, and other dispensationalists that have helped me affirm my understanding as correct and not the other way around.  

You're being vague again. Correct understanding? Of what? Correct understanding of (x) again?

caposkia wrote:
... so far no avenue has shown me any reasoning to not accept God as real. 

How can a god be real, without any physical evidence?

I think you've gotten way ahead of yourself, in this 1 on 1 dialogue.

I don't see any evidence of a god, and you are talking to me about something as if it exists and I cannot see it.

Where can I see evidence of god as well? 

caposkia wrote:
... Still personal experiences in my life reaffirm any doubt that might creep up from time to time.

So, you still have doubts, from time to time?

caposkia wrote:
... as you can see from my summary, there was a time of questioning...

I just want clarification.

Do you still question the existence of God?

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Do you take the bible literally? Because I know some Christians claim that it's not meant to be taken literally, but rather, as parables and fables. That kind of ambiguity makes it difficult to have dialogue, when there's that ambiguity of the topic.

There is no yes or no answer to that.  The reason is because some of it is understood to be taken literal, and some of it is understood to be taken metaphorically.  unlike the atheistic assumption that we can just pick and choose what to take literal and what not to...

Ummm,....there isn't any 'atheist position' that I alluded to. I'm telling you that theists can't seem to agree on the bible itself. They contradict themselves all the time, when they talk of the bible, to me.

Some will tell me that the story of Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark are metaphorical, and then I see on TV that there are explorers looking for Noah's Ark somewhere in some high mountaintops.

caposkia wrote:

there is extensive research that goes into understanding what must be taken literal and not. 

There shouldn't be. They've had 2000 yrs to translate this stuff, and cull the pertinent data.

Just tell me specifically which parts are to be taken literally.

Is the book of Genesis to be taken literally?

caposkia wrote:
 Beyond literal and metaphorical, there are some parts that are known to be parables and some understood to be historical.
 

I don't know what your definition of ancient history is, but mine, is that the accounts written in ancient history are highly suspect.

caposkia wrote:
 Don't take it the wrong way, the questionable parts are not pertinent to the belief system of Christianity and are only support for the personality of God and/or a progression in a timelilne. 

Well, I've recently found out that there are lifetime theologians and theists, who now have realized that the legend of the Jesus character, is not even grounded in the ancient scriptures around the supposed time of his life.

Guys like Bart Ehrman and Tom Harpur have studied, written, and debated extensively on the subject.

I know for a fact, that there are no contemporaneous accounts of the birth of the Jesus character, or his supposed virgin birth, and that it appears that the legend only 'arguably' begins to have vague mentions of a Jesus character, somewhere between 70-200 yrs after the supposed Jesus crucifixion.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
3 days and counting...

3 days and counting...


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
4 days and counting...

4 days and counting...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
rednef wrote:So, did you go

rednef wrote:

So, did you go to church regularly? I thought you said you only went on Easter and Christmas. 

I said my family was ‘holiday Christians’ ones who went to church only on Easter and Christmas… no I didn’t go regularly… at least in my memory.  It was occasionally with my grandparents off season.    I’m sure there were times when we went a few Sundays in a row and other times where many Sundays were missed. 

I remember my family got me into CCD at church, but I also remember getting nothing from it and I couldn’t wait for it to be over… The teachers were volunteers and they had no clue about what they were teaching.  I remember one teacher spent a CCD class showing us how you can play records backwards to hear hidden messages, usually satanic.  That was kind of fun.

rednef wrote:

Were they devoutly religious?                   

My grandparents were and would faithfully go to catholic church every Sunday.  My grandfather would volunteer a lot at the churches functions.  I remember them not to be very knowledgeable though and when I’d ask them questions, they would tell me to pay attention in church.

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

 I knew what my dad got into was wrong. 

Wrong about what?

That's pretty vague.

It would be helpful if there were no 'gaps' in our dialogue.

Saying things like 'stuff' was not 'right', is kinda mumbo jumbo, you know?

How did you 'know' he was wrong? Where's the disctinction for you, between a belief, and a knowledge?

It’s easier for me to tell the summary then answer the ‘vague’ questions specifically.  I felt he was wrong about his belief… my only reference is what the church was telling me.  The Jehovah’s Witness believe system is very different than the catholic belief system… that was my reference… The catholic church teaches that they are right and everyone else is wrong, so that’s what I believed. 

rednef wrote:

So, you concluded he was wrong, based in instinct?

 based on what people told me.

rednef wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 I found out that not only was my dad's belief wrong

Please clarify what 'specifically' you are referring to.

This being the Jehovah’s Witnesses

rednef wrote:

caposkia wrote:

but what i understood to be true was not following Biblical teachings as well.  So at this point there were 3 different ways of knowing God.

You mean establishing a personal dialogue with a god? Or some kind of 2 way street interaction with a god?

I mean I was discovering the problems with religion and how they kind of make up their own belief and not necessarily what the Bible teaches.

rednef wrote:

 

With all due respect, there seems to be contradictions from the start in just 'how' prevalent religion was in your life, from your parents.

From my parents, not very… it’s like this… they’d be very religious and all about religious tradition around the holidays, but once the holidays were over, that all went out the window it seemed. 

caposkia wrote:

I eventually stepped back and said to myself (and God if he was really there) that with all these different ways of knowing God, I'm not sure if he really is there at all.  I said to a (likely non-existent God) that he needs to show me he's real or I would walk away.  

rednef wrote:

 

So, is this like you are talking to a god, that may/may not be there? You are asking for a god to give you personal signs of his existence?

Yea basically… if you’re there, show me or I won’t believe

rednef wrote:

 

I'm having trouble following this. It seems to contradictory. You fully believed and accepted God, though when you were young you catergorized God as a legend like Santa or the Easter Bunny?

This all happened when I was quite young.  I was very young when my parents were bringing me to church and my grandparents, then at about 8 years old there was the divorce.  After that church was pretty much out the window, but I still was made to go to CCD classes (religious classes)  It was when I was round 10 years old that I ended up categorizing God as legend like Santa.  From there I was a non-believer pretty much through the beginning part of college.  I at times through that period would be wishy washy and still claimed I was catholic.

caposkia wrote:

after some new  friends came into my life, they were showing me yet another way of knowing this same God.  I was sure at this point that it was likely all false understandings.  

rednef wrote:

 

What does this mean? That 'it' was likely all false understandings? What is 'it'?

And BTW, 'false understandings' is religious rhetoric. The correct term is 'misunderstanding', or 'misinterpretation'.

Misunderstandings or misinterpretations would suggest there’s a right way of interpreting it.  I was trying to be politically correct by saying that I believed there was nothing to interpret and that it was all false.   The friends that came into my life here are ones who  had a differing belief from Catholicism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  To see yet another interpretation of God further supported my disbelief.

 

caposkia wrote:

This theoretical God did put events and people in my life in a way that made it obvious to me that there was someone there.

rednef wrote:

 

Explain how you felt absolutely certain that it was not simply by chance. What made the distinction for you?

I can’t say that there was a “dawning” and one big event caused me to believe.  It was more of a compilation of many events, some too ironic to be ironic, but by themselves could be dismissed as ironic, others just unexplainable. 

Some examples would be during a prayer session around a fire we all looked up and saw an angel, or what appeared to be an angel in the clouds… sure, could have been irony, clouds take on many shapes.

The timing of when my friends came into my life and the impeccable timing of certain things happening when they needed to even to this day, like finances just happen to be there at the last moment even though we were sure we’d be short.   A friends house was spared from a wild fire, a perfect circle of unburnt land surrounded their house where everything else around was charred.  After I got more into looking into it, at night if I would take a walk, streetlights would go out around me or as I passed under them.  Others witnessed this phenomenon.  I talked to a “prayer warrior” friend of mine about the situation.  He lives 1000 miles away from me.  He prayed about it and the streetlight phenomenon immediately stopped.  Immediately as in the next night and on from there.  

Beyond that, I was in college during this time of discovery and could look into the technical aspect of it and ask the more difficult questions, so I would do such and researched the science angle, probabilities, etc.  A science vs. religion class at my college helped me further my understanding of the belief on a scientific level.  This among other events and studies compiled together leads me to believe there is no other logical conclusion.

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

(a little too ironic to claim irony at this point) I started seriously studying what the Bible was teaching.  Turns out most religion got it wrong from what i was learning.

You're being too vague, for any useful dialogue. Continually referring to 'it', without a qualifier of what 'it' is, is just being rhetorical.

Everytime I see an 'it', it's no better than saying (x). 

It in this instance being the Bible.

caposkia wrote:

From this point I made it a point not to accept anything that couldn't be proven scripturally. 

You mean to say, that you have somehow concluded that scripture was a method of certifying the veracity of the natural world?

That's not very objective.

That alone is not very objective.  I realize I didn’t clarify enough here.

What I meant to say is that to follow God, now that I understood him to be real, I would only profess to people asking about my religion, what I knew to be congruent with scripture, this had nothing to do with further proving to myself Gods existence.    This did not go into the idea of proving God through scripture. 

rednef wrote:

caposkia wrote:

God continued to work in my life and I continued studying and challenging all religious people in my life and their beliefs. 

It sounds like you simply believed in your personal God, and wanted to see if everyone else's personal God was based in less personal reasoning than what you had done. 

Interesting perspective, but putting it into context of what I said so far, it’s only to further my understanding and to help others understand where their believe might not be congruent with scripture.  Within the believe the question is never whether God is or not, but what’s true according to scripture, so that’s where I started.

At this point, you seem to still be focused on my proving to myself God is real and I’ve moved beyond that.

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

When they'd present me some idea, I'd ask for scriptural support.

It sounds like scripture is something you personally decided was factual. I can't see how you'd arrive at that conclusion objectively.

We’re beyond that.  I explained why I accepted it as factual earlier in this post.

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Ultimately, I don't question the existence of God, it seems pretty clear to me, though i still question everything I know, therefore, if there's reason to not believe there is a God, i'm open to it.  

That's a non sequitur.

You're openly contradicting yourself. You say you don't question the existence of you God, in one instant, then say you're open to looking at reasons to question your beliefs.

Not contradicting.  I’m taking it from the perspective that I know God is real and what I believe about God might be mistaken. 

rednef wrote:

 

In that case, it sounds like God is a working hypothesis for you, in which case, I don't understand the value of adding the 'belief', that may/may not turn out to be real.

It becomes quite superfluous (in my mind), and kinda like an 'I can take it, or leave it' proposition.

I’m trying to portray that I have allowed myself to be open minded enough that if anyone ever had reasonable evidence to show me that my belief is wrong like I discovered before, then I’d be willing to consider it. 

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

The thing is, it is the Jehovah's Witnesses, Atheists, and other dispensationalists that have helped me affirm my understanding as correct and not the other way around.  

You're being vague again. Correct understanding? Of what? Correct understanding of (x) again?

My understanding of God

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

... so far no avenue has shown me any reasoning to not accept God as real. 

How can a god be real, without any physical evidence?

He affects the physical.  Just because he’s not physical doesn’t mean he can’t affect the physical.

rednef wrote:

 

I think you've gotten way ahead of yourself, in this 1 on 1 dialogue.

I don't see any evidence of a god, and you are talking to me about something as if it exists and I cannot see it.

Where can I see evidence of god as well? 

You asked me how I came to know God or came to believe in what I do.  This wasn’t my evidence to you, just a history of me and what helped me come to what I know today.

You ask where, I could say look around.  There are ‘evidences’ all over the world, but the question is what would you accept as evidences? 

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

... Still personal experiences in my life reaffirm any doubt that might creep up from time to time.

So, you still have doubts, from time to time?

Sure, most people do, that’s where the faith comes in.   The doubt isn’t as extreme as you’re probably going to make it out to be but moreso of the same kind of doubt an open minded atheist might have.  All you have to do is fall back on your knowledge of what you understand to be real to reaffirm your belief… or disbelief.  In the atheists mind, it’s usually the world.  In my mind, it is all of the avenues including scripture and prayer.  The bible eludes to this kind of doubt many times.  It’s not a secret.  Mother Therresa was said to have doubts as well.

The point is, there are events that cause any reason to doubt to not be a factor such as what I detailed above

 

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

... as you can see from my summary, there was a time of questioning...

I just want clarification.

Do you still question the existence of God?

No

rednef wrote:

Ummm,....there isn't any 'atheist position' that I alluded to. I'm telling you that theists can't seem to agree on the bible itself. They contradict themselves all the time, when they talk of the bible, to me.

Right, you have not eluded to any ‘atheist position’.  It was a general statement about atheists in my experience.  The contradiction you’re exampling here in my experience is due to the problem I talked about when I started losing the faith in God.

rednef wrote:

caposkia wrote:

there is extensive research that goes into understanding what must be taken literal and not. 

There shouldn't be. They've had 2000 yrs to translate this stuff, and cull the pertinent data.

Sure, but only about 60 years to modify that understanding through new discoveries including the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The problem with translating is not only language barrier, but time and culture barriers as well as lingo.  A lot was not clearly understood or lost over time and had to be reinterpreted… which is why there is such a difficult history in Christianity.  Keep in mind that for all the time before Christ the scrolls were only interpreted by specially trained persons.  After the churches tried to keep it from the general public and were trying to force people to accept their warped interpretations until Martin Luther who translated it into the people’s tongue. 

rednef wrote:

 

Just tell me specifically which parts are to be taken literally.

That could take a while

rednef wrote:

 

Is the book of Genesis to be taken literally?

Some parts yes, some parts no.  e.g. the creation account.  It’s not an eye-witness account, nor is it fully understood by the writer.  It is understood to be taken as happening, but not literally as said.  Though the story of Abraham and the geneology should be taken literally. 

rednef wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

 Beyond literal and metaphorical, there are some parts that are known to be parables and some understood to be historical.

 

I don't know what your definition of ancient history is, but mine, is that the accounts written in ancient history are highly suspect.

Which explains your skepticism

rednef wrote:

Well, I've recently found out that there are lifetime theologians and theists, who now have realized that the legend of the Jesus character, is not even grounded in the ancient scriptures around the supposed time of his life.

Guys like Bart Ehrman and Tom Harpur have studied, written, and debated extensively on the subject.

I know for a fact, that there are no contemporaneous accounts of the birth of the Jesus character, or his supposed virgin birth, and that it appears that the legend only 'arguably' begins to have vague mentions of a Jesus character, somewhere between 70-200 yrs after the supposed Jesus crucifixion.

 

The latest pattern I've noticed emerging in myself, is finding myself increasingly asking the question " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

As an atheist, I am the antithesis of acquiescence. I will only adopt that which is unequivocal, as an absolute. I can't help but notice those, who have exponentially lower standards than I.

My standards are quite high.  It is clearly understood that exact times can’t be held to the minute in scripture and that a leeway of occasionally a few hundred years can be possible, but there’s sound historical reasoning to decide the discrepancy and it is not just a lucky guess or an assumption on the researchers part.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:4 days and

redneF wrote:

4 days and counting...

oh yea, I forgot to mention something to you.  i have a life outside this website... and you might find due to the fact that I have a full time job, family, friends, hobbies and children that I could take up to 2 weeks at times to respond.  You're going to have to be patient.  

Also, if you ask me something that i actually have to research or look into before responding, then again, you might have to be patient.  

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:oh yea, I

caposkia wrote:

oh yea, I forgot to mention something to you.  i have a life outside this website... and you might find due to the fact that I have a full time job, family, friends, hobbies and children that I could take up to 2 weeks at times to respond.  You're going to have to be patient.  

Also, if you ask me something that i actually have to research or look into before responding, then again, you might have to be patient.  

Oh, that won't be necessary, caposkia.

Thanks, for the 1 on 1 dialgoue, though.

You've described very clearly, that you're a typical, garden variety theist.

Someone told you the bible was true, and that everything happens for a reason, and that the Christian God is the reason, why things happen.

So when things happen, the reason is the Christian God.

 

That's simply:

Indoctrination + confirmation bias= personal belief in God

That's not impartial, nor objective. 

You believe a god is possible, but you have never been sure, as you admit that you still have doubts, from time to time, and that's when 'faith comes in'.

That's not dispassionate. That's 'desperate'.

 

And that's the difference between me and theists. I'm completely apathetic to how the universe began.

It makes no difference to me.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I've given redneF and his

 I've given redneF and his debate opponents access into the One on One debate forum.  Sorry I didn't get to it sooner.  Typical users aren't able to post in this forum, only people who have been granted entry.  This will help eliminate any future moderation issues in these threads.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Oh, that won't

redneF wrote:

Oh, that won't be necessary, caposkia.

Thanks, for the 1 on 1 dialgoue, though.

You've described very clearly, that you're a typical, garden variety theist.

Someone told you the bible was true, and that everything happens for a reason, and that the Christian God is the reason, why things happen.

So when things happen, the reason is the Christian God.

that's not what i believe... I think you're confusing what I believed as a child and what I believe now... you missed the whole part about not believing in anything that i couldn't support by some means.  If that's what you want to think about me though... I hope I am a "regular Christian" not by today's standards, but by Biblical standards.

yes, I told you I questioned my dad because of what people told me... that's when i still believed in catholicism.  

redneF wrote:

That's simply:

Indoctrination + confirmation bias= personal belief in God

That's not impartial, nor objective. 

You believe a god is possible, but you have never been sure, as you admit that you still have doubts, from time to time, and that's when 'faith comes in'.

That's not dispassionate. That's 'desperate'.

I don't have doubts about God if you read carefully, the doubts are about what i've accepted as truth and discovered through research and study.

redneF wrote:

 

And that's the difference between me and theists. I'm completely apathetic to how the universe began.

It makes no difference to me.

me either... you chose to start there, I went with it.  I followed your lead.  

wow, you're quite a debator!  Man, my head is still spinning.  Quitting before we even start.  Amazing you're a non-believer.  With this approach to debates, I would have assumed you to be a religious nut.  Well done my friend.  

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I went to post, and lost my

I went to post, and lost my response.

I'll rewrite it at a later date.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I went to post,

redneF wrote:

I went to post, and lost my response.

I'll rewrite it at a later date.

i know how that is, take your time


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I went to post,

redneF wrote:

I went to post, and lost my response.

I'll rewrite it at a later date.

Alright Dude, it's been over a month.  You've taken time to argue with me on other threads, but can't seem to get back to this one despite you telling me you needed time to repost.  I get it, but this is ridiculous.  

What exactly did you want to debate me on?  


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

I went to post, and lost my response.

I'll rewrite it at a later date.

Alright Dude, it's been over a month.  You've taken time to argue with me on other threads, but can't seem to get back to this one despite you telling me you needed time to repost.  I get it, but this is ridiculous.  

I really wasn't interested in your drivel any longer, which is why I previously told you that it wasn't going to be necessary for you to continue, and then you started to run your mouth with :

wow, you're quite a debator!  Man, my head is still spinning.  Quitting before we even start.  Amazing you're a non-believer.  With this approach to debates, I would have assumed you to be a religious nut.

 

The bottom line is, you're a troll.

You're not sincerely, or legitmately trying to use 'reason'. You're just feigning a desire to 'question' your beliefs, to troll this site.

You're attempting to bait me with your "Wow, you're quite a debator! Man, my head is still spinning..." bullshit, when a person can barely stay interested in your fragmented, sophomoric babble.

caposkia wrote:
What exactly did you want to debate me on?  

The 'debate' between you and I was to determine whose methods of 'reasoning' was more rigorous (yours or mine), since you insist that your belief in a supernatural deity is completely rational, and after much scrutiny.

You're simply not convincing in the slighest, that your 'rationalizations' are even mediocre, much less noteworthy.

If you feel that you rate as some kind of impressive 'investigator' of truth, then you suffer from grandeur, on top of being delusional about gods.

You want to allege that atheists are being irrational, or having improperly based reasons for being skeptical of god claims?

That's drole...

The proof of your immature notions of reality, is from day 1 of your other tread...

caposkia wrote:
This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ 

Stupid comment.

What's a debate got to do with the lack of evidence of the mythological Jesus?

caposkia wrote:
I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 

No, you're just being a persistent pest.

caposkia wrote:
I used "reasoning" to come to the conclusion that there is a God. 

No.

But you're in good company, as I've not heard one good reason to come to the same conclusion as you, from any theist.

caposkia wrote:
...  you keep coming up with excuses and have yet to give me support or logical reasoning behind your belief.  

This hackneyed rebuttal is what you theists use like a drunk uses a lamp post.

In the same way that this rebuttal, aimed at you by a Muslim, is patently useless as an argument, is the same way that it's patently useless as an argument for your Christianity.

caposkia wrote:
  There are ‘evidences’ all over the world, but the question is what would you accept as evidences? 

No, there are none, as a universe with gods, is indistinguishable from one without.

Epic Fail.

caposkia wrote:
 Keep in mind that for all the time before Christ the scrolls were only interpreted by specially trained persons.

Epic Fail

caposkia wrote:
It is clearly understood that exact times can’t be held to the minute in scripture and that a leeway of occasionally a few hundred years can be possible,
 

Epic Fail

caposkia wrote:
My standards are quite high. 

Not compared to mine.

Not even close.

And I outlined why, earlier.

This thread has served it's purpose for me, and I'm no longer interested in it.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I really wasn't

redneF wrote:

I really wasn't interested in your drivel any longer, which is why I previously told you that it wasn't going to be necessary for you to continue, and then you started to run your mouth with :

wow, you're quite a debator!  Man, my head is still spinning.  Quitting before we even start.  Amazing you're a non-believer.  With this approach to debates, I would have assumed you to be a religious nut.

What drivel, you asked me for my history, then you labeled me a garden variety Christian without diving into what I believe now.  

redneF wrote:

The bottom line is, you're a troll.

who told you?  no one is suppose to know we exist!

redneF wrote:

You're not sincerely, or legitmately trying to use 'reason'. You're just feigning a desire to 'question' your beliefs, to troll this site.

I'm curious on how you've come to that conclusion be it that "reasonable" conversation has not happened between the 2 of us yet.  I thought we were getting there when you wanted to know a little bit of my history, but then I realized you only were looking for excuses to justify yourself and not a debate.

redneF wrote:

You're attempting to bait me with your "Wow, you're quite a debator! Man, my head is still spinning..." bullshit, when a person can barely stay interested in your fragmented, sophomoric babble.

I follow the lead of others, in this case i was following your lead.  If it is ever fragmented or babble, it's not my fault.  I will focus when you choose to be focused.  Why don't you explore my other threads or other threads Im' involved in, then tell me the same thing.

redneF wrote:

The 'debate' between you and I was to determine whose methods of 'reasoning' was more rigorous (yours or mine), since you insist that your belief in a supernatural deity is completely rational, and after much scrutiny.

You're simply not convincing in the slighest, that your 'rationalizations' are even mediocre, much less noteworthy.

we haven't talked about anything yet other than what i believed as a kid.  Where do you think I was trying to convince you of anything on this thread at this point?  other than the fact that you dropped what you told everyone was going to be a debate.  Even got the mods to set up a special thread just for us.  I feel like you've wasted everyone's time.

redneF wrote:

If you feel that you rate as some kind of impressive 'investigator' of truth, then you suffer from grandeur, on top of being delusional about gods.

I don't place myself above anyone else.  Do you think you're any more special than the rest?  c'mon, excuses are fun and all, but when it comes down to it, you're really just avoiding.  if you're so sure of yourself, then let's go, we set up this thread for a reason, bring it.

redneF wrote:

You want to allege that atheists are being irrational, or having improperly based reasons for being skeptical of god claims?

I claim I believe in the existence of God through the reasoning of many avenues and I expect that atheists will challenge my belief... that way if I'm wrong, I will find out, if I'm right, they will only further confirm my understanding.  

Again, your excuses only give you a window to walk away.  Walk it if you're so sure.

redneF wrote:

The proof of your immature notions of reality, is from day 1 of your other tread...

You've read that whole thread from day 1?!!! wow, i think you're the only one

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ 

Stupid comment.

stupid excuse

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 

No, you're just being a persistent pest.

you chose to come onto MY thread and challenge me! you have every right and the freedom to stop taking to me at any time.  Do you want this... heh... debate to be over?  just say i don't want to debate you.  I'll drop it and again, as I've said before we even started, yet another claimed debate with no winner.  If you can even call this a debate.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I used "reasoning" to come to the conclusion that there is a God. 

No.

wow, you know me better than I know myself! how long have you been spying on me and who are you really?

redneF wrote:

But you're in good company, as I've not heard one good reason to come to the same conclusion as you, from any theist.

You don't care to hear it.  The truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it.  I don't know about the discussions you've had with other theists, but it's been nothing but excuses and lack of focus since day 1 with you.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...  you keep coming up with excuses and have yet to give me support or logical reasoning behind your belief.  

This hackneyed rebuttal is what you theists use like a drunk uses a lamp post.

actually, I got that rebuttal from the atheists on this site.

redneF wrote:

In the same way that this rebuttal, aimed at you by a Muslim, is patently useless as an argument, is the same way that it's patently useless as an argument for your Christianity.

So you're finally getting it.  your approch is going to get us nowhere, so let's take a different approach shall we?

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
  There are ‘evidences’ all over the world, but the question is what would you accept as evidences? 

No, there are none, as a universe with gods, is indistinguishable from one without.

and you have reasoning behind this conclusion right?

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Keep in mind that for all the time before Christ the scrolls were only interpreted by specially trained persons.

Epic Fail

why is history an epic fail to you?  This is proven in history.  Whether the scrolls hold the truth is what's in debate, not whether they were interpreted by specially trained persons.  You're so against this belief that you're willing to call even proven facts epic fails.  That's pretty sad

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
It is clearly understood that exact times can’t be held to the minute in scripture and that a leeway of occasionally a few hundred years can be possible,
 

Epic Fail

yea, this is going to be a fun debate.  

caposkia wrote:
My standards are quite high. 

Not compared to mine.

Not even close.

And I outlined why, earlier.

You have yet to express your standards.  I've noticed from what you've posted so far that your standards are quite low... at least for what you believe. 

redneF wrote:

This thread has served it's purpose for me, and I'm no longer interested in it.

Thank you for your honesty.  

This thread is now closed.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
1 on 1 debate take 2

 Stemming from a discussion on the Atheist Crusaders thread, we have agreed to restart the debate.   Pasted below is the post from the other thread that we are basing this new "debate" from.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pasted from New Atheist Crusaders quest...

 redneF wrote:No.The claim of

 

 

redneF wrote:

 

No.

The claim of an 'immaterial brain' is nonsensical.

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

 

Anything that one might not understand or believe is nonsensical to them.  It's a subjective stance.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

His claim is infinitely more compatible with reality, than the opposite.

Unless you can debunk his claim, you've failed to do anything but take up bandwidth trying to intelligently rebuke the claim.


Caposkia Wrote:

 

 

What claim?  A brain with no brain being nonsense?  He has yet to rationally support that claim.  It'd be like me trying to prove you don't have a dog and you claiming you do but refusing to show me.   It's useless to pursue.  Anyone can claim anything and not support it... and if enough people agree, suddenly it's rational.  

His best argument for his claim is the same that you and others are trying to accuse me of using, which is rationale without basis.  If your'e going to buy his, why shouldn't I just claim something and expect you to believe it?  BTW I'm not, but as far as Brain's concerned, that's all I need to do with him.   That's all he's expecting me to buy.

 


 

 

caposkia wrote:
Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything.....

 

redneF wrote:

That's endorsing gullibility over skepticism.

Caposkia Wrote:

 

 

skepticism is fine, but a good skeptic has reasoning behind their skepticism.  skepticism without basis has another term associated with it... it's called ignorance.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

So, you've come to the firm conclusion that science doesn't have a more plausible explanation for how the universe formed? Or how life evolved, than ancient scripture??

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

I have come to the firm conclusion that science and scripture support each other.  Where there is no support, there's a lack of information to claim anything on either side.

Not claiming here that the Bible is a scientific document.  Only that most of what's written in scripture can be supported scientifically.  What can't we don't have enough information about... this woudl include claimed miracles.   They sound amazing, but we weren't there and of course science has nothing to reference to as far as miracles are concerned... if it did, they wouldn't be miracles.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

While that is a personal choice, it is impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things that are merely 'claimed', and not shown to be unequivocally true.

 

caposkia wrote:

 

interesting perspective be it that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.

 

redneF wrote:

Better try and reword that response....it makes no sense whatsoever...

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

then you're getting too deep for yourself.  You said "it's impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things taht are merely 'claimed'."  Assuming that the claimed things were always proven... or so it seems... so I responded that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.  Basically what I'm saying is everything proven started off as a claim.  In order for those claims to be considered true or false, you'd have to give those claims 'equal consideration' to all other claims.  Otherwise, you're just as reasonable as any religious sect out there only accepting what you want to be true and not necessarily what is true.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

I think you've got that backwards.

If you know your history (you keep claiming to be thorough in your 'investigation'), you'd know that the church used to burn people at the stake for attempting to 'prove' the claims of the church were wrong.

They lost their grip on being the 'purveyors' of 'truth' a long time ago, and the power to rule the people went along with it.

You people will never have that power again.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

This in reference to all truths started as a claim.  Are you saying we knew the truth before something was claimed to be?  I know my history and I know what the churches did... if you did your homework, you'd also see the claims that the church was tryign to protect had no basis scripturally or scientifically.    There are sects today that still make false claims and try to base it on scripture, any educated person can easily see they're wrong.  Some of these sects have pretty serious consequences for their patrons that go against them... unfortunately for them, fortunately for us they have some serious laws to obide by and can no longer burn people for opposing views.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

 

Caposkia Wrote::

 

my point was that it was an associative conclusion.  He and you have no basis to associate my God with all other gods. 

 

That's an incredibly stupid special pleading for 'your god'.

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, and there were other 'Jesus' type 'Miracle Man' myths before. 

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

You say this and have no basis for your claim.  I can claim the same about you, but it's going to get us nowhere... YOur'e back talking to me again even though you gave up on a debate that you ran from.  Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

 

redneF wrote:

 

I gave you my reasons, very clearly.

You're 'all show', and 'no go'.

You had the spotlight, and this is the best case you can make?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079#comment-335407

 

The reasons where that you started to go downhill real quick with your responses. There was nothing detailed or compelling in your response, as to how you concluded that 'God' exists, or even why it's plausible to even entertain the thought.

If there is anything in that thread that you want to quote to prove that I overlooked some compelling evidence, by all means, do so.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

hmmm... maybe the part about how I started doing research and concluded from researching a number of valid and accepted avenues such as science, history, archeology etc. that I found the truth... I didn't yet go into detail about any of those because the focus at the point was my history and not what I had researched... AND without even inquiring about what I might have found though valid avenues, you concluded that due to my history of faith being false, despite my turning from that, that anything I researched must have been false.  This without any reference or claim yet made.  

There's a reason why i claimed you wasted people's time.  If your goal during that debate was to disprove my understanding through my history, then you should have said that.  I would have told you strait up that my history has nothing to do with what I believe today... though I'm pretty sure I told you that as well... I may have forgot to mention that, though I figured it was pretty clear in my writeup.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

That's punting to God.

People have been doing that for millenia.

It's getting old...

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Then find a miracle and empirically disprove it.  I mean a valid one.  Valid being that the Vatican has claimed it to be officially a miracle.  Oh, i'm sorry, was that too much to ask?

 

redneF wrote:

 

A reason why anyone should be convinced (as you are), that the folklore of the Christian god, and Jesus are actually real.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

where shall we start... this is the point where I'm lookign for you to pick a specific valid direction.  From there, I might ask you to get more specific with where you want to go, but that's not me ignoring, that's just me making sure we're focused.  

 


 

 

caposkia wrote:

 

Don't cower away either by claiming i ignored your challenge.  I gave you what you asked as specific as you asked it.  If you want something more, ask directly, don't beat around the bush. 

redneF wrote:

 

Stop posturing.

WTF would I cower away from someone who can't do anything but duck and weave?

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Dude, where are you getting this from?  as far as a conversation between you and I go, I haven't claimed anything and you've ran from anything you've challenged me to do, so what exactly am I ducking and weaving from?

 

redneF wrote:

 

There's no good reason that I've ever heard, that makes me even stop and question my skepticism.

Here's your chance.

You claim to be a true 'Christian'.

According to other 'true Christians' I've talked to, it's part of their duty to help others come to 'God'.

You've got a forum full of reasonable people.

So, give us some good reasons...

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Start reading the branched forums from this one.  The history forum with JPTC, the forum started with Baker.  etc.  Those are more focused and get into what you're claiming to look for.  just a suggestion.  they are focused and flowing... don't respond in those unless you have something substantial to share.

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site. 
redneF wrote:

 

That's a complete intellectually dishonest strawman.

 

 Caposkia Wrote:

Red, the question wasn't rhetorical.  You're claiming strawman before any reasoning was put forth.  Your'e also ignoring the question.  even still with the new responses... yes you're looking for 1 good reason.  I could give you one good reason to like icecream, but if you're not a fan of chocolate or coffee, then my case that the coffee chocolate chip icecream is all the reasoning in the world is going to mean nothing to you.   Stop ignoring the question.

 

redneF wrote:

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

 

You have yet to be specific enough to discuss anything.  

 

redneF wrote:

Ummm, no.

I even set up a thread for you to bring whatever big guns you felt would be compelling reasons to believe in god, and all I seem to see are:

 

caposkia wrote:
to make a long story short...

 

 

caposkia wrote:

 

I started questioning the whole thing. (yes there are gaps in my story, but I'm trying to make a long story short.)

 

 

you never got to the big guns section... you asked me a specific question.. I only got to answering it.  which was what my history was.

 

redneF wrote:

 

 So, that's a 'True Christian', huh?

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

um... no... that's the testimony of one of many paths to becoming a true Christian and a good example of what a true Christian isnt'.  Dude, stop speculating and start confronting it.  YOu have nothing and you're trying to make a case out of it.  STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION.

 


 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

That's because they're leading the conversation.  I'm letting you lead.  if its weak, you have yourself to blame. 

redneF wrote:

 

No.

You're just trying to shift the burden.

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

Dude, most good debators would find it dangerous to allow the opposing side to take control.  It would mean they would have to have a better defense and reasoning than they.  You on the other hand decide to conclude that this approach is "shifting the burden" and is weaker on my side.  Interesting.  Does that mean you're case really is that weak?

 

redneF wrote:

 

I'm not only giving you the 'lead', I'm directly asking you to give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to be convinced (as you purport to be) that 'God' "obviously" exists.

I'll even lower the bar some more. Give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to even consider that Jesus actually existed and was put here by 'God'.

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

right, and I've given you one question so that I may start.  I need a focus.  ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ME A FOCUS?

Here's one.  Statistically  over 80% of the worlds population accepts the fact that there is a metaphysical existence.  I know many arguments against this as a claim to believe, but you wanted one.  Now if this means nothing to you, which I think it won't, then I need you to pick a frikken focus, or all your'e going to get is more claims that you may not accept.  some would accept statistics as extreme as these as reason to consider further.  You I have a feeling won't... which is fine, but what would get you to consider further?  What specifically?  At least Brain gave me a specific... it's an irrational specific and I told him why, but it was a specific.  You can't even do that.  

 

redneF wrote:

 

You've got to be kidding me?

This thread is a criticism of the 'poor job' done in the debate between the RRS and Ray Ray and Kirk 'Crocoduck', and you respond "Because he exists!" as an answer to the question of 'Why I should believe the Christian god is not a myth?'

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

finally I think you're seeing how broad you're allowing this to be... I answered your question as specifically as you asked it.  You should follow up with what reasoning do you have to support that question... then I will propose the question I've been asking you again... where do you want to start (FOCUS) remember????  This... this is where we've hit a wall.

 

redneF wrote:

 

The same thing I've been asking you all along...

To give compelling reasons why I should believe that the Christian god is not merely a myth.

Give me the best reasons.

List them.

 

Caposkia Wrote:

 

as vague as you asked??? ok

scientific reasoning

history

Archeology

Geology

Vatican research and claims of miracles as supported and backed up by their modified years of research.

personal experiences with this God

spiritual encounters, some personal, some from other reliable sources.

congruency with happenings and claims scripturally

um... I may have forgotten a few... that's a start though.

now I haven't given you anything to go on yet, only avenues of support... why do I get the feeling that you're going to claim I claimed something and try to claim a strawman?

 

 

redneF wrote:

 

Which doesn't even make sense, since I didn't ask any 'vague' questions. They were very 'pointed' questions.

 

 

Caposkia Wrote:

pointed?  sure... but then you claim the answers are vague despite the response that was just as pointed as the question. e.g... why should I believe?  Because God exists.  It's like why should I accept that the Earth revolves around the sun?  The most direct answer to that question is because it does.  Now of cousre I want reasoning behind it, but your astrological maps and books aren't credible to me, so where to from there?  you might actually need to ask me what I might want to look at as a focus or what it is that would convince me then.  You then might find that simply looking through a telescope and seeing the stars change through the seasons would convince me of yoru claim... therefore you would have taken so much time to give me all the research in the world that would not convince me when all I needed was a first hand experience that you could show me.  

this is why I ask you for a focus.  I'm not going to spin off years of research for you to tell me they're not credible sources and/or whatever else... or just run away.  iwant to know what really would interest you.. .what focus.  Your question is vague despite how pointed you think it is.. it opens up the forum to anything and everything... some of it you might not accept and I want to avoid wasting time on those focuses.   Are you up for that challenge?  '

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:
No.

The claim of an 'immaterial brain' is nonsensical.


 Anything that one might not understand or believe is nonsensical to them. 

That's a fallacious reasoning, and it doesn't apply here, at all.

I understand fully well that not 1 person can conclusively prove there are any 'immaterial brains' that exists.
If you think there is conclusive proof, then you're welcome to prove it.

His claim is infinitely more compatible with reality, than the opposite.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:
Unless you can debunk his claim, you've failed to do anything but take up bandwidth trying to intelligently rebuke the claim.

What claim?

An immaterial brain.

caposkia wrote:
A brain with no brain being nonsense?

Strawman.
His claim is that without a 'material' structure, there can be no source of 'thinking' that exists.
That is fully compatible with reality.
If you want to prove that there is a 'brain' somewhere, that functions without any material structure, as a rebuttal, that would be most interesting.

 

caposkia wrote:
His best argument for his claim is the same that you and others are trying to accuse me of using, which is rationale without basis.

Not true.
His description of how a brain works, is based on biology.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:
So, you've come to the firm conclusion that science doesn't have a moreplausible explanation for how the universe formed? Or how life evolved, than ancient scripture??


I have come to the firm conclusion that science and scripture support each other.
Not claiming here that the Bible is a scientific document.  Only that most of what's writtenin scripture can be supported scientifically.


Most of what's written??

You mean like Noah's Ark, virgin births, turning water to wine, the parting of the Red Sea,walking on water, zombies coming out of graves, people living to be hundreds and hundreds of years old, spirits, angels, objects and animals magically manifesting into reality ex nihilo, people turning into pillars of salt, a man created from dirt and brought to life by a breath, and a woman then being fashioned out of this man's rib?

That contradicts reality.

Stop staying stupid shit, and wasting bandwidth, FFS...

caposkia wrote:
What can't we don't have enough information about... this woudl include claimed miracles.

The burden is completely on the one making the claim. To state that an event is 'supernatural', you would have to demonstrate that it could not possibly occur simply by any natural process.

No claimant of a supernatural event, or 'miracle' has ever conclusively shown that any events went contrary to universal laws of physics.

caposkia wrote:
They sound amazing, but we weren't there and of course science has nothing to reference to as far as miracles are concerned...

This is an equivocation, and a weak attempt to redirect (red herring) away from the fact that miracles that defy universal constants have only been alleged, but never proven.

Therefore they are labelled 'Special Pleading'.


caposkia wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything.....  

 
redneF wrote:
That's endorsing gullibility over skepticism.

 

skepticism is fine, but a good skeptic has reasoning behind their skepticism.


Being a skeptic who is neutral when a claim does not appear to be compatible with reality, is being a 'good' skeptic.
That IS a 'reasoned' and rational approach.


caposkia wrote:
skepticism without basis has another term associated with it... it's called ignorance.


Not in the case of 'supernatural' claims. There is no firmer basis that reality.
Supernatural events claim to contradict reality, which has not been proven to be possible.

Your claim is pure bunk.


caposkia wrote:

caposkia wrote:
interesting perspective be it that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.


redneF wrote:
Better try and reword that response....it makes no sense whatsoever...


You said "it's impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things taht are merely 'claimed'."  Assuming that the claimed things were always proven... or so it

seems... so I responded that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.


That's not even a cogent statement...

I very clearly pointed out that I was talking about claims that are unsupported, which means that they are dubious in nature, and do not have any basis to be considered compatible with reality, as is the case with 'supernatural' claims.


caposkia wrote:
Basically what I'm saying is everything proven started off as a claim.


No.
Some 'truths' were discovered by accident.


caposkia wrote:
In order for those claims to be considered true or false, you'd have to give those claims 'equal consideration' to all other claims.


WTF are you talking about?
I have to reconsider the veracity of red shift because some Christian ID'ers claim that they read in a 2000 yr old book claims that the universe is only 6000-10000 yrs old because some 'immaterial being' created the universe with an incantation??

You call that 'rational'?

caposkia wrote:

caposkia wrote:
my point was that it was an associative conclusion.  He and you have no basis to associate my God with all other gods. 

That's an incredibly stupid special pleading for 'your god'.

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, and there were other 'Jesus' type 'Miracle Man' myths before. 


You say this and have no basis for your claim.


False.
The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, with different gods, 'Aten' and 'Amun'.
Look it up.

Scribes in Mesopotamia in the 3rd millenium BC counted almost 2000 deities in various nearby cities.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:
The reasons where that you started to go downhill real quick with your responses. There was nothing detailed or compelling in your response, as to how you concluded that 'God' exists, or even why it's plausible to even entertain the thought.

If there is anything in that thread that you want to quote to prove that I overlooked some compelling evidence, by all means, do so..


 hmmm... maybe the part about how I started doing research and concluded from researching a number of valid and accepted avenues such as science, history, archeology etc. that I found the truth...

'Valid and accepted avenues' is hyperbole, and an attempt to argue from authority. Why would you even go to the effort of sliding that in, if your evidence can stand up under scrutiny?


Ancient scriptures are anecdotal.

Archeology has never proved a supernatural deity, or even that a Jesus character ever existed.

You have absolutely no conclusive evidence proving either the existence of a deity, or a Jesus character's existence. let alone the 'supernatural' feats that people claim they did.

So this not anything conclusive.

What else ya got?

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

That's punting to God.

People have been doing that for millenia.

It's getting old...


Then find a miracle and empirically disprove it.

It's not my burden.


caposkia wrote:
I mean a valid one.

Non sequitur


caposkia wrote:
Valid being that the Vatican has claimed it to be officially a miracle.


A claim made from ignorance does not 'validate' that an event did not follow the universal laws of physics.
You're special pleading again.


caposkia wrote:
Oh, i'm sorry, was that too much to ask?

It's simply a dishonest attempt from you, to try and shift the burden.

It would be like me asking you to disprove Russell's Teapot.


caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:
A reason why anyone should be convinced (as you are), that the folklore of the Christian god, and Jesus are actually real.

where shall we start...


Wherever you think will be the most compelling.


caposkia wrote:
this is the point where I'm lookign for you to pick a specific valid direction.

This is the point where you need to stop 'dancing' and stonewalling.


caposkia wrote:
but that's not me ignoring, that's just me making sure we're focused.

You're wasting my time.

Listing evidences is what scientists do, it's what lawyers do, it's what people who have a compelling argument do. They write them down, and then submit them.

Stop with your diversions and list your evidences, whatever they are.

caposkia wrote:
  as far as a conversation between you and I go, I haven't claimed anything

This is a complete lie.

You claimed plenty:

caposkia wrote:
  I started doing research and concluded from researching a number of valid and accepted avenues such as science, history, archeology etc. that I found the truth...

Show us what you think is the conclusive 'truth' about theistic claims, and conclusively prove they are the 'truth' about how the universe formed, how life originated.

caposkia wrote:
  and you've ran from anything you've challenged me to do, so what exactly am I ducking and weaving from?

Putting your money where your mouth is.
 

caposkia wrote:
  I've given you one question so that I may start. 

You do not require anything from anyone, to make your point(s). They're yours to make.

Make them.

Obviously, you'd never be a good author. An author who is armed with facts and evidence isn't pleading with the reader of the book.

caposkia wrote:
I need a focus.

I asked you to give me reasons why anyone should believe there is a God, as you do.

caposkia wrote:
ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ME A FOCUS?

* insert the 'Jeopardy' music here, as Caposkia creates a drama*

caposkia wrote:
  Here's one.  Statistically  over 80% of the worlds population accepts the fact that there is a metaphysical existence.


Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy.
Fail.


caposkia wrote:
I need you to pick a frikken focus

I was very, very clear.
You were asked to give what YOU believe are the most compelling evidences for why skeptics should believe that 'God' exists.

The onus is NOT on the 'reader'. It's on the 'author'.

Georges Lemaitre was the priest who went up against Einstein with his 'Big Bang' theory. He wasn't throwing hissy fits demanding a 'focus' from others.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:
I didn't ask any 'vague' questions. They were very 'pointed' questions.


pointed?  sure... 


Exactly.
And then you go into your drama.

Just make your case.
That's it, that's all.
 

caposkia wrote:
but then you claim the answers are vague despite the response that was just as pointed as the question.

Is that so?
I don't think so...

caposkia wrote:
e.g... why should I believe?  Because God exists. It's like why should I accept that the Earth revolves around the sun?  The most direct answer to that question is because it does.

Ummm....that's an assertion, not a 'reason', or a 'reasoning'. That's not called 'circular reasoning' for nothing.


caposkia wrote:
Now of cousre I want reasoning behind it, but your astrological maps and books aren't credible to me


That doesn't affect whether or not they conclusively prove that they are correct, and that accurate predictions could be made in the future regarding it's position relative to the other planets, so your analogy is completely bankrupt, as are your excuses for why you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is?

You don't seem to have anything but anecdotal evidence, and fallacies to put forth.


caposkia wrote:
you might actually need to ask me what I might want to look at as a

focus


No, and this is why theists get mocked as much as they do. It's completely justified, because they're always special pleading, and moaning and groaning when they fail.
It's never 'their' fault.

It's not the 'player', it's the 'game'. That's the problem, huh?

Maybe in the sandbox, but not in the real world.

caposkia wrote:
  I'm not going to spin off years of research for you to tell me they're not credible sources and/or whatever else...

 

Then you don't believe the bible is inerrant.


In 1 Peter 3:15 it says to always be ready to make a defense to anyone who asks you.

caposkia wrote:
Your question is vague despite how pointed you think it is.

No.

You've been asked to present the strongest evidence you have.

William Lane Craig tries to do it.
Ray Comfort does tries to do it.
Bill O'Reilly does tries to do it.

Even little bible studies children try to do it.

And they're pleased to 'share' the reasons why they believe.
And they're only too pleased to do what's written in the bible to do, which is make a defense of your faith.

Those who can, do.

You haven't.

You're not an 'apologist'.
You're an 'excusogist'

Period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

 

caposkia wrote:

Ok, this is an edit of the rediculously long and impossible to follow response that I had originally posted.  I tried to respond to every tangent and every angle and you know what, it just doesn't work... it's way too broad.  Therefore I have narrowed it down to a few focuses.  

redneF wrote:
 

No claimant of a supernatural event, or 'miracle' has ever conclusively shown that any events went contrary to universal laws of physics.

who claimed they did?  I believe that many miracles were more of a factor of perfect timing rather than bending or breaking the universal scientiifc laws.  It would make sense that a God who created what he did would work within the confines of his creation to make things happen.  Theoretically it could be disasterous on a universal level to break a scientific law for a localized miracle. 

redneF wrote:

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, with different gods, 'Aten' and 'Amun'.
Look it up.

Scribes in Mesopotamia in the 3rd millenium BC counted almost 2000 deities in various nearby cities.

Many cultures from all over the world have attempted many followings.  Attempted followings in no way validate or invalidate another cultures followings, rationally each would have to be taken into consideration on their own. 

redneF wrote:
 

'Valid and accepted avenues' is hyperbole, and an attempt to argue from authority. Why would you even go to the effort of sliding that in, if your evidence can stand up under scrutiny?

They were mentioned because they were the key avenues to my current understanding.  I mentioned them also to open the door to you to pick any one of those avenues to challenge me on... are you seriously putting into question valid avenues?  Most people would see this as an opportunity.  

redneF wrote:

Archeology has never proved a supernatural deity, or even that a Jesus character ever existed.

You have absolutely no conclusive evidence proving either the existence of a deity, or a Jesus character's existence. let alone the 'supernatural' feats that people claim they did.

So this not anything conclusive.

What else ya got?

This is a perfect example of why I'm asking you to pick a focus.  I could talk all day on topics that you have little knowledge about or have no interest in and I'd get nowhere with you.  It'd be like me trying to convince you to like icecream by mentioning a flavor you did not favor.  It just wouldnt' work.

redneF wrote:

It's simply a dishonest attempt from you, to try and shift the burden.

It would be like me asking you to disprove Russell's Teapot.

This being in reference to the challenge of disproving a miracle.  Poor reference be it that Russell's Teapot is not tangeable and I'm asking you to investigate a very tangable entity on Earth and their processes of confirming miracles.  Again very tangable and also accessible.  

 Evidences are as compelling as the observer decides.  You could give me the most compelling evidence of a black hole, but unless I can accept your “compelling” evidence, it would be nonsense.  The rest is just redundancy.  I think I’ve made my intentions clear here.  It’s up to you to make the focus and progress.  I am not shifting burden, but requiring you to make an equal effort in the conversation.  I have listed off general topics, which you said were useless and yet they are the quickest way I can present you the avenues as to which I would present any evidences.  

So let's start with this for now and see where it goes... so much easier to follow.

 

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Ok, this is

caposkia wrote:
Ok, this is an edit of the rediculously long and impossible to follow response that I had originally posted.

The only thing that would make it difficult would be that you have problems with the quoting function. That's why the 'Preview Comment' is a great tool.

IOW, your excuse is a poor excuse, to delete your rebuttals.

caposkia wrote:
I tried to respond to every tangent and every angle and you know what, it just doesn't work... it's way too broad.

That's ironic, since all you do is posture about the enormous scope of research you'd like us to believe you've done, and to what levels of theoretical methodologies you are mentally capable of grappling with.

caposkia wrote:
Therefore I have narrowed it down to a few focuses.

There's that 'word' again. Focus.

Focus, focus, focus.

 

Stop using it as an excuse and diversion.

If you can't make up your mind on what you want to post, that's your problem, and has nothing to do with anyone who's reading it. Including me.

caposkia wrote:


redneF wrote:

No claimant of a supernatural event, or 'miracle' has ever conclusively shown that any events went contrary to universal laws of physics.

who claimed they did?

I made a positive statement that no one has. If someone has, then someone could prove that I'm wrong.

I didn't allege that anyone claimed there was conclusive proof that any events went contrary to universal constants.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
I believe that many miracles were more of a factor of perfect timing rather than bending or breaking the universal scientiifc laws.

Can you provide a link to a definition of what the word 'miracle' means?

caposkia wrote:

caposkia wrote:

my point was that it was an associative conclusion.  He and you have no basis to associate my God with all other gods.

redneF wrote:

That's an incredibly stupid special pleading for 'your god'.

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, and there were other 'Jesus' type 'Miracle Man' myths before.

caposkia wrote:
You say this and have no basis for your claim.

redneF wrote:

False.
The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, with different gods, 'Aten' and 'Amun'.
Look it up.

Scribes in Mesopotamia in the 3rd millenium BC counted almost 2000 deities in various nearby cities.

Many cultures from all over the world have attempted many followings.

Then you should concede that you were mistaken in your claim that ;

1- I had no valid reason to associate the Christian 'god' folklore with other 'god' folkores.

2- I had no basis to claim that there were any other monotheistic 'god' folklores.

 

I proved you wrong.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

'Valid and accepted avenues' is hyperbole, and an attempt to argue from authority. Why would you even go to the effort of sliding that in, if your evidence can stand up under scrutiny?

They were mentioned because they were the key avenues to my current understanding.

You didn't answer my question. I asked why preface those 'avenues' with hyperbolic language like 'valid', and 'accepted'?

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Archeology has never proved a supernatural deity, or even that a Jesus character ever existed.

You have absolutely no conclusive evidence proving either the existence of a deity, or a Jesus character's existence. let alone the 'supernatural' feats that people claim they did.

So this not anything conclusive.

What else ya got?

This is a perfect example of why I'm asking you to pick a focus.

You need to stop posting artificial diversions.

Stop pleading that by being willing to listen to what reasons you've decided that there is a god that exists, that this somehow presents an obstacle to your ability to present a number of your reasons.

caposkia wrote:
I could talk all day on topics that you have little knowledge about or have no interest in and I'd get nowhere with you.

That's a poor excuse to not give reasons that you think demonstrate that the Christian god exists, and it's neither here, nor there, as to whether they are worthy of accepting of being compatible with reality.

This is a place where you can really stand out from the crowd of "Garden Variety" theists that come here with the same lack of critical analysis of their adopted beliefs, if you were to post something that isn't some type of fallacy, equivocation, naked assertion, or ad hoc reasoning, which is all I've ever seen, be it on this forum, on YouTube, in apologist debates with atheists, or on various theist websites.

 

caposkia wrote:

 I'm asking you to investigate a very tangable entity on Earth and their processes of confirming miracles.

Ok, I've investigated an event that was certified as a bonafide miracle, by the Vatican.

http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html

The extent of the article is that the medical committee declared that a certain person's recovery from a skin disorder was not scientifically explicable by them.

This does nothing to conclusively demonstrate that it is not possible for this person to have naturally recovered from such a skin disorder.

As it stands, it's an argument from ignorance, and argument from authority.

If you want to claim the Vatican is 'valid' and 'accepted', that's an argument ad populum.

 

All of these are fallacious reasonings.

 

caposkia wrote:
Evidences are as compelling as the observer decides.

You're preaching.

Stop being silly.

Attempting to claim that the ripples, and sound caused by dropping a heavy object in calm waters are only as 'compelling' evidences of a number of universal constants as the observer decides, would be a patently stupid point to try and get behind.

Which makes your claim, pure bunk. Stop preaching falsehoods at me and this forum.

Stop pleading that the listener has an obligation to you. They don't. This isn't a negotiation.

You claim to think are valid reasons to adopt the belief that the Christian god (or any deity for that matter) exists.

This is your opportunity to share them with this forum. If they're good enough, then it should follow that a number of atheists will convert to theists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 


 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:The only thing

redneF wrote:

The only thing that would make it difficult would be that you have problems with the quoting function. That's why the 'Preview Comment' is a great tool.

IOW, your excuse is a poor excuse, to delete your rebuttals.

I usually don't have a problem with quoting and I think it really came down to the fact that I had trouble following it.  In other words, you were all over the place and if you want a legitimate and functional debate, we need to be more focused... if there's something I took out that you really want to focus on, just bring it back up.  I'll respond to it.  

redneF wrote:

That's ironic, since all you do is posture about the enormous scope of research you'd like us to believe you've done, and to what levels of theoretical methodologies you are mentally capable of grappling with.

...so are we going to debate about something or are you just going to ham it up a bit more while still ignoring what I've been asking you since day 1.  

You're so concerned about my "posturing about the enormous scope of research" I've done.  You have the floor, why don't you challenge me on that.  Why don't you pick a focus and talk about your reasoning for your take on that focus.  this is how a normal debate would work.    Are you capable of doing this without a mediator?

caposkia wrote:
Therefore I have narrowed it down to a few focuses.

There's that 'word' again. Focus.

Focus, focus, focus.

ah... you're finally getting it.

redneF wrote:

Stop using it as an excuse and diversion.

If you can't make up your mind on what you want to post, that's your problem, and has nothing to do with anyone who's reading it. Including me.

diverting from what?  

You've asked me to present my most compelling evidence for God.  Compelling evidence on God is subject to who you ask.  Some would find the quantity of people in the world accepting a metaphysical existence as compelling.  Some would accept Quantum Leaps as compelling evidence.  How about archeology?  that's not as broad, but some use it as compelling.  

How about pick a topic that would be compelling to you if in fact God could be shown through that angle.  this way we can actually make progress.  If you can't do that, then it seems we've again wasted our time.  I'm giving you a world of opportunity to shut me down by picking literally any angle and any focus you want to pick and you're brushing it aside as if I've asked you to prove what I believe.  I'm just asking you pick a focus... yup... there's that word again.  


redneF wrote:

No claimant of a supernatural event, or 'miracle' has ever conclusively shown that any events went contrary to universal laws of physics.

caposkia wrote:

who claimed they did?

I made a positive statement that no one has. If someone has, then someone could prove that I'm wrong.

I didn't allege that anyone claimed there was conclusive proof that any events went contrary to universal constants.

Ok.  I don't believe that a supernatural event necessarily has to go against universal laws of physics... therefore it seems we're in agreement here.  

 

redneF wrote:

Can you provide a link to a definition of what the word 'miracle' means?

Sure:  

go to http://www.dictionary.com and type in "miracle".  I think the first definition sums it up well, but all apply. 

redneF wrote:

Then you should concede that you were mistaken in your claim that ;

1- I had no valid reason to associate the Christian 'god' folklore with other 'god' folkores.

2- I had no basis to claim that there were any other monotheistic 'god' folklores.

 

I proved you wrong.

good job, you really are capable of backing yourself up.  I was starting to wonder.   I'm pretty sure I congradulated you on using reference and requested that you do that just as you'd expect me to do the same.  Maybe I omitted that before, so I said it now.  

However:

1.  I can see how you would associate any god with any other god be it that outside spirituality it all looks the same.   To associate, we would have to look at the history and origin.  In many cases in conversation, we have found that many similar looking beliefs have stemmed off the judeo-christian belief.  This stemming and the history of it is well referenced in the book "The Next Christiandom"  it reads like a text book, but gives you a lot of church history.  

If they haven't consider the source and why it happens to be the way it is.  Does it have to do with the same beginnings or reasoning?  would you want to go into detail about the Egyptian following?

2.  I was making a general statment about how you weren't backing yourself up and never specifically said you had no basis to claim that there were any other monotheistic 'god' folklores.  In other words, I was never questioning whether there were.  

Ultimately, yes I was wrong, you are capable of backing yourself up.  I would expect nothing less of you in the future.  

 

redneF wrote:

You didn't answer my question. I asked why preface those 'avenues' with hyperbolic language like 'valid', and 'accepted'?

sorry, I misunderstood your intentions.  I added 'valid' and 'accepted' because with many people I talked to, the next question that would come out is whether the "science" or "history" etc... that i used is valid and accepted.  I now automatically add that in to avoid that extra step.  

redneF wrote:

You need to stop posting artificial diversions.

me asking you to pick a focus of interest for you is not a diversion it is an attempt at progression.  Again I have to ask what you think I'm diverting from be it that we really haven't covered anything yet.  

redneF wrote:

Stop pleading that by being willing to listen to what reasons you've decided that there is a god that exists, that this somehow presents an obstacle to your ability to present a number of your reasons.

I never said I couldn't present a number of reasons, but I have explained already to you why I want to pick a focus.  I have also listed off broad avenues such as history, science, etc.  I have focused a bit more on the science aspect by suggesting Quantum physics and even more by mentioning quantum leaps.  Obviously the avenues of reasoning I"m presenting does not speak to you, so again, this is where you jump in and say "hey! let's talk about X"...  maybe not in such friendly words, but you get the idea.  

caposkia wrote:
I could talk all day on topics that you have little knowledge about or have no interest in and I'd get nowhere with you.

That's a poor excuse to not give reasons that you think demonstrate that the Christian god exists, and it's neither here, nor there, as to whether they are worthy of accepting of being compatible with reality.

This is a place where you can really stand out from the crowd of "Garden Variety" theists that come here with the same lack of critical analysis of their adopted beliefs, if you were to post something that isn't some type of fallacy, equivocation, naked assertion, or ad hoc reasoning, which is all I've ever seen, be it on this forum, on YouTube, in apologist debates with atheists, or on various theist websites.

 

redneF wrote:

Ok, I've investigated an event that was certified as a bonafide miracle, by the Vatican.

http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html

The extent of the article is that the medical committee declared that a certain person's recovery from a skin disorder was not scientifically explicable by them.

This does nothing to conclusively demonstrate that it is not possible for this person to have naturally recovered from such a skin disorder.

As it stands, it's an argument from ignorance, and argument from authority.

If you want to claim the Vatican is 'valid' and 'accepted', that's an argument ad populum.

 

All of these are fallacious reasonings.

ok... i must ask... did you investigate this event or did you just read the link.  The link by itself gives almost no information as to the process of declaring the miracle other than the point that recovery has not been recorded in medical history.  

At this point, it'd be pertinent to look up the process the Vatican uses to declare a miracle and whether that process is flawed or not.  

http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2009/05/its-miracle?page=0,1

this link goes into a little more detail about the process, but does not detail the process of each step, only that 2 panels of doctors investigate logical explanations and a committee looks for holes in the story.  We could start here.  I'm trying to find a better link for a real explanation of their process.  

 

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Evidences are as compelling as the observer decides.

You're preaching.

Stop being silly.

Attempting to claim that the ripples, and sound caused by dropping a heavy object in calm waters are only as 'compelling' evidences of a number of universal constants as the observer decides, would be a patently stupid point to try and get behind.

Which makes your claim, pure bunk. Stop preaching falsehoods at me and this forum.

Stop pleading that the listener has an obligation to you. They don't. This isn't a negotiation.

You claim to think are valid reasons to adopt the belief that the Christian god (or any deity for that matter) exists.

This is your opportunity to share them with this forum. If they're good enough, then it should follow that a number of atheists will convert to theists.

you and i both know people ignore the obvious and what we might find compelling others won't find in the same manner.  This is common knowledge, stop coming up with excuses.

I have presented avenues that we can discuss.  It's up to you to pick one or come up with your own so we can go on.

BTW, atheists convert to a metaphysical belief every day.  The way they come to that belief however isn't by someone telling them why they believe, but by self discovery... maybe inspired by why someone else believes.  I gave you my testimony including the process of getting out of religion and into the following of Christ.  You need more of a focus, so this is the point where you pull out X and say, how has X any proof of God?  I may try to narrow it down more depending on whether you said science or quantum leaps, but at least we'd be making progress.  

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

The only thing that would make it difficult would be that you have problems with the quoting function. That's why the 'Preview Comment' is a great tool.

IOW, your excuse is a poor excuse, to delete your rebuttals.

I usually don't have a problem with quoting and I think it really came down to the fact that I had trouble following it. 

You apparently were fine. You posted a rebuttal.

caposkia wrote:
 In other words, you were all over the place

'I' was all over the place? How's that??

Let me get this straight.... you are not having trouble responding to my posts, but after I respond to your posts, you suddenly have trouble following anything after you've posted?

You develop a problem following anything after your posts? My fault for responding to you, huh?

caposkia wrote:
 and if you want a legitimate and functional debate, we need to be more focused...

Every response of mine is 'on point' to what you post.

Stop with your 'focus' red herring, and your derailing.

caposkia wrote:
if there's something I took out that you really want to focus on, just bring it back up.  I'll respond to it.

I was really 'focused' on how you'd respond to my individual posts.

I don't appreciate your copout tactics. If I wasn't looking for a response, I wouldn't post.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

That's ironic, since all you do is posture about the enormous scope of research you'd like us to believe you've done, and to what levels of theoretical methodologies you are mentally capable of grappling with.

...so are we going to debate about something...

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Stop using it as an excuse and diversion.

If you can't make up your mind on what you want to post, that's your problem, and has nothing to do with anyone who's reading it. Including me.

diverting from what? 

Presenting me the best reasons you think the Christian god you worship actually exists.

caposkia wrote:
You've asked me to present my most compelling evidence for God.  Compelling evidence on God is subject to who you ask.
 

I'm asking you.

caposkia wrote:
Some would find the quantity of people in the world accepting a metaphysical existence as compelling. 

1- I'm not interested in what 'some people' think. This is all about what you think. If you want to get behind this as a proof there is a god, do it.

2- That's the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

caposkia wrote:
Some would accept Quantum Leaps as compelling evidence. 
 

I'm not interested in what 'some people' think. This is all about what you think. If you want to get behind this as a proof there is a god, do it.

caposkia wrote:
How about archeology?  that's not as broad, but some use it as compelling.

I'm not interested in what 'some people' think. This is all about what you think. If you want to get behind this as a proof there is a god, do it.

caposkia wrote:
How about pick a topic that would be compelling to you if in fact God could be shown through that angle.

You're missing the whole point. There aren't any angles that I'm aware of that can confirm or falsify whether there is a 'god', or whether there is even a requirement for such a thing in order for reality to be what it is.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

caposkia wrote:
...  this way we can actually make progress.

No one can stop you, but you.

There are only 9 threads in this 1 on 1 forum. I'm in 4 of them.

This is where a theist can make his points, and not get buried in hundreds of pages of threads.

So, this is a 'spotlight' forum.

The spotlight is on you. This thread is about the 'best' reasons to think that the Christian god actually exists.

Do you know the best reasons to not remain a skeptic, for those of us who do not 'believe' in any gods?

I don't think you do.

Here's your chance to 'shine'.

It really seems to me that theists are mainly good at preaching, posturing, pretending to 'know' things they don't, making assertions about reality that they can't rationally defend when backed into a corner.

I've been eager to analyze the best reasons you can present.

You've not presented any good reasons that I can see.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

How do you know there is a Christian god?

caposkia wrote:
If you can't do that, then it seems we've again wasted our time.

False. 

You've done nothing but spin your wheels.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian God?

What are the reasons? Give me some reasons. I want to hear the best reasons that convince you that 1 of the rumoured gods actually exists, and should not be considered a myth like the others, by 'billions' of people...lol

caposkia wrote:
I'm giving you a world of opportunity to shut me down

And I'm waiting to hear the best reasons you can provide.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

As soon as you post them, I'll then take a crack at shutting you down.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

caposkia wrote:
   I'm just asking you pick a focus... yup... there's that word again. 

The 'focus' is and always was what you think are the most compelling reasons to believe in the existence of the Christian god.

That's the 'focus', in plain english.

Pick any 'angle', or 'avenue' you wish.

The choice is yours.

 

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

caposkia wrote:
  I don't believe that a supernatural event necessarily has to go against universal laws of physics...

Then how would a 'miracle worker', or 'divine intervention' work, if they didn't intervene to prevent 'nature' taking it's course? 

 

caposkia wrote:
  

redneF wrote:

Can you provide a link to a definition of what the word 'miracle' means?

Sure:  

go to http://www.dictionary.com and type in "miracle".  I think the first definition sums it up well, but all apply. 

So you read all the way down the page?

Did you get to the "Bible Definition' of miracle posted on that page?

Do you want to get completely behind the 'Bible Definition' as a powerful reason to believe in the Christian god existing?

Is this what you consider to be compelling evidence that you God exists?

caposkia wrote:
  

redneF wrote:

Then you should concede that you were mistaken in your claim that ;

1- I had no valid reason to associate the Christian 'god' folklore with other 'god' folkores.

2- I had no basis to claim that there were any other monotheistic 'god' folklores.

 

I proved you wrong.

good job, you really are capable of backing yourself up. 

I enjoy the challenge.

Keep bringing it...

 

caposkia wrote:
 ... we have found that many similar looking beliefs have stemmed off the judeo-christian belief.  

And numerous historians, theologians and ex theists have found the opposite.

Right here in my office I have a copy of Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ". I enjoyed the book.

I've also read quite a bit from Bart Erhman and enjoyed his debates, particularly against William Lane Craig. I've also read Dan Barker's stuff and seen his debates.

And there are a few others.

So, this is not a good 'avenue', or 'angle' for you to go down, IMO.

You'd have to prove they're wrong and you're right. I don't think there's any hope of you doing that.

caposkia wrote:
 ... would you want to go into detail about the Egyptian following?

Not unless you were a 5 thousand yr old Egyptian and were there, no.

caposkia wrote:
2.  I was making a general statment about how you weren't backing yourself up

I don't appreciate dishonesty.

I clearly said that the Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once in my post #24.

caposkia wrote:
... and never specifically said you had no basis to claim that there were any other monotheistic 'god' folklores. 

That's a lie.

Here is the quote of your response to my claim, in bold;

caposkia wrote:

 

redneF wrote:

That's an incredibly stupid special pleading for 'your god'.

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, and there were other 'Jesus' type 'Miracle Man' myths before.

 You say this and have no basis for your claim.

caposkia wrote:
  In other words, I was never questioning whether there were.

Are you for real??

That's a lie.

By saying that I have 'no basis', you are claiming that I cannot have anything to base that claim on. 

caposkia wrote:
 Ultimately, yes I was wrong, you are capable of backing yourself up. 

I'm even willing to accept that as an apology, because it takes character to put one's ego aside, and openly admit that.

I don't appreciate these kinds of things taking up my time.

I expect them from people who've got nothing interesting to bring to a debate, and I've been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can provide powerful things for people to contemplate, and that's what this thread is for.

Any claim of a 'god', is an extraordinary claim. It merits extraordinary evidence, and the most extraordinary scrutiny.

I'm not aware of any such 'evidences' of a god.

caposkia wrote:
 I would expect nothing less of you in the future. 

It should be clear to you what I expect.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

You didn't answer my question. I asked why preface those 'avenues' with hyperbolic language like 'valid', and 'accepted'?

sorry, I misunderstood your intentions.  I added 'valid' and 'accepted' because with many people I talked to, the next question that would come out is whether the "science" or "history" etc... that i used is valid and accepted.  I now automatically add that in to avoid that extra step.  

That kind of rhetoric is fluff. I don't know why you'd bother typing the extra characters.

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

You need to stop posting artificial diversions.

me asking you to pick a focus of interest for you is not a diversion...

I've told you that it is. Yet you persist. Why is that?

My 'focus' and 'interest' is finding someone who thinks they have powerful reasons for me to believe the existence of the Abrahamic god is 'true', when it seems that it's nothing more than a myth, just like the other 'god' myths.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

caposkia wrote:
... it is an attempt at progression.

No. Stop asserting it.  

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

caposkia wrote:
Again I have to ask what you think I'm diverting from be it that we really haven't covered anything yet.

Post a reason you 'believe', then, and let's see what I think of it... 

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Stop pleading that by being willing to listen to what reasons you've decided that there is a god that exists, that this somehow presents an obstacle to your ability to present a number of your reasons.

 

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

I never said I couldn't present a number of reasons

Then start.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

caposkia wrote:
...but I have explained already to you why I want to pick a focus. 

So?

Pick one, and present it, FFS. 

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

caposkia wrote:

 

redneF wrote:

Ok, I've investigated an event that was certified as a bonafide miracle, by the Vatican.

http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html

The extent of the article is that the medical committee declared that a certain person's recovery from a skin disorder was not scientifically explicable by them.

This does nothing to conclusively demonstrate that it is not possible for this person to have naturally recovered from such a skin disorder.

As it stands, it's an argument from ignorance, and argument from authority.

If you want to claim the Vatican is 'valid' and 'accepted', that's an argument ad populum.

 

All of these are fallacious reasonings.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

ok... i must ask... did you investigate this event or did you just read the link. 


What are you talking about? Why would I look any further into a fallacy, or ad hoc reasoning?

I did as you asked.

You wanted me to examine a 'valid' miracle. You list the Vatican as an organization that 'certifies' actual miracles.

I went directly to the organization that certified an occurence as a 'miracle', and read what they put on their website. That is the extent to which they went.

The 'summary' of what qualifies as a 'miracle' is a fallacy.

It's not only stupid to accept a fallacious reasoning as 'true', is completely irrational to do so.

It's not my fault that the Vatican is in the business of pretending to know things it doesn't.

 

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

caposkia wrote:

The link by itself gives almost no information as to the process of declaring the miracle other than the point that recovery has not been recorded in medical history.  

At this point, it'd be pertinent to look up the process the Vatican uses to declare a miracle and whether that process is flawed or not.  

http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2009/05/its-miracle?page=0,1 

 

Well, the first thing I came across was this quote from an associate professor of theology from Notre Dame, on 'his' definition of a miracle.

John Cavadini wrote:
The stunning nature of a miracle is not the real story. A true miracle points to something bigger.

A miracle is essentially a challenge to “repent and believe in the gospel,” Cavadini says. It’s a chance to wake up, to reform one’s life.

Is this something you want to get behind?

 

Here's another excerpt;

Quote:
While many pray for physical healing—sometimes even for a miracle—they also pray for God’s will to be done, Giusta says. And if physical healing “is not according to the will of God, they are ready to accept it. There’s really a sense of peace, both in patients and in their families, when they are really confronted with issues of life and death. There’s a lot of anger in the beginning, dismay and shock. But if the sickness progresses, I really notice that very often there’s a sense of peace,” rather than anger at God.

“There is a transformation,” Giusta says. “Something changes in their spirits. That in itself is healing. That is to me the miracle right there.”

So, this 'Guista' guy would claim that someone 'transforming' and experiencing a 'change in their spirit' when they accept that their god didn't answer their prayers, is a 'miracle'.

Is that anything you want to get behind as a 'powerful' evidence that the Christian god exists?

caposkia wrote:

this link goes into a little more detail about the process, but does not detail the process of each step, only that 2 panels of doctors investigate logical explanations and a committee looks for holes in the story.  We could start here.  I'm trying to find a better link for a real explanation of their process.  

I'd look for a better link too, if I were you...

 

caposkia wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Evidences are as compelling as the observer decides.

 

redneF wrote:

You're preaching.

Stop being silly.

Attempting to claim that the ripples, and sound caused by dropping a heavy object in calm waters are only as 'compelling' evidences of a number of universal constants as the observer decides, would be a patently stupid point to try and get behind.

Which makes your claim, pure bunk. Stop preaching falsehoods at me and this forum.

Stop pleading that the listener has an obligation to you. They don't. This isn't a negotiation.

You claim to think are valid reasons to adopt the belief that the Christian god (or any deity for that matter) exists.

This is your opportunity to share them with this forum. If they're good enough, then it should follow that a number of atheists will convert to theists.

you and i both know people ignore the obvious and what we might find compelling others won't find in the same manner. 

Then we can determine which of their beliefs are rational, and irrational. And it's not that difficult to determine which are which.

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

 

 

caposkia wrote:
I have presented avenues that we can discuss.  

Do you want to posit that miracles are powerful reasons for someone to believe in the existence of the Christian god?

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:'I' was all

redneF wrote:

'I' was all over the place? How's that??

ok, prove me wrong again.. what did you focus on in that response?   I was unable to figure it out.

redneF wrote:

Let me get this straight.... you are not having trouble responding to my posts, but after I respond to your posts, you suddenly have trouble following anything after you've posted?

I responded, the next morning, I reread it and it was way way too long and unfocused.  Do you really want our debate to be about how I edited my reply?  

What is it that you're so concerned I ignored?  If nothing, then let's move on

redneF wrote:

Every response of mine is 'on point' to what you post.

Where's your "on point" response to "what focus would be of interest to you?"?  Give me your best is not telling me what would be of interest to you. 

redneF wrote:

Why are you so sure there is a Christian god?

caposkia wrote:
You've asked me to present my most compelling evidence for God.  Compelling evidence on God is subject to who you ask.
 

I'm asking you.

So what was so compelling to ME specifically?  The personal experiences with this God, the conversations, the prayers answered, "god sightings" if you will which are observed miracles that include seeing Michael in the clouds, fire consuming every house but a friends who prayed for protection, the spirit speaking through me to someone I didn't even know telling them exactly what they needed to hear to resolve an issue they've been having, etc.  

The problem with these compelling evidences is they won't work for anyone but me and those who were involved... why?  because they were "PERSONAL" experiences to those who were involved and myself.  If someone told me this same thing, I could think of 1000 reasons why I shouldn't believe them logically, but because of my personal experiences, I would be more likely to believe they've had those experiences.  

I don't expect you to buy this.  Why would I?  You weren't there... this brings no progress to the debate, but this is compelling evidence to me because I was there.  I experienced it.  

Now, what would be compelling to you?

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Some would find the quantity of people in the world accepting a metaphysical existence as compelling. 

1- I'm not interested in what 'some people' think. This is all about what you think. If you want to get behind this as a proof there is a god, do it.

why are you so concerned about what I think?  You're convinced I'm crazy.  A debate should be more about universal reasons and not my reasons.   

Apparently this one's about my reasons so sure, that's one avenue I'll get behind along with my personal experiences... let's throw in quantum leaps and see where that goes.

redneF wrote:

2- That's the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

which is why one persons compelling evidence is not anothers.  An argumentum ad populum fallacy is what most people groups base life on.. including atheists and American citizens in general.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Some would accept Quantum Leaps as compelling evidence. 
 

I'm not interested in what 'some people' think. This is all about what you think. If you want to get behind this as a proof there is a god, do it.

Ok, I'll get behind Quantum Leaps.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
How about archeology?  that's not as broad, but some use it as compelling.

I'm not interested in what 'some people' think. This is all about what you think. If you want to get behind this as a proof there is a god, do it.

Ok, I'll get behind archeology

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
How about pick a topic that would be compelling to you if in fact God could be shown through that angle.

You're missing the whole point. There aren't any angles that I'm aware of that can confirm or falsify whether there is a 'god', or whether there is even a requirement for such a thing in order for reality to be what it is.

no I get the point.. what I want you to do is pull out what you would need whether you think the angle exists or not.  We can then discuss whether it's a reasonable avenue to pursue for God.  It's possible that it could be.  it's possible it'd be irrational.  Either way, we could discuss it.

redneF wrote:

I've been eager to analyze the best reasons you can present.

Ok... you mean legitimately analyze? or just give a 1 sentence response in an attempt to make it look irrational without basis.  e.g. Argumentum ad populum fallacy.  Good start, but if you're going to "analyze" you would then need to go into detail as to how this invalidates that avenue as reasoning for God.  This would result in a discussion/debate.  

redneF wrote:

So you read all the way down the page?

Did you get to the "Bible Definition' of miracle posted on that page?

Do you want to get completely behind the 'Bible Definition' as a powerful reason to believe in the Christian god existing?

Is this what you consider to be compelling evidence that you God exists?

you asked for a link to a definition of what a miracle is.  if you go to dictionary.com and at the top of the page type in "miracle" and hit enter, what should come up is a dictionary list of definitions for the word.  

Do I feel that the dictionary definition of miracle is a powerful reason to believe in the Christian God existing?  well, miracle is not what God is, therefore... no.

redneF wrote:

And numerous historians, theologians and ex theists have found the opposite.

AH!!!! COULD THIS BE A FOCUS!!!!  ooh, this might be something... let's see.

This would depend on how deep you look... do you look back to the immediate religion it stemmed from or from the origin?  There are millions of religions around the world.  There are thousands of branches off of branches for those religions.  The trunk so far seems to have a judeo-christian core.   It's not unusual that numerous historians, theologians and ex theists found the opposite, but it doesn't mean the origin wasn't judeo-Christian.  It's kind of like the game telephone, the message at the end of the chain ends up being something completely different after being passed through many avenues.  Just look back to the 2nd to last person and you won't find the original message, you'd likely have to go more than half way back to the beginning to find out.  

redneF wrote:

Right here in my office I have a copy of Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ". I enjoyed the book.

yea, I should read that.  I haven't yet

redneF wrote:

I've also read quite a bit from Bart Erhman and enjoyed his debates, particularly against William Lane Craig. I've also read Dan Barker's stuff and seen his debates.

And there are a few others.

From debates I've seen of Erhman so far, not impressed.  he will tell you half the history, but not the other half that might contradict his point of view.  Either way, he studied under Bruce Metzger.  I like Metzger's work from what i've seen so far.  TGBaker referred him.  

redneF wrote:

I don't appreciate dishonesty.

You can ask people who've talked to me for a long time.  They will tell you if anything, i'm honest.  I may be mistaken at times, but I'm honest.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Ultimately, yes I was wrong, you are capable of backing yourself up. 

I'm even willing to accept that as an apology, because it takes character to put one's ego aside, and openly admit that.

If I can see that I was wrong, I will always admit that.  Maybe you're starting to see that I'm not here for ego.

redneF wrote:

That kind of rhetoric is fluff. I don't know why you'd bother typing the extra characters.

in reference to "accepted and valid"  I can see with you I don't need to do that and will try to avoid that in the future.  

redneF wrote:

What are you talking about? Why would I look any further into a fallacy, or ad hoc reasoning?

This in reference to the "investigation" in the vatican miracle claim.  

Because the key is the process of deciding miracles, not so much the miracles themselves... i asked you to find one so that you would literally investigate so that you could tear their reasoning apart if at all possible.  Anyone can throw words out like you have... it takes time and thought to actually investigate and debunk.  If you can, you personally could discredit this entity for many around the world who still hold to it's claims.  

redneF wrote:

The 'summary' of what qualifies as a 'miracle' is a fallacy.

The problem is you're concluding on a summary... 

it's like you telling me that I can't make a pen disappear.  My summary is that I can make a pen disappear.  You cry fallacy.  If you read the meat of the process you might find I simply throw it in my pocket.  Suddenly it's a very logical claim.  

redneF wrote:

It's not only stupid to accept a fallacious reasoning as 'true', is completely irrational to do so.

it is stupid and irrational to call something false without looking at the process.  

redneF wrote:

Well, the first thing I came across was this quote from an associate professor of theology from Notre Dame, on 'his' definition of a miracle.

John Cavadini wrote:
The stunning nature of a miracle is not the real story. A true miracle points to something bigger.

A miracle is essentially a challenge to “repent and believe in the gospel,” Cavadini says. It’s a chance to wake up, to reform one’s life.

Is this something you want to get behind?

I'll get behind the process the Vatican uses to determine whether something is a miracle or not... I generally don't support that religions views however.

redneF wrote:

So, this 'Guista' guy would claim that someone 'transforming' and experiencing a 'change in their spirit' when they accept that their god didn't answer their prayers, is a 'miracle'.

Is that anything you want to get behind as a 'powerful' evidence that the Christian god exists?

At the beginning of the article, it went through what a miracle means to different people and it could be labeled to something as simple as finding your car keys after losing them at the movies.  I will get behind the process the vatican uses to determine legitimate miracles. 

redneF wrote:

I'd look for a better link too, if I were you...

working on it.  I know I saw one a while back... of course can't remember the link, but it's out there somewhere.   Maybe there's a publication.  I'll have to ask around.  

In the mean time, what is it that you think they're NOT doing to appropriately validate a miracle?

redneF wrote:

Do you want to posit that miracles are powerful reasons for someone to believe in the existence of the Christian god?

I'll stand behind legitimate miracles as powerful reasons for someone to believe in the existence of a metaphysical being.