Theist lay out your evidence.

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Theist lay out your evidence.

I'm actually sick of trying to debate christians, it's boring and it always comes down to faith or "I just want to believe it" in the end. I do however have an interest in folks who say things like "a series of events occured that made me go to jesus". What events? Any theists care to share this "evidence"? I can only assume they take it as evidence because it seems to make them believe this stuff and for me it would take real evidence.

So what exactly happened in your life that made you believe? I'm hoping to hear something that can't actually be attributed to chance or hard work but I imagine this little thread will die off quickly.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
People

Wowzers1 wrote:

Which brings me back to the question I asked about my grandmother... If you were there in the midst of the trial we were going through, what would you say?

 

do survive cancer, Wows. Not to take anything away from the good fortune your Gran enjoyed in this instance. Her immune system, her particular illness - something natural led to her cure. It was fortuitous and a brilliant result but it was not divine intervention, unless you have some actual proof.

People survive all sorts of things. Some people are completely immune to HIV. Has god intervened in these cases, too?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 Wows - it's true that living life in the absence of god is challenging and requires bravery. You are alone with no one to hold your hand. Things are still challenging now as a non believer and it would have been worse before widespread empiricism. Atheists in the year 0 BC have my deep respect.

Life in any respect is difficult -- it's fragile and can be stuffed out at a moments notice. Having religion does not make it any easier either. Living in opposition to a cultural that thrives on relativism requires bravery because it goes against the norm. I grant that atheists probably have it harder in some respects than theists do in the United States, but northern Europe has moved away from religion, and the remaining religious few have more to relativist position. Affirming anything that would exclude some is the shame of the one affirming it.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Nevertheless, the points you raise don't prove anything. They are subjective and suggest you are person who really needed to find a meaning to it all - a simple digestable meaning - or else you felt bad the whole time. Feeling a need for forgiveness is pretty normal but it's not proof of anything outside your particular guilt.

It sounds like you had some preloaded christianity and in time of trial it came out.

The experience answered a question for some one -- namely me. Given that, it is not moot. I was evaluating my state of affairs, and questions I had were best answered by the teachings of Christ. My exposure to Christianity was certainly greater than my exposure to other religions, but the decision was not made in Christian-only paradigm. But I was not attempting to "prove" anything.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

sensible course. Religion makes claims for which there exists no proof. Only a particular sort of person would approach religions without assuming they were false. For instance, Wows, which religions do you assume are false?

Some religions do make claims "for which there exists no proof" but this cannot be said for all claims made by religions.

But I don't assume that anything is true or false until I'm given a good reason to do so. Given that I believe that Christianity is the true religion, I hold that other religions are false, particularly in regards to salvation. But this does not mean wholesale, as I tend to think there are elements of truth most every religion.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:do

Atheistextremist wrote:

do survive cancer, Wows. Not to take anything away from the good fortune your Gran enjoyed in this instance. Her immune system, her particular illness - something natural led to her cure. It was fortuitous and a brilliant result but it was not divine intervention, unless you have some actual proof.

People survive all sorts of things. Some people are completely immune to HIV. Has god intervened in these cases, too?

I can't answer that with any certainty. And I know the story I presented is circumstantial, but I tend to think that is the nature of miracles anyways, so they have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. To say it is always one way or another would to claim some kind of certainty, of which I do not have nor claim to have.

But given the sequence of events, it would seem to be a miracle: She's terminally ill, has a grim prognosis, she prays along with many others for healing, then she goes back to the doctor and she's cancer free.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

We seem more satisifed believing things for which there is no simple proof and lend the most credence to explanations that are completely beyond our understanding. These characteristics say things about the underpinnings of neuroscience but prove nothing coherent about god.

The explanation of divine cause, at least for a theist, is not beyond understanding, but is inherent to understanding. The danger I think is over-attributing things that have a tenable explanation to the divine.

 

If you really can comprehend an eternal, all-knowing, all powerful deity who exists outside this space time, who was the motive force pre-bang and holds the dark secrets of supersymmetry then pick up the phone. People at CERN want to talk to you.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:If

Atheistextremist wrote:

If you really can comprehend an eternal, all-knowing, all powerful deity who exists outside this space time, who was the motive force pre-bang and holds the dark secrets of supersymmetry then pick up the phone. People at CERN want to talk to you.

What does this have to do with anything? I fail to see the point...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's called

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

If you really can comprehend an eternal, all-knowing, all powerful deity who exists outside this space time, who was the motive force pre-bang and holds the dark secrets of supersymmetry then pick up the phone. People at CERN want to talk to you.

What does this have to do with anything? I fail to see the point...

 

wit, Wowzers. Point is, you clearly suggested there is some way to understand a god who is by definition supernatural, who cannot be detected by any physical sense organs we possess. This ability to detect the supernatural is groundbreaking.

Using your skills, perhaps you could prove SUSY and unite the holy trinity, the three fundamental laws of the universe.  Given these possibilities, there are scientists at CERN (working away on the nature of reality through particle collisions using the $US7 Billion Hadron Collider) who will benefit from your detection capabilities.

Apparently they have reached an impasse.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

If you really can comprehend an eternal, all-knowing, all powerful deity who exists outside this space time, who was the motive force pre-bang and holds the dark secrets of supersymmetry then pick up the phone. People at CERN want to talk to you.

What does this have to do with anything? I fail to see the point...

Because you claim to have the answer to the theory of everything, unified field theory and pre-plank time.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Some

Wowzers1 wrote:

Some religions do make claims "for which there exists no proof"             

 

 

    Bwah ha ha !!!  You don't saaaay ?    

 

 (  Sorry Wowzers1 my laughter was not directed at you, I was thinking of someone else on this forum.  Please continue. )

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:wit,

Atheistextremist wrote:

wit, Wowzers. Point is, you clearly suggested there is some way to understand a god who is by definition supernatural, who cannot be detected by any physical sense organs we possess. This ability to detect the supernatural is groundbreaking

I think you misunderstood what I was saying...

I was not claiming to have comprehensive understandings about God. I was saying that divine causation is inherent of a theist's understanding of causality, that's all, and in the context I thoughts that what I was saying.  In other words, theism by definition implies God is a causal agent.

Sorry if I did not communicate this.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Why don't they "just happen". Yes I think things just happen, you admitted as much yourself but this one item seems to be in a special place in your heart because it was a loved one.

I'm not saying that things don't "just happen"... some things do "just happen" Sheer chance is sufficient cause, but in my estimation, I don't think it is a necessary cause.

robj101 wrote:

 

Can you say it is not something you "want" to be true?

That could cut both ways -- is it possible that you "want" it to be false?

"Your estimation" sounds like "your preference" to me.

I certainly didn't want it to be false when I was younger and still don't "want" for anything about it. I have given the whole thing so much thought, read the bible a few times etc and the only conclusion I can draw is that it is man made. There is no "want" in my situation. "oh sure I don't want what 90% of the world seems to want"

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Yes I know the type, basicly described as "spiritual" but when you decided upon "jesus" you felt grounded finally because you had a focus. Rather than blame yourself for things you prefer to project yourself into a god granting it your own attributes and attributes you deem worthy of such a god. My point was that whatever god was close at hand would be the one you chose which should enlighten you on the matter if given any real thought.

But that assumes that I was projecting myself into a god. You don't know that, nor can you. Deconstructing religion like this assumes that religion is false...

Which brings me back to the question I asked about my grandmother... If you were there in the midst of the trial we were going through, what would you say?

What else should I assume? Because someone says there is a god it must be true? Because someone says the bible was written by men through the divine it must be true?

As far as your grandmother goes I would treat her as I do my own loved ones who believe in this, I would nod my head and go on. I dislike what they think not them personally, but they know I'm an atheist and would probably not rub it around me too much in the first place.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
There may be some hope for

There may be some hope for you. I suggest you take a break and give it more thought. Read the bible objectively, at least the fist few books and come back to tell us if you think it was a god or men 2000 years ago who wrote that. This can be done with the quran or any other religion ..even scientology lol.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:What

robj101 wrote:

What else should I assume? Because someone says there is a god it must be true? Because someone says the bible was written by men through the divine it must be true?

"Must" is a strong word. If you want to write it miracles as chance, that's fine. I'm willing to grant the possibility that it was chance, but personally, I believe it was a miracle...

the Bible is a whole other issue though...the OP was about signs.

robj101 wrote:

As far as your grandmother goes I would treat her as I do my own loved ones who believe in this, I would nod my head and go on. I dislike what they think not them personally, but they know I'm an atheist and would probably not rub it around me too much in the first place.

That's wise, I think. In the same manner, I don't bring up the fact that I think evolution is good science either... they'd swear up and down I wasn't a Christian if I did.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:"Your

robj101 wrote:

"Your estimation" sounds like "your preference" to me.

I certainly didn't want it to be false when I was younger and still don't "want" for anything about it. I have given the whole thing so much thought, read the bible a few times etc and the only conclusion I can draw is that it is man made. There is no "want" in my situation. "oh sure I don't want what 90% of the world seems to want"

I was answering in reference to the specific issue concerning signs -- that is you suggested that I "want" it to be true. I don't believe so...I'm trying to remain open about such things and not preclude the possibility of a miracle or the product of pure chance in the given context, that's all.

But as far the whole of Christianity, that's another topic of discussion...really a number of discussions about a number of different things... I'd prefer to focus on the topic at hand, if that's okay? If you want to discuss other matters, start threads accordingly. I'll refrain from doing so because I think there's enough fodder for you atheists to handle with other theists creating threads and posting their trifles.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Wild Speculation and Wishful Thinking

Wowzers1 wrote:
Some religions do make claims "for which there exists no proof" but this cannot be said for all claims made by religions.

Too true Wowzers1, but that is a distraction from the heart of the conversation. I say this because what is being talked about are those very things "for which there exists no proof" but are fundamental to the god-belief mindset. There are certainly many things in religious texts which are true, they were written by men who lived at the time after all, I should hope they at least knew their own current events and recent history. These things, however, are not the nature of the disagreement - obviously.

We can find things that are true, profound, and relevant in anything from works of fantasy/fiction to Mein Kampf. These "truths" do not mean that fire breathing dragons existed, nor do they condone the ideology of Nazism. A broken watch is correct twice a day Sticking out tongue

Virgin births, miracles, zombie magic, these are the things which give religion its terrifying power and those things which not only lack proof entirely but fly in the face of what even the simplest human mind would be able to identify as reality. These bazaar and wildly absurd stories told in religious doctrine are the very heart of the matter, wild and ridiculous stories which are further being perpetuated by the miracle assumption of people not dying from things which "should have" killed them.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

"Your estimation" sounds like "your preference" to me.

I certainly didn't want it to be false when I was younger and still don't "want" for anything about it. I have given the whole thing so much thought, read the bible a few times etc and the only conclusion I can draw is that it is man made. There is no "want" in my situation. "oh sure I don't want what 90% of the world seems to want"

I was answering in reference to the specific issue concerning signs -- that is you suggested that I "want" it to be true. I don't believe so...I'm trying to remain open about such things and not preclude the possibility of a miracle or the product of pure chance in the given context, that's all.

But as far the whole of Christianity, that's another topic of discussion...really a number of discussions about a number of different things... I'd prefer to focus on the topic at hand, if that's okay? If you want to discuss other matters, start threads accordingly. I'll refrain from doing so because I think there's enough fodder for you atheists to handle with other theists creating threads and posting their trifles.

"Signs": If you had not heard of any religion whatsoever could you take it as a sign?

You try to make it sound as if you are not biased yet you choose to take your grandmothers recovery as a "sign" rather than "I'm not sure". If your grandmother falls over dead tomorrow what will that signify? If you yourself suddenly contract cancer what would that mean?  These "signs" are all over the place when you decide to seek them out.

To say the religion in general has nothing to do with the subject at hand when it clearly steers your ship into miraculous waters seems false btw so I may bring up any aspect of it that I think may have a bearing on the topic at hand as you may bring up and question my core idea's to refute my argument.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

What else should I assume? Because someone says there is a god it must be true? Because someone says the bible was written by men through the divine it must be true?

"Must" is a strong word. If you want to write it miracles as chance, that's fine. I'm willing to grant the possibility that it was chance, but personally, I believe it was a miracle...

the Bible is a whole other issue though...the OP was about signs.

 

Considering you believe it is a miracle then "must" is quite appropriate. You either do or you don't there is no try =) ..or is there?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:But I don't

Wowzers1 wrote:
But I don't assume that anything is true or false until I'm given a good reason to do so. Given that I believe that Christianity is the true religion, I hold that other religions are false, particularly in regards to salvation. But this does not mean wholesale, as I tend to think there are elements of truth most every religion.

 

Even if Christianity being true were a good reason to think other religions were false it would still have to be true for that to be valid, so I don't see how it could be anything other than an assumption. It's a belief that depends on the justification of other beliefs.

 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:Too true

marcusfish wrote:

Too true Wowzers1, but that is a distraction from the heart of the conversation.  I say this because what is being talked about are those very things "for which there exists no proof" but are fundamental to the god-belief mindset. There are certainly many things in religious texts which are true, they were written by men who lived at the time after all, I should hope they at least knew their own current events and recent history. These things, however, are not the nature of the disagreement - obviously.

I'm willing to entertain this, because it seems to be the conversation is going with robj101, etc. I think a new thread would be a appropriate... I tried to reign the conversation back in because I saw that this was a deviation too. Smiling

marcusfish wrote:

We can find things that are true, profound, and relevant in anything from works of fantasy/fiction to Mein Kampf. These "truths" do not mean that fire breathing dragons existed, nor do they condone the ideology of Nazism. A broken watch is correct twice a day Sticking out tongue

Virgin births, miracles, zombie magic, these are the things which give religion its terrifying power and those things which not only lack proof entirely but fly in the face of what even the simplest human mind would be able to identify as reality. These bazaar and wildly absurd stories told in religious doctrine are the very heart of the matter, wild and ridiculous stories which are further being perpetuated by the miracle assumption of people not dying from things which "should have" killed them.

The reduction to Hitler aside, I think that's a different category of "truth", namely political "truth", so I don't we can treat religious truth in the same manner we treats political truth.

The reason that things seem miraculous is because they do "fly in the face of what even the simplest human mind would be able to identify as reality" -- they defy the ordinary in a way that is extraordinary. But I don't agree that miracles "lack proof entirely". Under the circumstances surrounding my grandmother, I think there is reason to believe it is a miracle, but I grant it is circumstantial and I also grant that is possibly the product of chance.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:"Signs": If

robj101 wrote:

"Signs": If you had not heard of any religion whatsoever could you take it as a sign?

I suppose I could, but it would take some education about religion -- that is what is prayer, to whom are they praying to, and for why they believe it would help.

robj101 wrote:

You try to make it sound as if you are not biased yet you choose to take your grandmothers recovery as a "sign" rather than "I'm not sure". If your grandmother falls over dead tomorrow what will that signify? If you yourself suddenly contract cancer what would that mean?  These "signs" are all over the place when you decide to seek them out.

"Sign" is probably a bad word -- I was using it in the same manner that one uses "miracles". Sorry if I caused confusion...

robj101 wrote:

To say the religion in general has nothing to do with the subject at hand when it clearly steers your ship into miraculous waters seems false btw so I may bring up any aspect of it that I think may have a bearing on the topic at hand as you may bring up and question my core idea's to refute my argument.

I didn't say that it has nothing to do with religion in general, but it seems that you went from a focus on miracles to all of Christianity. That's too broad for the scope of the thread unless you want to relate it some how. Marcus did relate it talking about "zombie magic".

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Considering

robj101 wrote:

Considering you believe it is a miracle then "must" is quite appropriate. You either do or you don't there is no try =) ..or is there?

Believing it is a miracles does mean it is necessarily a miracles. The content of my beliefs do not dictate reality -- my hope is that they correspond to reality, so I think it is a miracle based on the circumstances, but that does not guarantee that it is a miracle.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Even if

Gauche wrote:

Even if Christianity being true were a good reason to think other religions were false it would still have to be true for that to be valid, so I don't see how it could be anything other than an assumption. It's a belief that depends on the justification of other beliefs. 

You're absolutely right here: "It's a belief that depends on the justification of other beliefs. " All religions can be false, but only one can be true -- that's just common sense. Sense I believe Christianity is true, then I, by virtue of what I believe, believe other religions to be false.

But it would only be an assumption if I assumed Christianity was true, which I don't believe is the case, so it is something other than an assumption.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: All

Wowzers1 wrote:
All religions can be false, but only one can be true

Patently false. 

Wowzers1 wrote:
that's just common sense.

False.

It's just stupid and deluded.


Stop equivocating.

All religions are based on 'how' they believe the universe was formed.

And none of those theories are remotely scientifically tenable, so, any speculation or 'lecturing' beyond that, is utterly foolish.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Sense I believe Christianity is true...

Makes you foolish, not superior, in any default sense.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: I didn't

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

I didn't say that it has nothing to do with religion in general, but it seems that you went from a focus on miracles to all of Christianity. That's too broad for the scope of the thread unless you want to relate it some how. Marcus did relate it talking about "zombie magic".

Then we are done, you have made it clear that miracles occur because you prefer that they do based on a wishful belief in a supernatural power that can cause said miracles.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Considering you believe it is a miracle then "must" is quite appropriate. You either do or you don't there is no try =) ..or is there?

Believing it is a miracles does mean it is necessarily a miracles. The content of my beliefs do not dictate reality -- my hope is that they correspond to reality, so I think it is a miracle based on the circumstances, but that does not guarantee that it is a miracle.

And here you admit you could be wrong .. When you let go of the want it really will correspond with reality.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Then we are

robj101 wrote:

Then we are done, you have made it clear that miracles occur because you prefer that they do based on a wishful belief in a supernatural power that can cause said miracles.

.

.

.

And here you admit you could be wrong .. When you let go of the want it really will correspond with reality.

You're insisting that I "want" reality to be a particular way, which is were I believe you're reading your bias into the matter, as evidenced by the fact you initially thought I was projecting myself into a god. You're basing that purely on the perception you have about religion and you're not even considering it as a possibility so it seems, so the matter is closed for you before I even brought the issues to bear. At least I'm open the possibility that it is pure chance... I granted that.

At the same time, the state of affairs concerning miracles (the miracle concerning my grandmother in particular) under my interpretation of the facts is coheres to how I perceive reality and corresponds to all given the facts. I believe I'm being very consistent.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
All religions can be false, but only one can be true

Patently false. 

Wowzers1 wrote:
that's just common sense.

False.

It's just stupid and deluded.


Stop equivocating.

All religions are based on 'how' they believe the universe was formed.

And none of those theories are remotely scientifically tenable, so, any speculation or 'lecturing' beyond that, is utterly foolish.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Sense I believe Christianity is true...

Makes you foolish, not superior, in any default sense.

redneF, no offense, but you come across as a troll... Nothing you've said is substantiated and seems to me that you're trying to flamebait.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Nothing

Wowzers1 wrote:
Nothing you've said is substantiated 

Don't just allege something, and walk away.

Prove 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


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
All religions can be false, but only one can be true

Patently false. 

No warrant...

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
that's just common sense.

False.

It's just stupid and deluded.

"Stupid and deluded" adds nothing... this is not substantiated.

redneF wrote:

Stop equivocating.

Equivocating on what?

redneF wrote:

All religions are based on 'how' they believe the universe was formed.

Where's the evidence for this?

redneF wrote:

And none of those theories are remotely scientifically tenable, so, any speculation or 'lecturing' beyond that, is utterly foolish.

Big Bang cosmology isn't scientific? Because that's what I (and other theists) believe best explains how the cosmos came to be as they are. If you want to call this unscientific, by all means, do.

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
Sense I believe Christianity is true...

Makes you foolish, not superior, in any default sense.

"Makes you foolish, not superior, in any default sense." adds nothing... in fact, it's probably a fallacy and this is not substantiation.

 

If you want to troll some more, go ahead. But you're not helping your case...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:You're

Wowzers1 wrote:

You're absolutely right here: "It's a belief that depends on the justification of other beliefs. " All religions can be false, but only one can be true -- that's just common sense. Sense I believe Christianity is true, then I, by virtue of what I believe, believe other religions to be false.

But it would only be an assumption if I assumed Christianity was true, which I don't believe is the case, so it is something other than an assumption.

But you think Christianity is true because your grandmother became sick and didn't die. That's a horrible reason. What connection could there possibly be between your grandmother's illness and the supreme overlord of the universe revealing itself to a bunch of desert dwelling savages thousands of years ago?

It's like saying you think it's not Tuesday because you believe it's Wednesday.  That's a reason because it cannot be both, but if your justification for believing it is Wednesday is insane then it's really nothing other than an assumption.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Then we are done, you have made it clear that miracles occur because you prefer that they do based on a wishful belief in a supernatural power that can cause said miracles.

.

.

.

And here you admit you could be wrong .. When you let go of the want it really will correspond with reality.

You're insisting that I "want" reality to be a particular way, which is were I believe you're reading your bias into the matter, as evidenced by the fact you initially thought I was projecting myself into a god. You're basing that purely on the perception you have about religion and you're not even considering it as a possibility so it seems, so the matter is closed for you before I even brought the issues to bear. At least I'm open the possibility that it is pure chance... I granted that.

At the same time, the state of affairs concerning miracles (the miracle concerning my grandmother in particular) under my interpretation of the facts is coheres to how I perceive reality and corresponds to all given the facts. I believe I'm being very consistent.

You said yourself you wanted to think it was a miracle while admitting it could be chance. You point this out again and you are trying to argue it. I'm in agreement on this point what am I supposed to argue?

There is no way to prove to you with absolute certainty that a miracle didn't happen but sadly the burden of proof rests with you and because you "want" or "believe" it is so does not make it so as you yourself pointed out earlier. This is why I said we are done.

I will say you can't prove a negative and I have nothing to prove.

We will have to move on to another topic and pick religion apart piece by piece, thread by thread.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Wowzers1

Gauche wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

You're absolutely right here: "It's a belief that depends on the justification of other beliefs. " All religions can be false, but only one can be true -- that's just common sense. Sense I believe Christianity is true, then I, by virtue of what I believe, believe other religions to be false.

But it would only be an assumption if I assumed Christianity was true, which I don't believe is the case, so it is something other than an assumption.

But you think Christianity is true because your grandmother became sick and didn't die. That's a horrible reason. What connection could there possibly be between your grandmother's illness and the supreme overlord of the universe revealing itself to a bunch of desert dwelling savages thousands of years ago?

It's like saying you think it's not Tuesday because you believe it's Wednesday.  That's a reason because it cannot be both, but if your justification for believing it is Wednesday is insane then it's really nothing other than an assumption.

We forgot to touch on why his grandmother got sick in the first place. People tend to think these are miraculous happening when someone gets sick and gets better. What about all the grandmothers that died today? They tend to think it's a miracle when many many people die and a few live. What about all the people that did die in that plane crash? Why is living on in this world considered to be a miracle when they could have died and gone to this better place a miracle at all? 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
We can't really even

We can't really even visualize a miracle, something that could not be attributed to chance because it can only be as real as the natural world around us will allow.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:But you think

Gauche wrote:

But you think Christianity is true because your grandmother became sick and didn't die. That's a horrible reason. What connection could there possibly be between your grandmother's illness and the supreme overlord of the universe revealing itself to a bunch of desert dwelling savages thousands of years ago?

You're overstating my position... It's seems to be evidence for Christianity give n the circumstances, but it does not in and of itself prove to me that Christianity is true.

Gauche wrote:

It's like saying you think it's not Tuesday because you believe it's Wednesday.  That's a reason because it cannot be both, but if your justification for believing it is Wednesday is insane then it's really nothing other than an assumption.

If it is Wednesday, it can't possible be Tuesday (at least in my timezone...it is possible for it to be Tuesday and Wednesday simultaneously if you take into account timezones)

You think it's "insane" that I'm a Christian, and I don't. But that does not add anything to the conversation at hand. Rather, I have provided some evidence for what I believe, even if it is circumstantial. All you've said is it is "insane" without telling me why it is insane.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:You're

Wowzers1 wrote:

You're overstating my position... It's seems to be evidence for Christianity give n the circumstances, but it does not in and of itself prove to me that Christianity is true.

To be evidence there would have to be some valid inference between that and a conclusion of fact.

Wowzers1 wrote:

If it is Wednesday, it can't possible be Tuesday (at least in my timezone...it is possible for it to be Tuesday and Wednesday simultaneously if you take into account timezones)

You think it's "insane" that I'm a Christian, and I don't. But that does not add anything to the conversation at hand. Rather, I have provided some evidence for what I believe, even if it is circumstantial. All you've said is it is "insane" without telling me why it is insane.

I don't think it's insane that you're a Christian, but it is insane to draw a connection between your grandmother's medical condition and Christianity's verisimilitude. The two are completely unrelated.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I'm actually

robj101 wrote:

I'm actually sick of trying to debate christians, it's boring and it always comes down to faith or "I just want to believe it" in the end. I do however have an interest in folks who say things like "a series of events occured that made me go to jesus". What events? Any theists care to share this "evidence"? I can only assume they take it as evidence because it seems to make them believe this stuff and for me it would take real evidence.

So what exactly happened in your life that made you believe? I'm hoping to hear something that can't actually be attributed to chance or hard work but I imagine this little thread will die off quickly.

 

I am an atheist now but I might as well give my story, this was after me not being sure what I was for several years and studying a lot of different religions and philosophies.

Well, back when I did believe I came to my conversion through a somewhat roundabout way. It was about 6 or 7 years ago, I had been having severe chronic nightmares. I saw myself falling through the blood soaked earth into the maw of hell, I heard screams and saw horrors in my minds eye, I fell for what felt like an eternity staring at leering skulls and twisted skeletons that tore at my body as I tried to grip at them for purchase to stop the fall. I remember the screams, the cries...it was not good. The dreams had been getting worse, I had been avoiding sleep to avoid them, exhaustion usually allowed for dreamless sleep and so I kept pushing back when I slept and functioning on fewer and fewer hours. I was a nervous wreck and started to feel like I was being watched, even thinking I saw shadows moving and twisting when I walked down a hallway alone. I was in a bad way, I had a little pocket bible that those religious groups hand out and I figured that at this point reading it might help, if for no other reason than it might offer an antidote to this. I read, and I saw plenty of things that I agreed with, I saw concepts of social justice, selflessness and self sacrifice (what I had was only new testament) I read through the whole thing that night and I felt good, I saw things that I believed and I felt something wonderful. I prayed and begged God to cast the darkness from me that had been haunting me and literally felt something be pulled out and felt like I was full of living light. I felt wonderful, I wanted to save the world, I wanted to help everyone, I wanted to build a hundred homes, man every soup kitchen, wipe out poverty and do anything I could to make the world better. I heard scripture in my mind, I tried to be more generous, more giving, kinder and more forgiving. I eventually lost that feeling of inner light which depressed me but I had an experience that I had literally never felt before, I mean the sensations were so alien I couldn't imagine my own body producing them, though I do remember feeling that way one other time on reflection, it had been a few years before after I was at my worst I was pleading for anything listening to please help me, help me figure out what I had done wrong and how to fix it, help me avoid trying to kill myself again.

I still believed in logic and reason, science was still accurate, I just assumed that biblical errors were human mistakes but that the God that I knew was more than some piddly book. The book could have mistakes but there were still basic principles that made sense, loving your neighbor and working for social justice. I didn't view the bible as a historical text or a science book and when I saw the Hovinds, Comforts and other creationist liars in the world I was disgusted and frustrated as their initial stuff could be ignorance, with what they did as frequently as they did it they were knowingly lying. What they did though made me wonder, how can they claim to be so pious and faithful and yet lie so much, how can they chastise other christians for not taking the book literally when they don't either.

So I read more, and I studied more of the bible, I also read other philosophy texts and since I was a political science student studied how we form societies and different ways governments and nations can form. More questions came up and I asked others about them, and more often than not they got confused or they told me to just have faith. So, as a bookend, I suppose it might be also important to say that creationism helped me on the road to becoming an atheist.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:You said

robj101 wrote:

You said yourself you wanted to think it was a miracle while admitting it could be chance. You point this out again and you are trying to argue it. I'm in agreement on this point what am I supposed to argue?

I There is no way to prove to you with absolute certainty that a miracle didn't happen but sadly the burden of proof rests with you and because you "want" or "believe" it is so does not make it so as you yourself pointed out earlier. This is why I said we are done.

Please quote me on where I said I "wanted to think it was a miracle". I don't recall saying this...

robj101 wrote:

I will say you can't prove a negative and I have nothing to prove.

We will have to move on to another topic and pick religion apart piece by piece, thread by thread.

The case that I'm projecting myself into a god and my belief in miracles is a result of this projection because I want it to be is your case to prove. But I think this is more dubious than trying to prove the miracles themselves.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:We forgot to

robj101 wrote:

We forgot to touch on why his grandmother got sick in the first place. People tend to think these are miraculous happening when someone gets sick and gets better. What about all the grandmothers that died today? They tend to think it's a miracle when many many people die and a few live. What about all the people that did die in that plane crash? Why is living on in this world considered to be a miracle when they could have died and gone to this better place a miracle at all? 

Like I said, I can't answer these questions because the nature of miracles is that they are circumstantial, so they have to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:We can't

robj101 wrote:

We can't really even visualize a miracle, something that could not be attributed to chance because it can only be as real as the natural world around us will allow.

I think this is contingent upon the sort of miracle were talking about. Any given miracle may have natural explanation, but the circumstances surrounding the miracle are unusual.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Wowzers1

Gauche wrote:

To be evidence there would have to be some valid inference between that and a conclusion of fact.

Gauche wrote:

I don't think it's insane that you're a Christian, but it is insane to draw a connection between your grandmother's medical condition and Christianity's verisimilitude. The two are completely unrelated.

How is the inference from my grandmother's bout with cancer a bad inference?

How are the facts concerning my grandmothers health and Christianity unrelated?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:How is the

Wowzers1 wrote:

How is the inference from my grandmother's bout with cancer a bad inference?

How are the facts concerning my grandmothers health and Christianity unrelated?

It contains a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, the mistaken notion that because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second. Sequences don't establish a probability of causality.

But even if chanting or prayer had something to do with your grandmother's cancer remission that still wouldn't necessarily mean Christianity were true. There are several other more plausible explanations.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: If you want

Wowzers1 wrote:
If you want to troll some more, go ahead. But you're not helping your case...

Stop throwing around false allegations. You haven't done any rebuking at all.

You're just being obtuse.

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
All religions can be false, but only one can be true

Patently false. 

No warrant...

I have yet to see any peer reviewed and published scientific papers on which religion is factual.

Please site your sources to back your claim that any 1 of them are not to be regarded as myths.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
that's just common sense.

False.

It's just stupid and deluded.

"Stupid and deluded" adds nothing... this is not substantiated.

Claiming 1 myth is 'true', is stupid and deluded.

Epic fail on your part.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Stop equivocating.

Equivocating on what?

Stating that myths and folklore are facts.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

All religions are based on 'how' they believe the universe was formed.

Where's the evidence for this?

In their mythologies that a supernatural deity created the universe.

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
Sense I believe Christianity is true...

Makes you foolish, not superior, in any default sense.

"Makes you foolish, not superior, in any default sense." adds nothing...

False.

It's a statement that's a conclusion in context to my earlier points.

Evaluating it out of context is just you being the troll; not me.

'Believing' in such unprecedented claims, without any evidence, and rational reason to do so,  is foolish and inferior to being skeptical.

 

.

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


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Stop throwing

redneF wrote:

Stop throwing around false allegations. You haven't done any rebuking at all.

You're just being obtuse.

But you haven't either... I'm under no obligation to respond to anything you say...I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt...

redneF wrote:

I have yet to see any peer reviewed and published scientific papers on which religion is factual.

I'm talking common sense. I guess it isn't so common. Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true. You're read into the statement I made as if I was affirming something by that. Asking me to provide peer review papers for the scientific veracity of a religion has nothing to do with this statement.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Claiming 1 myth is 'true', is stupid and deluded.

Epic fail on your part.

Claiming it is false and not saying why is not any better than claiming it is try and not saying why. But I told, at least in part, why I think it is true.

redneF wrote:

Stating that myths and folklore are facts.

That's a perception, not a fallacy. Besides, you've given no reason as to why I should think it is myth.

Wowzers1 wrote:

In their mythologies that a supernatural deity created the universe.

You're telling me that you've read all these "mythologies" and they all say that a supernatural deity created the universe?

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

False.

It's a statement that's a conclusion in context to my earlier points.

Evaluating it out of context is just you being the troll; not me.

What post? There's nothing of substance anywhere in this thread from you....

 

Until you post something of substance, I think it would be best for me not to respond to you, that way I don't feed you.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmkay.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

wit, Wowzers. Point is, you clearly suggested there is some way to understand a god who is by definition supernatural, who cannot be detected by any physical sense organs we possess. This ability to detect the supernatural is groundbreaking

I think you misunderstood what I was saying...

I was not claiming to have comprehensive understandings about God. I was saying that divine causation is inherent of a theist's understanding of causality, that's all, and in the context I thoughts that what I was saying.  In other words, theism by definition implies God is a causal agent.

Sorry if I did not communicate this.

 

So what you are saying is that in the absence of actual evidence theists posit divine causation wherever there's a lack of knowledge? Would this be an argument from complexity? Where exactly do you see divine cause? The big bang? Abiogenesis? Or is god's loving hand hovering over every particle? Why not just admit lack of knowledge? Surely suggesting an impossible to prove deity outside space time is a bigger leap than suggesting apparent natural cause based on what we can actually know?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

I was not claiming to have comprehensive understandings about God. I was saying that divine causation is inherent of a theist's understanding of causality, that's all, and in the context I thoughts that what I was saying.  In other words, theism by definition implies God is a causal agent.

 

What you are saying is that in the absence of actual evidence theists posit divine causation wherever there's a lack of knowledge?  Would this be an argument from complexity? Where exactly do you see divine cause? The big bang? Abiogenesis? Or is god's loving hand hovering over every particle? 

Not at all.

Here are the facts: My grandmother is terminally ill with cancer. The prognosis is bad. She and others pray for healing. She returns to the doctor and there is no trace of cancer in a her body.

The inference is that she prayed for healing to God and God healed her. This fits the given facts and is consistent with Christianity...

There's a given set of facts and the interpretation of the facts I'm giving coheres to Christianity and corresponds to all the facts. For this reason, I perceive it is evidence for Christianity.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Until you

Wowzers1 wrote:

Until you post something of substance,

I've backed you up against the wall with your equivocations, and your fallacies.

Stop trying to squirm out of it.

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

redneF wrote:

I have yet to see any peer reviewed and published scientific papers on which religion is factual.

I'm talking common sense.

What's common sense?

That 'God did it?'.

STFU.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true.

Nice try.

You keep moving the goal posts, but, to no avail.

1- Your original statement was the only 1 'religion' can be true.

2- It's a logical fallacy that among competing 'truth' claims, that 1 is necessarily true. They can all be false.

Wowzers1 wrote:

You're read into the statement I made as if I was affirming something by that. Asking me to provide peer review papers for the scientific veracity of a religion has nothing to do with this statement.

Stop equivocating.

All religions claim the knowledge of how the universe formed.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Claiming 1 myth is 'true', is stupid and deluded.

Epic fail on your part.

Claiming it is false and not saying why...

Because they're legends and folklores from ancient cultures. There have been thousands and thousands of gods before the Abrahamic god, and it's well understood that they were all myths.

Just because 1 resonates with you, does not make it anymore viable than any other myth.

 

Wowzers1 wrote:
Besides, you've given no reason as to why I should think it is myth.

There's no evidence, or precedent.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

In their mythologies that a supernatural deity created the universe.

You're telling me that you've read all these "mythologies" and they all say that a supernatural deity created the universe?

Isn't that what what the Abrahamic religions all claim created the universe?

 

Wowzers1 wrote:
There's nothing of substance anywhere in this thread from you.

Oh, give me a fricken' break... 

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


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I've backed you

redneF wrote:

I've backed you up against the wall with your equivocations, and your fallacies.

Stop trying to squirm out of it.

Not really. I'll reply to the skimpy substations here... if they can be called that.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true.

Nice try.

You keep moving the goal posts, but, to no avail.

1- Your original statement was the only 1 'religion' can be true.

2- It's a logical fallacy that among competing 'truth' claims, that 1 is necessarily true. They can all be false.

I was showing you the form of the arguments, the application was to religion. That's not a moving target.

I never said one was necessarily true. You keep creating strawmen out of my statements. But I did say they could all me false. You missed that somewhere.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Because they're legends and folklores from ancient cultures. There have been thousands and thousands of gods before the Abrahamic god, and it's well understood that they were all myths.

Just because 1 resonates with you, does not make it anymore viable than any other myth.

.

.

.

Isn't that what what the Abrahamic religions all claim created the universe?

Now you seem to be backing off your original claim, "All religions are based on 'how' they believe the universe was formed" to Abrahamic religions... which is it?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:I think this

Wowzers1 wrote:

I think this is entirely on how one interprets the evidence... The claim to "no proof" is dubious itself.

False.

There's no 'evidence' that it's not simply natural.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The inference to God is inductive, and I think requires, at a minimum, the possibility that there is a God who can do such things... If one precludes this as a possibility, then it is bias against God.

There's no evidence that it could not happen by natural means. Simply claiming that it's 'too unlikely', is an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

You'd also have to prove that anyone of us do not believe that there could possibly be a god.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The explanation of divine cause, at least for a theist, is not beyond understanding

False.

It's simply not beyond your imagination. And your desire that there be a god.

But, funny that your imagination is less elastic when it comes to 'disbelief'.

 

That's called 'Confirmation Bias'.

It's one of the most common patterns seen in 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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: I never said

Wowzers1 wrote:
I never said one was necessarily true.

You're so full of shit.

"Given a set of competing truth claims, they can all be false, but only one can be true." : Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:
You keep creating strawmen out of my statements.

No.

You keep equivocating.

And I keep busting you. 

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Because they're legends and folklores from ancient cultures. There have been thousands and thousands of gods before the Abrahamic god, and it's well understood that they were all myths.

Just because 1 resonates with you, does not make it anymore viable than any other myth.

.

.

.

Isn't that what what the Abrahamic religions all claim created the universe?

Now you seem to be backing off your original claim,

Nope.

Your religion is an Ambrahamic one.

And you're simply being evasive, because you've been busted, and backed hard against the wall.

 

 

 

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