Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21 Sep 2017, 04:19 PM   #676991 / #951
Worldtraveller
Will work for fun.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S. OR.
Posts: 3,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
Thank you for your reply. I did get a little crazy in 926 perhaps, but if you want to talk about insults, just look at the ones against me all the way along. A lot of the people in here seem really brave behind their computer screens, but I'm assuming they don't talk like that in real life - or they'd have their teeth all missing. My apologies if in 926 I offended you.
First day on the internet? This site is pretty mild compared to many. Yes, there are internet tough guys, but most of them are elsewhere. You should hear the verbal abuse on the porn site I'm an administrator of. Many of the offenders don't even have usernames, another level of hiding. On the other hand, it's mostly for entertainment, trying to out-insult each other, since nothing of significance is ever said anyway.

A lot of the scorn here is directed at the cartoon god and is just indirect for you in believing he is real.
The assertion is also amusing because this poster assumes none of us confront religious zealots on a regular basis in real life. As if they are that easy to avoid in the US.

Or that *cough*come of us*cough* were on the board of directors of state or federal level science organizations that have to fight back the incursion of these zealots in a very public role for years.

Also, my teeth are just fine.
Worldtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Sep 2017, 05:45 PM   #676994 / #952
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

If not for the problems they cause, there would be no reason to pay attention to the religious at all. Ever.
__________________
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Sep 2017, 08:54 PM   #676999 / #953
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
With respect, I have found this to be untrue. I cannot speak for you personally, but self-professed "skeptics" in general almost always assume that there is a "rational explanation"
As opposed to what? "Rational explanation" is redundant. If you assert something is irrational, then it really does not serve to explain anything, now does it? Let's try it:
Koy:I heard a noise in my attic that sounded like my father breathing.
Poli: That was a Trymeglophon; an interdimensional creature that is both corporeal and non-corporeal at the same time only in our universe. It periodically used your father's body as a means of locomotion.
Koy: Rather than serving to explain what caused the sound I heard in my attic, I now have at least a dozen additional questions for you.
Quote:
For example, millions of people every day speak to God, and a great many believe that god talks back to them. The Pew Forum uncovered that a solid fourth of americans, for instance, considered their interactions with God to be vocally reciprocal. But your average atheists would never consider that evidence that god exists, even if their alternative hypotheses - schizophrenia, hallucinations, overactive imagination, or deceit and trickery, etc - are actually pretty hard to support.
Aside from the fact that you are an intelligent man and know perfectly well that the brain generates all such phenomena (our internal "voice" for a primary example; dreamscapes for another), it isn't anything to do with atheism that demands no one consider any such experiences as "evidence"; it is the nature of the experiences that objectively discounts it as evidence. Just reduce it down to one individual:
Koy: Poli, yesterday I spoke to Philgemort the Creator and he spoke back to me!
Poli: Who is Philgemort the Creator?
Koy: What do you mean? He's the Supreme Invisible Creator of All Possible and Impossible Things.
Poli: How do you know such a being exists?
Koy: I just told you. He spoke back to me, therefore that proves he exists!
Poli: Well, it may be sufficient for you to believe such a being exists, but I can't just take your word for it.
Koy: You have to, or else you'll punish yourself for all eternity.
Poli: (moving slowly off screen) Uh huh, sure...
What you are doing is conflating millions of different unique experiences under the same type of experience--"a being I firmly believe exists and speak to in my own internal voice just answered me back"--conveniently ignoring the fact that the type of experience is mundane. "Speak" to your wife in your head and you will "hear" her voice speaking back to you. Is it actually your wife? No, of course not. It's your brain recreating the speech patterns of your wife. The same is true of any of your friends or family. "Hear" your brother saying "Let's eat" or "Don't be an asshole" or any other phrase you want and you'll "hear" his voice. But it's not really his voice. It's your brain's interpretation of his voice as you have heard it.

And, of course, you can easily "hear" a voice you've never physically heard in real life. Just use your phone to record your own external voice and play it back. Every single person on this planet experiences the exact same thing when they hear their external voice and says the exact same thing, "That isn't me." Why? Because our internal "voice" is a different construct than its external manifestation.

Every dream you have ever had involves voices you've never heard before in real life. Children--in the formative stages of creating their own identity--often create imaginary friends that likewise speak in different voices that the children have extensive conversations with. In cases of extreme trauma, those "friends" can actually become fully realized alternative identities, complete with idiosyncrasies like fluently speaking a foreign language that the original identity never learned or having a measurabiliy different heart rate and blood pressure, etc.

These are all well-documented internal phenomena that actually explain how someone indoctrinated in a cult, especially--and who has thereby spent considerable time imagining what such a creature they firmly believe is real would sound like and act like, etc.--would then "answer" them one day. If the brain can create one voice (your own internal voice) then it can create an unlimited number of them.

I guarantee you that if you spent the next month thinking about what Aristotle must have sounded like and then you start "speaking" to him in your internal voice, "he" will start speaking back to you to the point where you will be having ongoing "conversations" with "him." But are you? No, of course not, but because that's comparatively benign and not the ALMIGHTY CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE that you have been indoctrinated to believe is the Alpha and Omega (and can therefore provide you with the Big Answers in life), you don't really pay much attention to it.

Are dreams an external realm that your non-corporeal "self" magically travels to every night, escaping your body and our physical realm? If you would like to believe that is the case, have at it, but don't turn to me and say, "My dream last night proves there's an objectively existing non-corporeal reality where we can all fly and have corporeal sex with Marilyn Monroe." Nor, for that matter, do what you just did and conflate the category type of "We all dream" with "objective evidence of non-corporeal realms where we can all have corporeal sex with Marilyn Monroe."

Iow, you would never accept the identical statement to yours, "the fact that two billion people have dreams is evidence of an objectively existing non-corporeal realm where we can all have corporeal sex with MM." And it's false no matter if I am an atheist or you are a toadstool.

Quote:
For another example, I might say "I saw a ghost yesterday", and without any further information, most denizens of this forum will instantly come to the conclusion that I did not... before they hear any specific details about the incident.
That is because the category of being we call "Ghost" has been thoroughly vetted ten billion times before you ever used it. We are under no obligation to reinvent the wheel every time some yahoo demands that we do so.

So let's reset that board as well:
Poli: I saw a Furmlobler yesterday.
Koy: What is a Furmlobler?
Poli: It is a non-corporeal interdimensional being.
Koy:There seem to be a lot of those going around these days. Tell me, since human sight is predicated upon the reception of photons that have themselves bounced off of an external object--necessitating that such an object be corporeal--how do you support your claim that you "saw" a "non-corporeal" being?
See the pattern yet?

Quote:
You cannot "evaluate" a claim that you have not yet heard
Except that the claim has been heard many many many many many many times and never proved, but even still, again, it is the nature of the claim (or, rather, I should say the nature of the evidence that is usually provided for such a claim), i.e, anecdotal; non-replicable that is the foundation of a prima facie rejection. You don't get special dispensation for your desire to just fiat acceptance of your anecdotal claims. You don't get to just demand everyone believe that what you say you experienced actually, objectively was what you say you experienced. Not when humanity's track record for getting so many such things profoundly and often tragically wrong is replete.

But even if we all knew you personally and could thereby attest to your discipline in making sure that what you are relating anecdotally is of the strictest skeptical scrutiny, that STILL would not rule out any number of mundane reasons why your claim and its subsequent objective verification cannot be established by just taking your word for it. You tried to equivocate extremes like "mental illness" when in fact "you were dehydrated" or "you were incredibly tired" or "you just really wanted to believe it was true" can easily explain most such experiences.

Or, most obvious of all, "You've been imagining what this being would sound like and 'talking' to it for years and (surprise surprise) your brain--which created 'you' created another personality who then answered." No "mental illness" necessary, just the normal operating parameter of a brain creating analogues--aka, "selves"--to interract with. Again, just like it does every single night (often several times a night), or it does every single nano-second, for that matter.

You are a construct of your brain, so why would another form of "you" be at all controversial for your brain to create?

Quote:
They already have an opinion on the question of ghosts
False. We have already vetted both the possibility and the probability of non-corporeal beings supervening unto a corporeal plane to be effectively zero, but most importantly, we have done such vetting based on the fact that no compelling evidence exists. Your story--your anecdote--ist not compelling, let alone sufficiently compelling. Why would it be? Just because you really really really believed it was true?

Quote:
and they are not waiting for evidence to disprove them
We are waiting for evidence to prove them. Saying, "But the evidence is the experience only I had" is not evidence that proves anything. Saying, "But millions of people have had similar experiences" is likewise not evidence that proves anything.

You know that the word "prove" has a very specific meaning, yet you engage in equivocation in an ironic attempt to prove what you are claiming.

Quote:
they feel they already have a "rational" position on ghosts, and any particular fact would be immediately met with a "rational explanation", even if that explanation started to get absurdly complicated.
Let's grant your assertion to be true for the sake of argument. And...? It would still be incumbent upon the claimant to prove their claim regardless of how many others may (or may not) have already come to a general conclusion regarding the existence of any such beings.

The burden of proof does not get alleviated just because all the "evidence" you have is anecdotal. Quite the contrary. So what is your point? Because you can't prove your claim, it's our fault? Because you want your anecdote to just be accepted on its face as sufficient proof of your claim, it's our fault?

You are effectively accusing us of your own failure; asserting that we are "closed minded" (though you didn't use that term) and thus refusing to even listen to your anecdote as if the problem is our not listening instead of you not having any evidence worth listening to.

Quote:
The skeptic in a corner is quick to assert the mental illness of their opponent.
Isn't that convenient? Here's a more accurate bumper sticker slogan for you: The believer sticks himself in a corner but demands skeptics treat him like he's center stage. It doesn't work like that and no attempt at blaming others for your own crimes will change that fact. Prove your claim or your claim is void.

And just as a reminder, burdens of proof never shift. You make a claim, you prove your claim. Anecdotes do not constitute proof. It's pretty straightforward to all except those who just demand that an anecdote is good enough.
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 21 Sep 2017 at 09:46 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Sep 2017, 09:47 PM   #677001 / #954
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
The assertion is also amusing because this poster assumes none of us confront religious zealots on a regular basis in real life. As if they are that easy to avoid in the US.
Especially in certain areas. Living in Jeebusland
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 12:07 AM   #677004 / #955
Worldtraveller
Will work for fun.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S. OR.
Posts: 3,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
The assertion is also amusing because this poster assumes none of us confront religious zealots on a regular basis in real life. As if they are that easy to avoid in the US.
Especially in certain areas. Living in Jeebusland
I feel our pain, brotha. I spent seven years (notice I didn't say 'lived'....) in Dumbfuckistan, aka Wichita, KS.

I don't even have kids, and I spent a lot of my time battling against the regressive fuckwads that call themselves xian in that state constantly trying to get all of the public schools to be pulpits.
Worldtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 02:25 AM   #677009 / #956
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
...
But even the ones who exemplify the ethical principles which the best of Christians aspire to, still cannot answer the honest and simple questions we ask them about their beliefs, which they (and you) would have us share. As I put it in my first post in this thread- "Can you tell us why your faith is the correct one, and all the many others were mistaken?
Hi Jobar,

...Why is my faith correct and others false? Let's just say, we're all currently at where we are at when it comes to our current religious belief. I'm stuck on Christian. You're stuck on your belief. Perhaps you are right and I'm wrong. I won't 100% know until the fat lady sings. Yes, it is feasible that I have had the wool pulled over my eyes in some fashion. Ha ha, you got me. That was a really good trick. And believe me, I have tested my faith, just as I am by being in here and hearing all you gots to say. But until now, all of the evidence that this entity has lined up before him points to Jesus, God, and of course, the Holy Spirit. Now for all I know, Buddhists may be saved by Buddha, Muslims by Mohammed, etc, that's fine, that's great. You seem to be okay with the 80 year thing. That's cool too, I guess. But how is it going to be when you get older, as the sword of time works it's way on in, it doesn't hurt when it begins....
Hi, 1ICrying.

I just wanted to focus on this one aspect of your reply to Jobar, because you seem to feel that you are somehow testing your faith just by being here and responding to people who reject belief in gods. Jobar's question wasn't entirely rhetorical, but you did seem to bear out his claim that "even the ones who exemplify the ethical principles which the best of Christians aspire to, still cannot answer the honest and simple questions we ask them about their beliefs." You responded to his question without answering it. You answered the question of why you were stuck on your belief in the face of all those other beliefs by just repeating that you were stuck on your belief. Worse yet, you implied a false equivalence, that the atheists you are here to challenge can do no better. So Jobar's point stands that you cannot answer the "honest and simple question".

Why is it a false equivalence? Well, you waved you hands at "all of the evidence that this entity has lined up before him" but did not actually cite any such evidence. OTOH, Jobar's semi-rhetorical question is itself a very good reason to reject belief in your god--because of all those competing religious beliefs that you are not "stuck on". You give us no better reason to reject those beliefs than to retain your own.

Despite your belief that you are testing your faith here, the fact is that you are not doing that. You are providing us with your excuses for not testing it. An honest test of your faith would be an effort to answer the question in a non-circular way.

If asked to tell us why you reject belief in leprechauns, I'm sure that you would go beyond just saying that you are stuck on leprechaun-skepticism. You would give us some good reasons why you think leprechauns are highly implausible beings. Likewise, we give you good reasons why we believe your god is an implausible being, yet you ignore all of that and just tell us that we are "stuck on" our god-skepticism, just as you are "stuck on" your god-belief. That is not testing your faith. It is avoiding the question.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 05:33 AM   #677016 / #957
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
With respect, I have found this to be untrue. I cannot speak for you personally, but self-professed "skeptics" in general almost always assume that there is a "rational explanation"
As opposed to what? "Rational explanation" is redundant. If you assert something is irrational, then it really does not serve to explain anything, now does it? Let's try it:
Koy:I heard a noise in my attic that sounded like my father breathing.
Poli: That was a Trymeglophon; an interdimensional creature that is both corporeal and non-corporeal at the same time only in our universe. It periodically used your father's body as a means of locomotion.
Koy: Rather than serving to explain what caused the sound I heard in my attic, I now have at least a dozen additional questions for you.
Quote:
For example, millions of people every day speak to God, and a great many believe that god talks back to them. The Pew Forum uncovered that a solid fourth of americans, for instance, considered their interactions with God to be vocally reciprocal. But your average atheists would never consider that evidence that god exists, even if their alternative hypotheses - schizophrenia, hallucinations, overactive imagination, or deceit and trickery, etc - are actually pretty hard to support.
Aside from the fact that you are an intelligent man and know perfectly well that the brain generates all such phenomena (our internal "voice" for a primary example; dreamscapes for another), it isn't anything to do with atheism that demands no one consider any such experiences as "evidence"; it is the nature of the experiences that objectively discounts it as evidence. Just reduce it down to one individual:
Koy: Poli, yesterday I spoke to Philgemort the Creator and he spoke back to me!
Poli: Who is Philgemort the Creator?
Koy: What do you mean? He's the Supreme Invisible Creator of All Possible and Impossible Things.
Poli: How do you know such a being exists?
Koy: I just told you. He spoke back to me, therefore that proves he exists!
Poli: Well, it may be sufficient for you to believe such a being exists, but I can't just take your word for it.
Koy: You have to, or else you'll punish yourself for all eternity.
Poli: (moving slowly off screen) Uh huh, sure...
What you are doing is conflating millions of different unique experiences under the same type of experience--"a being I firmly believe exists and speak to in my own internal voice just answered me back"--conveniently ignoring the fact that the type of experience is mundane. "Speak" to your wife in your head and you will "hear" her voice speaking back to you. Is it actually your wife? No, of course not. It's your brain recreating the speech patterns of your wife. The same is true of any of your friends or family. "Hear" your brother saying "Let's eat" or "Don't be an asshole" or any other phrase you want and you'll "hear" his voice. But it's not really his voice. It's your brain's interpretation of his voice as you have heard it.

And, of course, you can easily "hear" a voice you've never physically heard in real life. Just use your phone to record your own external voice and play it back. Every single person on this planet experiences the exact same thing when they hear their external voice and says the exact same thing, "That isn't me." Why? Because our internal "voice" is a different construct than its external manifestation.

Every dream you have ever had involves voices you've never heard before in real life. Children--in the formative stages of creating their own identity--often create imaginary friends that likewise speak in different voices that the children have extensive conversations with. In cases of extreme trauma, those "friends" can actually become fully realized alternative identities, complete with idiosyncrasies like fluently speaking a foreign language that the original identity never learned or having a measurabiliy different heart rate and blood pressure, etc.

These are all well-documented internal phenomena that actually explain how someone indoctrinated in a cult, especially--and who has thereby spent considerable time imagining what such a creature they firmly believe is real would sound like and act like, etc.--would then "answer" them one day. If the brain can create one voice (your own internal voice) then it can create an unlimited number of them.

I guarantee you that if you spent the next month thinking about what Aristotle must have sounded like and then you start "speaking" to him in your internal voice, "he" will start speaking back to you to the point where you will be having ongoing "conversations" with "him." But are you? No, of course not, but because that's comparatively benign and not the ALMIGHTY CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE that you have been indoctrinated to believe is the Alpha and Omega (and can therefore provide you with the Big Answers in life), you don't really pay much attention to it.

Are dreams an external realm that your non-corporeal "self" magically travels to every night, escaping your body and our physical realm? If you would like to believe that is the case, have at it, but don't turn to me and say, "My dream last night proves there's an objectively existing non-corporeal reality where we can all fly and have corporeal sex with Marilyn Monroe." Nor, for that matter, do what you just did and conflate the category type of "We all dream" with "objective evidence of non-corporeal realms where we can all have corporeal sex with Marilyn Monroe."

Iow, you would never accept the identical statement to yours, "the fact that two billion people have dreams is evidence of an objectively existing non-corporeal realm where we can all have corporeal sex with MM." And it's false no matter if I am an atheist or you are a toadstool.

Quote:
For another example, I might say "I saw a ghost yesterday", and without any further information, most denizens of this forum will instantly come to the conclusion that I did not... before they hear any specific details about the incident.
That is because the category of being we call "Ghost" has been thoroughly vetted ten billion times before you ever used it. We are under no obligation to reinvent the wheel every time some yahoo demands that we do so.

So let's reset that board as well:
Poli: I saw a Furmlobler yesterday.
Koy: What is a Furmlobler?
Poli: It is a non-corporeal interdimensional being.
Koy:There seem to be a lot of those going around these days. Tell me, since human sight is predicated upon the reception of photons that have themselves bounced off of an external object--necessitating that such an object be corporeal--how do you support your claim that you "saw" a "non-corporeal" being?
See the pattern yet?



Except that the claim has been heard many many many many many many times and never proved, but even still, again, it is the nature of the claim (or, rather, I should say the nature of the evidence that is usually provided for such a claim), i.e, anecdotal; non-replicable that is the foundation of a prima facie rejection. You don't get special dispensation for your desire to just fiat acceptance of your anecdotal claims. You don't get to just demand everyone believe that what you say you experienced actually, objectively was what you say you experienced. Not when humanity's track record for getting so many such things profoundly and often tragically wrong is replete.

But even if we all knew you personally and could thereby attest to your discipline in making sure that what you are relating anecdotally is of the strictest skeptical scrutiny, that STILL would not rule out any number of mundane reasons why your claim and its subsequent objective verification cannot be established by just taking your word for it. You tried to equivocate extremes like "mental illness" when in fact "you were dehydrated" or "you were incredibly tired" or "you just really wanted to believe it was true" can easily explain most such experiences.

Or, most obvious of all, "You've been imagining what this being would sound like and 'talking' to it for years and (surprise surprise) your brain--which created 'you' created another personality who then answered." No "mental illness" necessary, just the normal operating parameter of a brain creating analogues--aka, "selves"--to interract with. Again, just like it does every single night (often several times a night), or it does every single nano-second, for that matter.

You are a construct of your brain, so why would another form of "you" be at all controversial for your brain to create?



False. We have already vetted both the possibility and the probability of non-corporeal beings supervening unto a corporeal plane to be effectively zero, but most importantly, we have done such vetting based on the fact that no compelling evidence exists. Your story--your anecdote--ist not compelling, let alone sufficiently compelling. Why would it be? Just because you really really really believed it was true?

Quote:
and they are not waiting for evidence to disprove them
We are waiting for evidence to prove them. Saying, "But the evidence is the experience only I had" is not evidence that proves anything. Saying, "But millions of people have had similar experiences" is likewise not evidence that proves anything.

You know that the word "prove" has a very specific meaning, yet you engage in equivocation in an ironic attempt to prove what you are claiming.

Quote:
they feel they already have a "rational" position on ghosts, and any particular fact would be immediately met with a "rational explanation", even if that explanation started to get absurdly complicated.
Let's grant your assertion to be true for the sake of argument. And...? It would still be incumbent upon the claimant to prove their claim regardless of how many others may (or may not) have already come to a general conclusion regarding the existence of any such beings.

The burden of proof does not get alleviated just because all the "evidence" you have is anecdotal. Quite the contrary. So what is your point? Because you can't prove your claim, it's our fault? Because you want your anecdote to just be accepted on its face as sufficient proof of your claim, it's our fault?

You are effectively accusing us of your own failure; asserting that we are "closed minded" (though you didn't use that term) and thus refusing to even listen to your anecdote as if the problem is our not listening instead of you not having any evidence worth listening to.

Quote:
The skeptic in a corner is quick to assert the mental illness of their opponent.
Isn't that convenient? Here's a more accurate bumper sticker slogan for you: The believer sticks himself in a corner but demands skeptics treat him like he's center stage. It doesn't work like that and no attempt at blaming others for your own crimes will change that fact. Prove your claim or your claim is void.

And just as a reminder, burdens of proof never shift. You make a claim, you prove your claim. Anecdotes do not constitute proof. It's pretty straightforward to all except those who just demand that an anecdote is good enough.
You seem to think that you are arguing with me, which is odd, because I don't see how anything you said contradicts what I said. You think this attitude of self-named skeptics is justified, sure. That's fine, you can feel that way, indeed I would have assumed that you do. It is, nevertheless, a thing. I'm not going to tell you to feel otherwise. I honestly feel bad you took so much time typing out such a long post just to argue the point. I can't say I care for some of the odd things you have "Poli" saying here - a bit of a "Charlton Heston moment", perhaps? - but you're perfectly free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 08:33 AM   #677023 / #958
1ICrying
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
...
But even the ones who exemplify the ethical principles which the best of Christians aspire to, still cannot answer the honest and simple questions we ask them about their beliefs, which they (and you) would have us share. As I put it in my first post in this thread- "Can you tell us why your faith is the correct one, and all the many others were mistaken?
Hi Jobar,

...Why is my faith correct and others false? Let's just say, we're all currently at where we are at when it comes to our current religious belief. I'm stuck on Christian. You're stuck on your belief. Perhaps you are right and I'm wrong. I won't 100% know until the fat lady sings. Yes, it is feasible that I have had the wool pulled over my eyes in some fashion. Ha ha, you got me. That was a really good trick. And believe me, I have tested my faith, just as I am by being in here and hearing all you gots to say. But until now, all of the evidence that this entity has lined up before him points to Jesus, God, and of course, the Holy Spirit. Now for all I know, Buddhists may be saved by Buddha, Muslims by Mohammed, etc, that's fine, that's great. You seem to be okay with the 80 year thing. That's cool too, I guess. But how is it going to be when you get older, as the sword of time works it's way on in, it doesn't hurt when it begins....
Hi, 1ICrying.

I just wanted to focus on this one aspect of your reply to Jobar, because you seem to feel that you are somehow testing your faith just by being here and responding to people who reject belief in gods. Jobar's question wasn't entirely rhetorical, but you did seem to bear out his claim that "even the ones who exemplify the ethical principles which the best of Christians aspire to, still cannot answer the honest and simple questions we ask them about their beliefs." You responded to his question without answering it. You answered the question of why you were stuck on your belief in the face of all those other beliefs by just repeating that you were stuck on your belief. Worse yet, you implied a false equivalence, that the atheists you are here to challenge can do no better. So Jobar's point stands that you cannot answer the "honest and simple question".

Why is it a false equivalence? Well, you waved you hands at "all of the evidence that this entity has lined up before him" but did not actually cite any such evidence. OTOH, Jobar's semi-rhetorical question is itself a very good reason to reject belief in your god--because of all those competing religious beliefs that you are not "stuck on". You give us no better reason to reject those beliefs than to retain your own.

Despite your belief that you are testing your faith here, the fact is that you are not doing that. You are providing us with your excuses for not testing it. An honest test of your faith would be an effort to answer the question in a non-circular way.

If asked to tell us why you reject belief in leprechauns, I'm sure that you would go beyond just saying that you are stuck on leprechaun-skepticism. You would give us some good reasons why you think leprechauns are highly implausible beings. Likewise, we give you good reasons why we believe your god is an implausible being, yet you ignore all of that and just tell us that we are "stuck on" our god-skepticism, just as you are "stuck on" your god-belief. That is not testing your faith. It is avoiding the question.
Hi Copernicus - thank you for your post. I will try to give you a half decent answer. Why do I believe the Bible over other religions: 1) My parents were Christians - so that's how I was brought up. As I got into my teens and started questioning it all, I started to read about other religions / ideas / viewpoints etc. And after that, and through all that this person (me) has perceived, I still came back to the Bible. I haven't found anything out there to debunk it, or my belief in it. So I guess now, you'd ask, why do I believe the Bible. In short, it's what is written in it. It speaks to me. The teachings of Jesus speak to me. I believe it is real. The prophecies right there in front of my eyes, which we've gone over, which no one but me seems to think are amazing - have firmed up that belief. The biblical archeology has strengthened my belief. And I'm not alone - that firms up my belief - if I'm a fool, then so are 2 billion others.

When it comes to the other religions that people are into. Say Buddhism - I believe that Buddha existed. I enjoy his writings and thoughts and wisdom. But for me, Buddha, compared to Jesus, he didn't claim to be anyone more than a wise human. And that's how I believe he is. Same with Lao Tzu. I believe that he, like the Buddha, probably were in tune with God and the Tao, and that they truly are wise.

Mohammad and Islam. For me, I see someone who borrowed from the Bible and stuck himself in there with some new verses, and then went around killing everyone who didn't believe it.

With Jesus, and the Bible, he claims not to just be human, but also the Son of God, and that he can save us. And he comes with all of the prophecies, miracles, and brilliant wisdom as displayed by his allegorical teachings, that in my mind - he proves that he is not just human, but the actual Son of God, and that everything that the Bible says is true.

So, to wrap this up, or at least try to, I will say that it is a combination of my upbringing, and what I was taught - coupled with my own perceptions on the matter. I did, and still do, take the time to read about all religions and to try to understand them, and how they compare. And for me, till now, Im still a Christian.

What I think I was trying to say to Jobar, is that, although Christianity is the right way, the truth, the light, the everything, for ME, I cannot prove that FoR YOU and OTHERS, that the way the truth and the light might be something other. I cannot prove it because I am ME, not YOU. So, for Buddhists, maybe being a good Buddhist, and doing all those Buddhist rituals and following his teachings - maybe that's for the best. And that is where I and maybe other Christians will disagree. They would say that all Buddhists and everyone else must convert or be wrong. I can't say that. We are taught as Christians to respect our neighbours, and that includes respecting their beliefs. We are also taught not to judge, lest we be judged. So, I will happily leave all the judging to God, and in the meantime, pray that I am, and try to be, worthy in his eyes, to move on to the next level (life after death). As a Christian, I believe that the only way that I can possibly be good enough, is to throw my pitiful self at the feet of Jesus Christ, and ask to be saved, through him. You know the rest.

Another reason that I believe in what I do, apart from the Bible. With the Bible, I have learned all I have about who is Jesus and the Holy Ghost etc. I have never had a conversation with Jesus, and if it were not for the Bible, that name would not mean anything to me. GOD, on the other hand, I see all around me. I don't need a book to believe that there is a God, I see that in the sunset, and the eyes of others, and smiles, and laughter, and the stars and the planets, and how it all works so perfectly - with air and water and gravity, all working in perfect unison. Unison. That is the key. There is your God - its right here all around us, working in Unison. So what about Evil you then ask? I have answers for that too, but I'm going to cut it short there.

Except for one more reason I believe in God, Mystical experiences. I have induced a number of those and in some of those, as you may have heard people say something like "i touched the finger of God", well I have too. Ill throw in here, that during everyday, little coincidences here and there, little situations, little lessons, they cannot be proven as anything else, but they send shivers down your spine because you know what God is trying to tell you.

Thus ends our sermon for tonight.

Bless you all and I have faith that there is a God and he will give to us exactly what we want/need and deserve, in perfect love and justice for all.

1I
1ICrying is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 03:48 PM   #677030 / #959
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,626
Default

Quote:
Mohammad and Islam. For me, I see someone who borrowed from the Bible and stuck himself in there with some new verses
This is, of course, also rather descriptive of Christianity from a Jewish perspective... write a "New Testament" that isn't even in Hebrew, directly contradicts Torah at several points, and introduces a bunch of new characters. Then repackage it as though you had owned the "real" Bible the whole time and force people into ghettoes or worse if they don't want to worship the central character of the new appendix, despite being wholly faithful to the original Bible.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 04:12 PM   #677031 / #960
Worldtraveller
Will work for fun.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S. OR.
Posts: 3,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Mohammad and Islam. For me, I see someone who borrowed from the Bible and stuck himself in there with some new verses
This is, of course, also rather descriptive of Christianity from a Jewish perspective... write a "New Testament" that isn't even in Hebrew, directly contradicts Torah at several points, and introduces a bunch of new characters. Then repackage it as though you had owned the "real" Bible the whole time and force people into ghettoes or worse if they don't want to worship the central character of the new appendix, despite being wholly faithful to the original Bible.
More than that, the myth of jesus is actually just a retelling of several other ME religious stories (Babylonian, Egyptian to name a couple off the top of my head). That alone puts this part:
Quote:
With Jesus, and the Bible, he claims not to just be human, but also the Son of God, and that he can save us.
as a specious, unresearched claim, at best.

Also, the number of logical fallacies in this one paragraph is impressive:
Quote:
Why do I believe the Bible over other religions: 1) My parents were Christians - so that's how I was brought up. As I got into my teens and started questioning it all, I started to read about other religions / ideas / viewpoints etc. And after that, and through all that this person (me) has perceived, I still came back to the Bible. I haven't found anything out there to debunk it, or my belief in it. So I guess now, you'd ask, why do I believe the Bible. In short, it's what is written in it. It speaks to me. The teachings of Jesus speak to me. I believe it is real. The prophecies right there in front of my eyes, which we've gone over, which no one but me seems to think are amazing - have firmed up that belief. The biblical archeology has strengthened my belief. And I'm not alone - that firms up my belief - if I'm a fool, then so are 2 billion others.
The rest is quite lacking in any specifics, and is still all vague claims and appeals to various fallacies.
Worldtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 04:57 PM   #677034 / #961
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
if I'm a fool, then so are 2 billion others.
This is the dumbest thing yet. Billions of people believing it makes it true? You do know that islam has a comparably large number of people, right? (Don't remember the exact ratio, but it's also in the billions.) That religion must be true as well, despite being contradictory with yours.

The fact that many other people are also fools does not make you not one.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 06:35 PM   #677040 / #962
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse
You seem to think that you are arguing with me, which is odd, because I don't see how anything you said contradicts what I said.
Ironic in that it all directly contradicts what you said.

Quote:
You think this attitude of self-named skeptics is justified, sure.
"Attitude"?

Let's try it again:

Koy: I saw a non-corporeal interdimensional being in my living room!
Poli: Human sight doesn't work that way. In order for you to see something, it requires photons to bounce off that something, which in turn requires that something to be corporeal, so whatever it is you may have seen, it could not have been non-corporeal.
Koy: I'm telling you what I saw and because I experienced it, that is evidence that non-corporeal interdimensional beings objectively exist.
Poli: No, it is not.

That's not an "attitude." It's not even an opinion. That is an objective fact. Anecdotes are not evidence of anything other than the fact that someone had some sort of experience.

Iow, it does not evidence the subject of the experience; it only evidences the fact that you had an experience. Again, not my opinion or "attitude" or anything subject to disagreement or the like. That is all an anecdote--by its own nature--can ever "evidence."
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 09:01 PM   #677043 / #963
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
..."Can you tell us why your faith is the correct one, and all the many others were mistaken?"
...So, to wrap this up, or at least try to, I will say that it is a combination of my upbringing, and what I was taught - coupled with my own perceptions on the matter. I did, and still do, take the time to read about all religions and to try to understand them, and how they compare. And for me, till now, Im still a Christian...
Hi, 1ICrying.

I appreciate your lengthy response, but I scanned it in vain for an answer to Jobar's question. I suspect that you don't fully realize what you did here. You made a good faith effort to respond to him, but his point still stands. You could not answer his simple question. Instead, you turned it into the question that you wish he had asked--that is, why you believe in your religious creed.

Why you believe is familiar and comfortable territory for you. You could go into your background and childhood experiences. You could account for the incompatibility between your faith and that of billions of other human beings in terms of the different unique backgrounds that we all have. But Jobar asked a simple question. Why is your faith the correct one? Not why you believe it. Why you think that all of those others are mistaken. Your answer suggests that you are aware of the problem. Your background and upbringing make you unique, but it doesn't tell us why you think your belief is correct. I can easily tell you why my rejection of god-belief should be considered correct, and it has nothing to do with how I was raised.

The fact that there are so many incompatible religious beliefs is evidence of something. There is no consensus on whether any particular god exists or, indeed, any gods. This does not mean that all opinions are equally valid. It means that we need to establish objective criteria for evaluating the beliefs. The simplest assumption to start with--the (Wikipedia)null hypothesis--is that no gods at all exist. The null hypothesis can be wrong. The way to go about arguing against it is to examine what possible reasons we could have to prefer an alternative explanation.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 06:40 AM   #677062 / #964
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Hi, 1ICrying. [...] You made a good faith effort to respond to him, but his point still stands. You could not answer his simple question. Instead, you turned it into the question that you wish he had asked--that is, why you believe in your religious creed.
And even then he neglected the very first reason he mentioned for believing what he does: fear of death. I brought it up again here, but 1ICrying is quite determined to ignore it even though many of his subsequent allude to this fear. It seems to totally govern the way way he thinks, the rationalisations he creates and his blindness and deafness concerning the real world. How on earth can he come up with such pearlers as "and how it all works so perfectly - with air and water and gravity"? otherwise?

1ICrying is posting as if he has not read a single one of our replies. His fear of death makes him impervious to any argument that might affect his cloud castle, and I don't think it is likely that anyone will get through to him any time soon.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 01:30 PM   #677071 / #965
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

This has been a waste of time and effort since the day it started, all the way back in february (and the initial post was about fear of death too). I'm not really sure why we're still responding to his mindless gibberish, other than to marvel at the "fundies say the darnedest things" aspect. But even that got boring quite some time ago. He never says a new darnedest thing.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 02:12 PM   #677074 / #966
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
This has been a waste of time and effort since the day it started, all the way back in february (and the initial post was about fear of death too). I'm not really sure why we're still responding to his mindless gibberish, other than to marvel at the "fundies say the darnedest things" aspect. But even that got boring quite some time ago. He never says a new darnedest thing.
No one ever says new things about the whole atheist vs theist conversation, it may be the most dull dialogue on the planet. Just a bunch of folks shouting "I won't listen to you until you prove your position by my standards of truth; how can you believe something that (isn't given to us by God)(can't be empirically proven) when we all know deep down that the only real hope for humanity is to trust (God)(Science)." It never changes.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 02:53 PM   #677081 / #967
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,377
Default

It's not "my" (our) "standard of truth" Poli. You are far too intelligent to be making such a disingenuous false equivalence. If you want to believe any stupid thing in your head, you are of course perfectly free to do so. If you want to prove your claim to others, however, then you have to follow the objective standard of doing so.

That standard--providing evidence of one's claims--is direct and simple and something you (and most theists) apply to every other truth claim category on a regular basis (including the truth claims of other religions among most theists). It is derived from the nature of our existence, not arbitrarily made up on the spot just to screw over theists.

Only when it comes to theism do you suddenly rewrite the rules and try to flip the script so that they no longer apply. It's transparent and beneath you.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 23 Sep 2017 at 03:22 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 03:17 PM   #677086 / #968
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
This has been a waste of time and effort since the day it started, all the way back in february (and the initial post was about fear of death too). I'm not really sure why we're still responding to his mindless gibberish, other than to marvel at the "fundies say the darnedest things" aspect. But even that got boring quite some time ago. He never says a new darnedest thing.
No one ever says new things about the whole atheist vs theist conversation, it may be the most dull dialogue on the planet. Just a bunch of folks shouting "I won't listen to you until you prove your position by my standards of truth; how can you believe something that (isn't given to us by God)(can't be empirically proven) when we all know deep down that the only real hope for humanity is to trust (God)(Science)." It never changes.
What do you want us to prove? We aren't the ones making assertions. Point to the post where I claimed there is no god. It's an assumption. The subject would never have come up if people weren't claiming gods exist.

We just refuse to believe your assertions.

We don't have to assert that science exists and scientific methodology works. Everyone can see the results in our daily lives, since all technology is based on science. Such as the computer you are reading this on or the car you drive.

It's all driven by your side. If you would stop claiming a deity exists, and worse, doing horrific things in "his" name, we would not have anything to react to. We wouldn't even be familiar with the concept of a god. Fuck the primitive bastards that invented it. I would wonder how in the hell it survived into the modern age, but there have always been people with a desire to control the lives of others, and being able to point to an "absolute authority" they pulled out of their ass made it easier.

Do you think we would have to promote science if people weren't trying to interfere with it? Its inherent value should be fucking obvious.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 06:40 PM   #677094 / #969
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
This has been a waste of time and effort since the day it started, all the way back in february (and the initial post was about fear of death too). I'm not really sure why we're still responding to his mindless gibberish, other than to marvel at the "fundies say the darnedest things" aspect. But even that got boring quite some time ago. He never says a new darnedest thing.
No one ever says new things about the whole atheist vs theist conversation, it may be the most dull dialogue on the planet. Just a bunch of folks shouting "I won't listen to you until you prove your position by my standards of truth; how can you believe something that (isn't given to us by God)(can't be empirically proven) when we all know deep down that the only real hope for humanity is to trust (God)(Science)." It never changes.
Nonsense. Science is a methodology, not an existential claim. So koy is perfectly right to call you out on this false equivalence. What you seem to suggest here is that nobody could ever mount an empirical argument against belief in any imaginary being or entity. Phlogiston theory is saved! And why do you bring up "science" in this discussion? Not all empirical arguments are scientific ones.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 07:33 PM   #677095 / #970
sohy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,966
Default

My goodness. I didn't even realize that 1I was back. You sure are a glutton for punishment. Here's the thing 1I. You have been indoctrinated and you like what you believe, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense. It's given meaning to your life and it's given you the hope, however false that may be, that you will live forever. I guess that comforts you.

I was a Christian, a fundamentalist until the age of 18. Then I took a nice, long journey of about ten years, where I studied and eventually rejected all religions as nothing more than mythology. Mythology is something that is very attractive to humans, so I partially understand why people believe. After reading some of the works of Joseph Campbell, I understood the attraction evenmore. But, being attracted to something that makes you feel good and comfortable doesn't make it true.

During my journey to atheism, I did pray for guidance, but the only guidance that I ever received was from the books I read and my own inability to make sense of what I had been taught as a child. I always loved the verse in the Bible that speaks about putting aside childish things as we reach adulthood. There's a delicious irony in that message and it's how I view my putting away the childish things that I believed as a child. Hey. I had two imaginary friends when I was a very young child, but by the time I was about four, I no longer needed them. I admit that it took me a bit longer to put aside my imaginary god friend.

It's okay to believe in a god if that makes you feel better, but there is one thing that I despise about conservative Christians. The idea that their god judges people based on what they believe instead of how they live their lives is deplorable to me. That is why I first started having doubts as a young child about what I was taught. Why would a loving and just god punish people eternally for the very small "sin" of not being able to recognize that he exists when there isn't any reliable evidence that such a being exists? Why would a just god punish people for not being able to recognize which of the many individuals who proclaim to be gods, is the right god? No just ruler would do that. Why would a just and loving god do that? Such a god would be a tyrant. Can't you see that? Can't you see how hateful and self righteous it is to believe that only people that believe like yourself are worthy of your god's blessings and rewards? Can't you find a more loving god to guide you? There are many interpretations of Christianity. I think you might be a happier person if you could chose one that loved all of humanity, regardless of beliefs.

And, if Christians like yourself truly believe they are going to some blissful afterlife, why do they try to delay death so much? I say that from my experiences in caring for Christian patients. Those who are very old and frail sometimes welcome death, but those who are enjoying life often opt for very aggressive care in order to stay around for a bit longer. Why is that? It simply doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't fear death at all. I don't want to live forever. I just hope to be as independent as possible for the remainder of my life. At my age, that's a very common wish.

Just as there is no justice in the world and many people suffer incomprehensible things, the wicked god of the Bible offers no love or justice for humanity. Fortunately, he's just a myth, one that I think was based on the nature of man. Or to put it another way, man created gods in his own image. Anyway, I hope you find what you're looking for 1I. To me, you sound like someone who is trying to justify the beliefs you were taught as a child because they make you feel comfortable but at the same time, you are having some cognitive dissonance that disturbs you. I've been there in my younger days. Losing those false beliefs gave me a better understanding of life and taught not to judge others. We all have our short comings and I'm pretty sure that we're all products of our genetic and environmental heritage. So, maybe you will never be able to shed yourself of these beliefs, just as I wasn't able to maintain them for the rest of my life.

Sorry for the long post. Just trying to give you something to think about. You don't need to try and save me. I've already been saved from the destructive beliefs that I was taught as a child.
sohy is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 08:29 PM   #677096 / #971
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sohy View Post
I've already been saved from the destructive beliefs that I was taught as a child.
I hear that. For me, escaping from my childhood was basically a jailbreak. It took me years to learn how to relate to normal people. Especially females. I didn't even kiss a girl until I was 27 years old. My brother said he was crippled that way too, though not as bad.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Sep 2017, 11:02 PM   #677099 / #972
Tubby
omnibus nabisco
 
Tubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 3,744
Default

I've asked this at discussion boards before, so I apologize if I've already asked it in this thread--

I hand two distinct magic wands to you. If you wave one, the moment you physically die your thoughts, memories and emotions simply vanish.

If you wave the other wand, those traits of yours will live on for an infinite number of years, in either of two places. In one place you will sing and dance and shout out praises forever, in the other you will be dripped with sulfuric acid and sliced with bayonets forever. You can't know ahead of time which place you will go to, because that choice is in the hands of an invisible entity who will decide if your beliefs about certain things for which there was no really strong evidence here on earth was in line with what it wished you to believe.

Which wand would you wave?
Tubby is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Sep 2017, 12:30 AM   #677100 / #973
dancer_rnb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,227
Default

I'll just point out my sister converted from some form of Xtianity to Conservative Judaism. Why shouldn't I do that, instead of converting to Xtianity?
__________________
There is no such thing as "politically correct." It's code for liberalism. The whole idea of "political correctness" was a brief academic flash-in-the-pan in the early 1990's, but has been a good conservative bugaboo ever since.
dancer_rnb is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Sep 2017, 12:32 AM   #677101 / #974
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
Nonsense. Science is a methodology, not an existential claim. So koy is perfectly right to call you out on this false equivalence. What you seem to suggest here is that nobody could ever mount an empirical argument against belief in any imaginary being or entity. Phlogiston theory is saved! And why do you bring up "science" in this discussion? Not all empirical arguments are scientific ones.
Because atheists generally pretend it supports their position? Don't play stupid and pretend like I pulled it out of nowhere, I'm perfectly aware that "Science" no more supports a given religious position than "God" can be shown to do.

Do you really expect me to believe that I'm the first person you've ever heard try to connect the seeming social authority of "Science" with the religious views of atheists?
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 24 Sep 2017, 12:35 AM   #677102 / #975
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
It's not "my" (our) "standard of truth" Poli.
An interesting claim. Can you support it? What non-atheists use the same rubric of "truthiness", and why are they still non-atheists, if you are both 1. correct that a non-atheist could use it and come to the same conclusions 2. correct that it proves the correctness of your religious views? To say that it is an objective, universal standard of truth, but that the majority of people who use it come to different conclusions than you means, it seems to me, that one or both of those claims must be unsubstantiated.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus