It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A challenge for the brave

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
This site has quite a few people on here who believe that Christianity is just the most illogical thing in the world, and they just cannot fathom how someone could believe it to be rational.

To these people I pose a Challenge. Come and show that the way you view the world is coherent. Show us the world view of those who are truly "rational".

I am not asking for you to come and show that you do not like the evidence given for Christianity. I am asking for you to come and give evidence for your own beliefs. Rejecting the evidence of Christianity is not evidence for your position. I am NOT asking you to simply state what you believe. I want you to try and convince me with logic and evidence. Each person that comes that wishes to have a conversation I will sit and listen though I am going to have many questions.


In your first comment please explain where you think a person should start when it comes to finding truth, what is ground zero for acquiring knowledge?




Do you understand that your op is a fallacious question?

1st) You state beliefs, or the word "Believe", in beliefs people either have faith or not.

Metaphysical things are not explainable through reason and logic, that is why so many have failed to explain the existence of "God", and will continue too.

2nd) "finding the truth" is subjective, some people's truths are others lies and deceit.

3rd) "logic and evidence"? Unfortunately religious texts are what it called "Circular argumentation" in formal logic. A brief summary is that religious text use one passage to prove another, or they use other ancient text to try and prove their beliefs.

This is circular argumentation, is absolutely invalid argumention, and basically amounts to a dog chasing it's tale.

4th) so with logic and reason I have shown you that your question is actually invalid, and that fact you are asking people to prove themselves "rational" because they are not religious, speaks volumes about who you are.





edit on 21-8-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It isn't an issue of evidence, it is an issue of a lack of evidence. For me, there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove Christianity, or any other religion.

When asked to provide evidence of God, religious people will point to whichever book they happen to believe in. We are also told that we just have to believe. We just have to have faith, and then we will see that it's all real.

The burden of evidence is on the religious people for me. Just because there is a lack of evidence of religion NOT being true, does not mean that is the way I am going to believe.

This same technique goes for all religions. Prove it to me, and I will jump on board. Until then, I will await evidence until I make my final judgement. The fact of the matter is, no one knows for sure. People will claim to know the "truth" about God, but no one does.

If we were to go to court and prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, the case would be thrown out for lack of evidence.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282


I’m not sure how you will twist my statement into meaning something else however I’m pretty sure you will attempt to or not respond at all and that is the futility of having an honest intellectual argument with you.You are constantly moving the goal posts to suit your agenda(and poor logic).If you posit an honest question then to be honest you must honestly argue the statement in response to it and not dodge the issues with rhetoric.


oooooo!!!! Wait til STM gets a load of this intelligent, well-spoken one-two BOOM.

Thanks for posting it....

I see it was you who dropped the mic before I picked it up again.




On topic - the Christians who make these threads most often come in with a conciliatory tone, a holier-than-thou, self-righteous pedestal from which they can neither see nor hear common sense, sound reasoning, or well-deserved ridicule of their unseemly and utterly untenable positions. They do not have enough emotional armour to handle a frankly-spoken assault on their cognitive dissonance.

I provided five verified, well-received, important volumes that show why I believe what I do.
I received no feedback from the OP. Only a random BS insult from one of his supporters telling me off, advising me to forever shut up about [smart things and smart people and real thinkers who write serious, grown-up books about] the very phenomenon in which they (and all like-minded Christians) can't see they are drowning.

That evidence was (as expected) shot down, along with me for presenting it.
It's fascinating, sad, and not a little frightening.

edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Maybe throw a book on the history of successful applications of the scientific method in there as well.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




You are talking about inductive reasoning. The assumption is that if it happened once it can happen again and probably under similar circumstances.



I agree. What is your justification for this assumption? I don't have one that isn't circular.




It's called probability, the reason that I assume whenever I log into this website that my account will still be here. Or the reason I assume that the sun will rise every morning.


How do I justify the belief that because it was probable in the past, it will be probable in some unobserved instance in the future? Again I would have to assume that nature is uniform. We haven't reasoned to that belief yet so how can we begin to use the scientific method.




As for the material world there are plenty of extreme sports if you want something compelling.



I don't understand. How does perceiving I am playing an extreme sport mean that the materials involved in that game exists outside of my mind. The voices of the people I play with, the ball, the earth underneath my feet, these are all simply sensations created by what we call the brain. We know this can trick us so why trust it? For all I know I am sitting in an insane asylum typing on a banana with a hanger bent around my head and I perceive you and I having a conversation on the computer.





You have no compelling evidence that the scientific method is reliable? Do you live under a rock? Do you know what the scientific method is? Of course you do this isn't your first Rodeo. You have to take this seriously to expect me to.


No I don't have any evidence it is reliable because we have not reasoned to a position that allows me to do so yet. How can I call something reliable when I cannot justify the very foundations that it is built upon? I can say that it seems to be reliable in the past, but I cannot say that because it was reliable in the past it will be in the future. I have no rational way to justify that. Maybe you can help me and a few thousand philosophers out.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm




You are talking about inductive reasoning. The assumption is that if it happened once it can happen again and probably under similar circumstances.



I agree. What is your justification for this assumption? I don't have one that isn't circular.




It's called probability, the reason that I assume whenever I log into this website that my account will still be here. Or the reason I assume that the sun will rise every morning.


How do I justify the belief that because it was probable in the past, it will be probable in some unobserved instance in the future? Again I would have to assume that nature is uniform. We haven't reasoned to that belief yet so how can we begin to use the scientific method.




As for the material world there are plenty of extreme sports if you want something compelling.



I don't understand. How does perceiving I am playing an extreme sport mean that the materials involved in that game exists outside of my mind. The voices of the people I play with, the ball, the earth underneath my feet, these are all simply sensations created by what we call the brain. We know this can trick us so why trust it? For all I know I am sitting in an insane asylum typing on a banana with a hanger bent around my head and I perceive you and I having a conversation on the computer.





You have no compelling evidence that the scientific method is reliable? Do you live under a rock? Do you know what the scientific method is? Of course you do this isn't your first Rodeo. You have to take this seriously to expect me to.


No I don't have any evidence it is reliable because we have not reasoned to a position that allows me to do so yet. How can I call something reliable when I cannot justify the very foundations that it is built upon? I can say that it seems to be reliable in the past, but I cannot say that because it was reliable in the past it will be in the future. I have no rational way to justify that. Maybe you can help me and a few thousand philosophers out.


Maybe we are all Sims. Does it matter if this reality is real, like real real? You are here regardless until the day your heart stops beating. Make what you will of it not because it is real but because you have it. On that basis we triple and quadruple fact checked and cross-checked check and then we put it down satisfied that it is correct until something else comes up that contradicts it at which time we continue the investigation as per the rules of the scientific method which thus far has a stellar history of accuracy as compared to other methods. Perhaps it isn't perfect but it is the closest. If you have a superior alternative perhaps you could post a thread about it and we can test it with the scientific method. Call it... a challenge for the brave.
edit on 21-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: WanderingNomadd




Ahhh, but what could be more like programming than instinct? An animal smells something in the air, feels a vibration unconciously, and that in turns sets his fight/flight mode into effect. Think of it like ROM. I breath, always have done, always will unless physically stopped.


Well I didn't disagree, but programming is far from instinct. Software is designed to produce a specific function for a problem an agent knew needed to be solved. Human minds do not always work this way. Surely we can agree that choosing to make a cup of coffee isn't the same as a boxer dodging a beer can?




Also programming would be heriditary. Certain programming is passed down and then built upon and potentially changed. A lion has a base set of instructions passed down through generations.


There is an issue with this idea. You cannot maintain a base set of instructions if it is being built upon as you have put it.
Any time you change that code base you are losing bits of the information that was already there. If you change it to much you will completely lose the original functionality.




I don't know about you but most programs I use have some ability to go wrong. Glitches in games are a good example of this


Yes, but software code only has its code base. It cannot act except for the way it was programmed to act. So What I seem to be gathering is you think your thoughts, feelings, and actions are the result of some material cause. Is that correct?




Ahh but you could reprogram the way you look. It would take incredible control over your perceptions for it to be positive though, and you would also need to manipulate the way you percieve the world views you. A negative form of this, is BDD, Body dismorphic disorder www.nhs.uk...


That isn't reprogramming the way you look. That is perceiving what is in a different manor. Again you seem to want both worlds which seem to contradict. Either you choose to do things, or your brain chooses to do things and the idea of you is simply illusory. I just cannot tell which is your perspective on the world.




In the same way a monk can push a car with a pole, using his neck as the driving force. If I put a metal pole against the back of a car and pushed It would go through my throat. Simple. regardless of how blunt it is. But if you can program you body to manipulate itself to provide the strength, I don't know how chi would work biologically, but im not a scientist I am a philosopher if anything. Perhaps certain cells in the body can be manipulated with electronic signals from the brain to harden themselves.


Ok, but do monks choose to push a car with a pole or are they a biological automaton that is simply dancing to its DNA?



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't see how you've done anything but what I said not to do. Referencing five books is a form of steam rolling.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth




Do you understand that your op is a fallacious question?
1st) You state beliefs, or the word "Believe", in beliefs people either have faith or not.


Metaphysical things are not explainable through reason and logic, that is why so many have failed to explain the existence of "God", and will continue too.


Well actually the question in the OP was about how we should go about acquiring knowledge. If you don't think logic and reason is the way to gain knowledge then please enlighten us that was the purpose of the question






2nd) "finding the truth" is subjective, some people's truths are others lies and deceit.


I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean people disagree about what is true or do you mean the nature of truth is that it is subjective?





3rd) "logic and evidence"? Unfortunately religious texts are what it called "Circular argumentation" in formal logic. A brief summary is that religious text use one passage to prove another, or they use other ancient text to try and prove their beliefs. This is circular argumentation, is absolutely invalid argumention, and basically amounts to a dog chasing it's tale.


Well of course if someone says the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says its the word of God that would be circular reasoning. I don't do that, nor do many other Christians. But I don't see what this has to do with your view of the world. This is simply a rejection of other peoples view.




4th) so with logic and reason I have shown you that your question is actually invalid, and that fact you are asking people to prove themselves "rational" because they are not religious, speaks volumes about who you are.


I told them to show me their world view was coherent. So far very few people have been willing to engage.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian




It isn't an issue of evidence, it is an issue of a lack of evidence. For me, there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove Christianity, or any other religion.


Ok I get you reject the reasons Christians give for their beliefs. Explain to me what a good world view is then. What is a more coherent view of the world than a Christian world view?





When asked to provide evidence of God, religious people will point to whichever book they happen to believe in. We are also told that we just have to believe. We just have to have faith, and then we will see that it's all real.


I am sorry that has been your experience, but I definitely don't do that. The Bible is great as a historical resource to determine which God, but it will not help you understand the need for a God to explain certain things about the world.




The burden of evidence is on the religious people for me. Just because there is a lack of evidence of religion NOT being true, does not mean that is the way I am going to believe.


Well if this was a thread about proving the existence of God then i'd agree . I would have the burden of proof. However, I am not asking you about God. I am asking if God and Jesus are not the truth, then what do you think the truth behind reality is and how do you know? I've asked many people. What can you know with 100% certainty. Very few people have given me a clear response. I dont think there are very many things we can know for certain so it shouldn't be that hard.




This same technique goes for all religions. Prove it to me, and I will jump on board. Until then, I will await evidence until I make my final judgement. The fact of the matter is, no one knows for sure. People will claim to know the "truth" about God, but no one does. If we were to go to court and prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, the case would be thrown out for lack of evidence.


So basically what I am hearing is you have a lot of reasons to reject other peoples beliefs, but you are willing to present your own knowledge for us?



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




Maybe we are all Sims. Does it matter if this reality is real, like real real? You are here regardless until the day your heart stops beating. Make what you will of it not because it is real but because you have it.


I am trying to figure out what you and I can know for certain before we move on. You still haven't given me anything I can know with 100% certainty. I don't know my heart is actually beating. I just know I perceive that it beats. I definitely don't think I can agree with the idea that once my heart stops I am gone, at least you haven't told me how to reason to that perspective yet.




On that basis we triple and quadruple fact checked and cross-checked check and then we put it down satisfied that it is correct until something else comes up that contradicts it at which time we continue the investigation as per the rules of the scientific method which thus far has a stellar history of accuracy as compared to other methods.


I still haven't heard how we can justify this belief that because the scientific method worked in the past it will also work on an unobserved instance in the future? That is a philosophical assumption how do I justify it?




Perhaps it isn't perfect but it is the closest. If you have a superior alternative perhaps you could post a thread about it and we can test it with the scientific method. Call it... a challenge for the brave.


The scientific method doesn't work on everything. You seem to be using scientism. Scientism tells us that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven. Can you use the scientific method to verify the statement, "we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven?"



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


I don't see how you've done anything but what I said not to do. Referencing five books is a form of steam rolling.



What?

wow.
all you reference is the Bible, and you asked us "non-Christians" to present the basis of our own world-view. That was your question. What evidence do readers use to back up their world-view.

On what evidence do we base our views as "rational."

And now you are saying that I was 'steam-rolling'?





You win.

Carry on.
You own the forum. I'll be sure to pass on the word about it.

I stand pwned.







edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't mind talking with you, but start small. Pick one thing and we will talk about that. Not one book I don't have the time to read another book right now, I work for a consulting firm so my free reading is often of new software for clients.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Fine.
Here, I'll paste some excerpts and descriptions, summaries and jacket-blurbs.....cool?

Here we go:

the site of the Evolution of God


In The Evolution of God, Robert Wright takes us on a sweeping journey through history, unveiling a discovery of crucial importance to the present moment:

there is a pattern in the evolution of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and a “hidden code” [that] raises the prospect of a second kind of reconciliation: the reconciliation of science and religion.

Using archaeology, theology, history, and evolutionary psychology, Wright repeatedly overturns conventional wisdom
.....

See? Like I've said. I'm an agnostic.


Vast in ambition and brilliant in execution, The Evolution of God will forever alter our understanding of God and where He came from—and where He and we are going next.


If only people will read it. I sure hope you'll give it a read.


edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


(BTW: If you don't have the time to read about it, then there is no point in any of us presenting you with your requested "evidence" and "back-up" of why we don't believe what you believe)
edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't have time for an entire book. Okay so you are an agnostic. That doesn't tell me much about the world. I am asking for your worldview not just your opinion on GOd.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

un freaking believable: your dodging, goal-post moving, denial, willful ignorance, tap-dancing evasion really is beyond the pale.

I'm out.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
This site has quite a few people on here who believe that Christianity is just the most illogical thing in the world, and they just cannot fathom how someone could believe it to be rational.

To these people I pose a Challenge. Come and show that the way you view the world is coherent. Show us the world view of those who are truly "rational".

I am not asking for you to come and show that you do not like the evidence given for Christianity. I am asking for you to come and give evidence for your own beliefs. Rejecting the evidence of Christianity is not evidence for your position. I am NOT asking you to simply state what you believe. I want you to try and convince me with logic and evidence. Each person that comes that wishes to have a conversation I will sit and listen though I am going to have many questions.


In your first comment please explain where you think a person should start when it comes to finding truth, what is ground zero for acquiring knowledge?


I take truth where I find it. There is some truth in christianity just as there is some truth in satanism just as there is some truth in science. There is no ONE complete set of truths anywhere...



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm




Maybe we are all Sims. Does it matter if this reality is real, like real real? You are here regardless until the day your heart stops beating. Make what you will of it not because it is real but because you have it.


I am trying to figure out what you and I can know for certain before we move on. You still haven't given me anything I can know with 100% certainty. I don't know my heart is actually beating. I just know I perceive that it beats. I definitely don't think I can agree with the idea that once my heart stops I am gone, at least you haven't told me how to reason to that perspective yet.



On that basis we triple and quadruple fact checked and cross-checked check and then we put it down satisfied that it is correct until something else comes up that contradicts it at which time we continue the investigation as per the rules of the scientific method which thus far has a stellar history of accuracy as compared to other methods.


I still haven't heard how we can justify this belief that because the scientific method worked in the past it will also work on an unobserved instance in the future? That is a philosophical assumption how do I justify it?




Perhaps it isn't perfect but it is the closest. If you have a superior alternative perhaps you could post a thread about it and we can test it with the scientific method. Call it... a challenge for the brave.


The scientific method doesn't work on everything. You seem to be using scientism. Scientism tells us that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven. Can you use the scientific method to verify the statement, "we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven?"


Let's cut to the chase here. What it really comes down to is, can you refute that statement with the scientific method? Or to put it another way can you confirm propositions that cannot be scientifically prove that should be believed? My challenge to you. Although it should be noted that science does not tell us what to do only what is. What you do with the information is up to you and completely irrelevant to the Integrity of the information as you have proven here in this thread.
edit on 22-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
There is nothing rational about our existence or this universe. We are an “intelligent“ species that is flying through space on a sphere at 828,000km/hr and we don't know why and we don't know where we're going.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




un freaking believable: your dodging, goal-post moving, denial, willful ignorance, tap-dancing evasion really is beyond the pale. I'm out.


I don't understand how you perceive me pointing out that calling yourself an agnostic doesn't tell me much about your views of the world as dodging or moving the goal post.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join