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.

 

Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists.

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
double
edit on 15/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Your observations of this famous debate are so concise. Everyone states it's a pointless "debate", perhaps so between the Deist and the Atheist - The argument would have very little content. Theism, is a very different story.

I think it's a very important debate that separates two completely contrasting worldviews, and perhaps it's not so biased of me to say that i don't believe my position is the irrational one.

These two views have massive implications for someone's critical thinking factory.

As you know, i very much appreciate your concise and educated opinion.

Perhaps you'll enjoy this young man's.

Perhaps our "rivals" in debate should consider this these words.


edit on 15/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by adjensen
 


You wrote:

["Then your argument is based on faulty assumptions, because you're attempting to use mortal qualities to assuage the divine."]

By introducing an element of 'higher magic' (I don't mean anything derogatory by that expression) ANY position can be 'validated'.


Which was my point, thank you.



Whatever our differences are (and maybe will be), I expected no less from you. Your increasing will to outline the distinction between science/logic and faith (and admitting your own speculations on this seemingly dichotomy) is commendable; and if more christians (especially the extremist variety) would take your attitude as an example, there wouldn't be so much quibbling.

I can perfectly well understand your position, as I have a similar one myself as a 'metaphysicist'. Fortunately I don't have to defend myself much, as I don't have a formal system associated with me, which can be accused of invasive evangelism. (The new-age fringe, also sometimes believing in their new-age version of metaphysics is rather harmless and doesn't bother me or anyone else much. It's just an empty fad).
edit on 15-2-2011 by bogomil because: grammar



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Golden Boy
No. An absolute conclusion would be no god exists. My conclusion is that the god which is defined as having performed those actions does not exist.


Your statement is an absolute. It doesn't matter whether you are being specific or general, saying "this is this" -- "God exists" or "God does not exist" or "the God in the Bible does not exist" -- is an absolute. I'm not really sure where you come up with "only 'no god exists' is an absolute."


absolute (ˈæbsəˌluːt)
—adj
1. complete; perfect
2. free from limitations, restrictions, or exceptions; unqualified: an absolute choice
3. having unlimited authority; despotic: an absolute ruler
4. undoubted; certain: the absolute truth
source


If that's the definition you're using, then yes, my statement is absolute. It is also completely valid.


So how have you managed to make absolute observations about events that are supernatural in nature and which are said to have happened thousands of years before your birth?


Evidence. The fossil record, geological strata, and so on.


If my friend NOTurTypical says that God certainly did part the Red Sea, I'd bet your response would be something like "well, that's your opinion!"


No. It would be "No, he didn't. Where's your evidence?". "That's your opinion" would be the last thing I would say, because it isn't his opinion. Assuming that he actually says that, it's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of facts.


So why is his position not only an opinion, but wrong, while yours is not an opinion, and correct?


TIP: Do not tell your opponent what their position is.

His position is not an opinion, and it is wrong because it is demonstrably false. If he maintains that God hid all the evidence, then he's simply committing the bare assertion fallacy.



Redefinition games aside, if you want to define your god as a god which leaves no evidence of its actions, fine; I admit that it can't be disproven. But I never argued that all gods could be disproven, so I don't really see the point of your objection.


Where is it said that God cannot leave no evidence of his actions?


I never said that he couldn't.


What is the text in the Bible that you are citing to support your claim that he must leave such evidence


Where in the Harry Potter series does it say that Frodo was not actually Gandalf's illegitimate son who was enchanted to look like a hobbit?

If you want to add things like "God leaves no evidence" to the Biblical God, that's fine. But don't pretend that it's actually part of the Biblical description of God.


and that the absence of it is an indication that he does not exist?


Stop strawmanning.

It isn't. I never argued that it is. But it is an indication that there is absolutely no reason to believe in him.



I would like to point out that a god that works in this way leaves us absolutely no reason at all to believe that it exists. Not only is the god not making itself apparent to us, it is going out of its way to conceal its existence. Why believe?


When you have sorted out the answer to that question (and, no, I don't believe that God intentionally covers up his tracks in order to deceive,) you will understand faith.


So you don't actually have a reason, then?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
If that's the definition you're using, then yes, my statement is absolute. It is also completely valid.


Well, that's the definition that the English language uses, so let's go with it.

Now explain how you can make an absolute statement based on your non-absolute observations. Round and round we go...



and that the absence of it is an indication that he does not exist?


It isn't. I never argued that it is. But it is an indication that there is absolutely no reason to believe in him.


Only if you follow the logical fallacy of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." Back to your original statement:


if you want to define your god as a god which leaves no evidence of its actions, fine; I admit that it can't be disproven.


Fine, I say that one facet of my view of God, which is not in conflict with anything in scripture or any experience that I've had, is that he need not leave evidence for you, specifically, to find.

You said that you would prove that God, no matter what definition one might come up with, doesn't exist, but you've yet to even prove that your made up "Bob" doesn't exist. (This isn't just me being obstinate, I agree that "Bob" doesn't exist, I'm just trying to show you why it cannot be proven.)


So you don't actually have a reason, then?


I certainly do, but it's a reason for me, and I'm not an evangelist. If you're happy in your non-belief, I'm glad for you and I see no reason to want to convince you otherwise.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


You wrote:

["I think it's a very important debate that separates two completely contrasting worldviews, and perhaps it's not so biased of me to say that i don't believe my position is the irrational one."]

Basically it's a debate, which eventually ought to be carried out at the 'outer reach' of epistemology. Beyond even 'rationality' as a reference-point.

But referring to my recent post to Madness (on Jain/R.A.Wilson), my own world-view of 'relative realities' can be useful. Without creating paradoxes between the various 'relative realities', each 'reality-level'...each 'existential chinese box' has its own valid systematic methodology.

E.g. the present micro-cosmic/macro-cosmic partly incompability from a lack of a grand unified theory, where both 'ends' function.

And 'rational' is valid a long way, until stated otherwise in an epistemological perspective.

'Noisy' theists are often unfamiliar with formal logic and scientific procedure and mistakenly confuse rhetorical semantics with these rational approaches. Adjensen at his best is an example of a believer not falling in that trap (Ad, hope it's OK, that I mention you in third person this way).

Aware, thanks for the compliments once again. I can only say the same to you; I appreciate your posts very much.

PS I don't have technology for looking at web-videos.



edit on 15-2-2011 by bogomil because: grammar



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You wrote to Golden Boy:

["Now explain how you can make an absolute statement based on your non-absolute observations. Round and round we go..."]

Faith, even at its best when structured into a methodology, is subjective.

When overlapping the territory of the defined 'objectivity' of science (sometimes including logic) and presenting 'absolutes' in this context, something is amiss in the procedure. Subjectively based conclusions/observations can't be superimposed on objective territory.

Eventually it's a deep communication problem, abstract on an academic level, practical on a social level. Better not mix subjective with objective as many religionists do.

Golden Boy didn't present an abolute, as he only referred to the objective level.



edit on 15-2-2011 by bogomil because: clarity



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Golden Boy didn't present an abolute, as he only referred to the objective level.


I'm not sure how the statement "God doesn't exist" isn't an absolute. Saying "I don't think God exists" isn't an absolute, nor is "I've seen no evidence that convinces me that God exists." But to prove that God doesn't exist requires an absolute declaration, and there's a reason for the old statement "you can't prove a negative."

All of the lawyering of "let me make a very specific definition of something and then, by disproving some aspect of that definition, I disprove the whole thing" is not only a pointless argument, it's intellectually dishonest and requires an absolute conclusion, regardless.

I like Dr. Bart Ehrman (unlike a lot of Christians who know him
) but I've actually heard him say this:

If we know that some of the text of the Bible is inaccurate, then how do we know that lots of the text in the Bible isn't inaccurate? And if lots of the text in the Bible is inaccurate, how do we know that any of it is accurate?

... and then he launches into a point that goes off of the whole of the Bible being suspect.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You wrote:

["I'm not sure how the statement "God doesn't exist" isn't an absolute."]

In the original context here, I see it as: "The entity described by intrinsic qualities and performing specific actions in the bible" as something which can be considered on a textual analysis. Fictitious or not, the person/entity emerging from the text can be evaluated on a 'objective' basis, as being this or that relating to the 'objective' territory.
E.g. creating a manifested universe or dictating/inspirering a book about it.

Any biography would be exposed to the same scrutiny. The 'real' person described can be completely different from the description, and I believe, that the central part of this small side-topic was relating to the description. No-one has attempted to describe or verify the 'real' thing (if there is a real thing).

What was said (IMO) was: "I don't think this narrative-entity exists".

Quote: ["If we know that some of the text of the Bible is inaccurate, then how do we know that lots of the text in the Bible isn't inaccurate? And if lots of the text in the Bible is inaccurate, how do we know that any of it is accurate?

... and then he launches into a point that goes off of the whole of the Bible being suspect."]

I find this valid to a certain point, but not completely. Also/even on 'objective' territory there will be a mix of various degrees of 'truth', hopefully to be sorted out eventually with the use of scientific/logic methodology. Again. I do not operate with absolutes, though some statements can have very small 'truth' and some high 'truth'.

In the case of the pauline bible, the are certain parts of central importance. Such as Genesis, the general 'sin'/redemption doctrine, the question of moral absolutes, Melchizedek, Paulus and the most recent covenant. When these clash on objective ground with objective models, it necessitates an unravelling and re-examination of those parts of christian doctrine, which depend on such biblical cornerstones/or parallel cornerstones*. Christian doctrines are very intertwined and elaborate.

* You have yourself formerly brought up such an important 'feed-back' (or loop) effect in christian doctrine.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I find it interesting that adjensen, one of the reasonable theists on here that doesn't seem to have a problem with atheistic individuals, is the only theist currently participating in the discussion. The theist who wishes to discuss rather than attack is the only one left in the thread asking people to attack atheism and atheists.

Isn't it ironic?
Don'tcha think?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I agree, Alanis





posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Double irony. You witty witty man.


Peace bro.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


By the attempt to set up a false scenario. You are attempting to force me to phrase a negative position as a positive assertion. This is dishonest. Exodus 20:16


I stated such, no dishonesty there. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. Unless you can demonstrate that affirming one position doesn't immediate affirm the other. "I lack belief in God" and "God doesn't exist" are the same thing. I tried to show you this by stating "God exists" and "I lack belief in God's non-existence" which is a position that asserts the same conclusion about whether God exists or not.



Of course, your knowledge on this and other topics is also limited, as is evidenced by your claim that the Bible is inerrant and that the KJV, which mistranslates an extinct cattle like creature to "unicorn" is the most appropriate.


Can you show that "unicorn" wasn't a used English term in 1611 A.D. with a different connotation than it carries today? Secondly, you have no proved the Bible is in error, only stated your prejudicial conjecture that it is. You can do this of course, but it's your burden of proof to show errors in the Bible if you claim they exist. And 99% of the time skeptics show an utter ignorance to Biblical Hermeneutics anytime they try and claim a contradiction exists. I even went on YOUR bandwagon and agreed with the skeptic position and affirmed that all modern versions of the Bible are full of contradictions.




Well, your consideration is false. It is childish.


I'm sure you'll let me be just as arbitrary..

No it isn't.



Yes, of course phrasing a negative position as a positive is illogical.


Straw man. I said purposely stating a positive position as a negative one is absurd.


Oh, and it is not the belief. It is the opposite of a belief.


No, any belief or though is chemical reactions in the brain, the opposite of such would be nothing, no chemical reaction in the brain. Atheism is a belief or a collection of related beliefs. It's a position you arrive at by your personal reasoning.


Yours is the positive position.


Yes, I'm fully aware.


If you are making the positive assertion that a deity exists and I reject that along with all other such claims of deities existing, then I am not making a positive assertion. This is elementary logic.


Not in words, but in rationale you are. That's why it's "irrational". If I claim the Sun is made up of a composite of shoe polish and cat litter and you lack the belief that it is made up of these things then you likewise hold the belief that the Sun is not made of a shoe polish and cat litter composite.



For the purpose of thread discussion I refuse to reply to lengthy videos and webpages with wordcounts in the thousands. I do, however, actually view apologetics videos on YouTube (for various religions and denominations), read apologetics websites (for various religions and denominations), etc


Where does this idea come from that I ever place a deadline on reviewing and responding to material I've presented? Secondly, I have even offered to send you materials to review in your leisure time with NO expectation of a reply/response and you've refused. Even when I shared I'd love to send it on my dime.

I'm no prophet, but I'd bet that you spend a great deal more time on skeptical sources than apologetic ones.


When was the last time you read or viewed and Islamic apologetic material?


I can't specifically say, within the past year.


Hell, the only works of CS Lewis that I ever read were his apologetics (I never got the fascination of other kids with Narnia, it felt boring to me).


That's fine, but CS Lewis isn't the best at apologetics. He was an author.



I don't have time to review material and respond to it on ATS. And you do realize that the timeframe you're talking about is when I don't have all that much time in my schedule, right? I've been back on ATS since Octoberish (not 100% sure and I'm not going to bother checking right now). My current academic year started.....in October. October 1st. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't review apologetics, it just means that I don't do so for the purpose of replying on ATS. I'm taking a crack at some of the works of the Catholic church soon, on the urging of a friend of mine.


So what, maybe your claim is accurate, it doesn't change what I said about my "experience" with you. I know you only through ATS so that's my frame of reference. Am I missing something here? How would I respond to your viewing habits outside of ATS?


However, in the summer I do a hell of a lot more reading.


And that's fine, I'm not condemning you for concentrating on your schoolwork, that's quite understandable. And even if we don't see eye to eye on the Bible or god I have nothing against you and even call you my friend here. I was willing to mail you some apologetic from excellent sources. I've never offered anyone else that level of engagement to share ideas.



Because I'm busy. I mean, I've actually watched maybe 1/3rd of Kent Hovind's videos in their entirety and without commentary. If you include the works of the ExtantDodos and other YouTubers critiquing his claims, I've watched maybe half. I've watched debates between theists and atheists over issues, most recently the Hitchens/D'Souza debate.


You may be busy, but that means you also don't have much time for dedicating hours of research on an innumerable amount of apologetics.




I'm sorry, but asking the positive claimant to show that the skeptical position is incorrect is the appropriate burden of proof. The only way to overturn a skeptical position is to provide positive proof.


You're asking others to show your position is incorrect without first showing why it is correct? That's shifting the burden of proof. You attempt to prove it true, you're the one claiming it is.



Refuse? I cannot logically assert a skeptical position. How is skepticism a positive position?


Then call it what it is Madness, it's Agnosticism. True "Atheism" I am arguing cannot exist logically. Either people are Agnostic about God, or they are irrational about His existence or non-existence. Atheism is irrational unless someone has the attributes of God, which we can all agree no one on Earth has.




If I claim something in the Bible definitively didn't happen (like the flood of Noah) or is physically impossible (like Noah's ark being sea worthy or being able to fit and sustain 2 of every species), that is a positive claim.


I disagree completely with all those conjectures above.


You are making a positive claim, I am skeptical of your claim. End of story.


So what is your response if I tell you that I lack a belief that God cannot exist?



I already told you that any statement an individual makes is made with reference to their body of knowledge unless they claim omniscience.


This is where you're wrong. A person doesn't need to "claim" omniscience. If they assume or presuppose omniscience inadvertently to arrive at their belief it's irrational. Even if they don't realize it.


I just showed that you did. You are trying to pretend that I didn't necessarily imply 'to the best of my knowledge', when that would be logically impossible to not apply unless I made a statement to the contrary of that claim.


Close, trying to show you that your knowledge is greatly limited, not to say you are in any way unintelligent. It's a matter of not having qualities a deity would have to "know" and not believe.

Heck, it's now an astonishing discovery of Physics that our universe is nothing more than a digital simulation that exists in another reality. We live it at least 10 dimensions, 4 measurable and 6 that can be determined by indirect means. What if God does exist outside both realities and outside the space time dimension? He claims such in His Word. He demonstrates such by telling us future events long before they happen with perfect details. That demonstrates the message was delivered from a source outside the 4th dimension itself.

ALL our knowledge is limited Madness, yours AND MINE. It'd be nice to share some of my evidences with you. You usually reject them from me.




And I've actually made that same point to. Which is why I don't assert the non-existence of any deity. In fact, I don't assert the non-existence of anything.

Hell, it takes omniscience to assert the non-existence of Zeus, Krishna, Freya, or any other deity as well, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. All I've claimed is that my knowledge isn't the most limited, not that it isn't limited.


I can respect that, that's intellectually honest on the subject.



Evidence doesn't have any properties of logic, proofs do.


"Evidence" is not a material thing, of course it has no properties Madness. What does involve logic however, is the conclusions derived from said evidence. Do I really need to clarify that to you??



Logic fail. And a logically sound proof doesn't have to be necessarily true. That's something you learn in basic logic. You can have a logically sound proof that derives from false premises, thus making the proof invalid. A proof can be both logically sound and invalid.

Hell, a logically sound and logically valid proof can still be incorrect.


I'm well aware Madness, you're preaching to the choir.




Which is why I don't assert the non-existence of deities or the impossibility of them, there is merely no evidence in favor of the positive claim that any deity exists.


That's a positive statement about there being "no" evidence. How do you know this? It's just prejudicial conjecture. You've not seen all the evidence. All you can say is there is no evidence that has persuaded you. The persuasion of the evidence is based upon logic. And quite frankly, without the existence of the God of the Bible you'd have no rational reason for faith in universal laws of logic. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks and likewise the way He expects us to think.

Laws of logic are God's standard for rational thinking and truth. Since the presented God of the Bible is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant things. In other words, His thoughts are not matter, they apply everywhere at all times. The "laws of logic" and directly dependent upon God's unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning.

Thus, rational reasoning would be utterly impossible without the God of the Bible. When skeptics show up to debate they are presupposing the God of the Bible's existence and the Christian worldview. A classic example is someone arguing they do not believe in air. All the while breathing it in and using sound waves that travel through the air to argue against it.




I honestly don't care if the being(s) exist or not. If you gave me ample evidence of Yahweh, I'd believe in Yahweh. If you gave evidence of Zeus, I'd believe in Zeus. Same for Kali, Sussanoo, or any other deity. I have no stake in their not existing.


Really, you value your life that little Madness? How sad to live life thinking these short 70 or so years are all it is, then nothing. How depressing. I have no aversion to dying and would actually prefer it sooner than later. My life is full of humble joy and anticipation of the other side. You have nothing to look forward to... nothing. And furthermore, if and only if I am right, you'd have an enormous "stake" in the matter.


You, on the other hand, actually have a stake in the non-existence of other deities. Your positive claim is multifold. Your claim is that the trinitarian deity commonly referred to as "God" interchangeably exists and that no other deity exists. It goes far further as you claim that a specific book (with which you practice a form of idolatry) is authorized by this deity and is infallible in a language that is not the original and a specific interpretation is the only valid one despite the often nebulous nature of the language used within.


Now you're a Theologian??? God says that He magnifies His Word above His own name. The book itself just holds the printed paper. His Word exists independently of books hot off the printing press. And furthermore, why would it be idolatry to worship the "Word of God"? Last time I checked John said the "Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us."



I do have a rational standard, it's yet to be met.


The fact that you can reason proves Evolution and random chance to be false.



Nope, all I see is further dishonesty. I'm not refusing to make a positive claim, my position is not positive.


If you say so Madness.



O rly? Please tell me why a deity must account for the intelligibility and uniformity of nature. Hell, tell me how your deity accounts for the intelligibility and uniformity of nature when it itself is neither intelligible nor uniform and is subject to whim and contradiction.


In order for us to study nature, the universe MUST have consistent orderliness. It must be regular over periods of time or previous truths and laws of nature would be different than today. This "orderliness" is uniformity. Absolute morality would be impossible without an authority that is universal and higher than man. If the Bible were not true and actually we were merely the result of millions of years of mindless chemical processes and chance then why should we hold to a universal "code" of human actions, right or wrong??





I'm not claiming the others are absent, I'm claiming that the burden of proof for their existence has not been met.


I say for me it has. One of us is wrong. I say I need a few evidences to affirm, you need qualities of God to reject.


I can no more claim that their deities don't exist than I can claim that there aren't invisible, intangible, inaudible, odorless, heatless beings dancing the samba in my room right now.


Irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I find it interesting that adjensen, one of the reasonable theists on here that doesn't seem to have a problem with atheistic individuals, is the only theist currently participating in the discussion.


I don't have a "problem" with them either. Disagreeing with an idea doesn't mean you're inhuman. Christ died for the atheists too. My theology says all men are sinners, myself included. You're my friend Madness, even if we can't agree on God.



The theist who wishes to discuss rather than attack is the only one left in the thread asking people to attack atheism and atheists.

Isn't it ironic?
Don'tcha think?


Hmmm, I really am starting to think you do place "timelines" on posts....

Is it bad that I choose to reply on my pc rather than from my Droid phone while in the kitchen at work? lol Furthermore, I'm not here to attack any atheist who posts, but express disagreement with the idea of atheism.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Now I'm gonna play so Call of Duty 4 and I have to teach pre-K at church tonight. Is it okay if I don't get a chance to make a lengthy response by 9:07 pm ET?

I'd hate to be involved in any "irony" again. *shudders*



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I stated such, no dishonesty there. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. Unless you can demonstrate that affirming one position doesn't immediate affirm the other. "I lack belief in God" and "God doesn't exist" are the same thing.


What's dishonest is the inference that lacking a belief in something is a reality claim affirming that it doesn't exist. In that sort of scenario there is no such thing as a negative position. You are attempting to rewrite the rules of logic to make a dishonest semantic point.



I tried to show you this by stating "God exists" and "I lack belief in God's non-existence" which is a position that asserts the same conclusion about whether God exists or not.


This is why people should be forced to study basic logic in high school....just a basic understanding of logic would clear this up.

I'm going to give you an example, which I hope nobody will dishonestly misrepresent by editing it.

Let's take "Jose". Jose claims that God doesn't exist due to a logical proof he did for his doctoral thesis which he believes disproves the notion entirely. Jose thusly doesn't believe in God.
Now let's take "Julio". Julio does not believe in God, but doesn't claim that God doesn't exist.

Your assertion only works for those who already claim that a deity doesn't exist, but the opposite form doesn't work. Julio doesn't necessarily have to claim the non-existence of any deity to not believe in it.

Now, until you can demonstrate how Julio would necessarily have to claim that no deities exist, you would be right to stay silent.





Of course, your knowledge on this and other topics is also limited, as is evidenced by your claim that the Bible is inerrant and that the KJV, which mistranslates an extinct cattle like creature to "unicorn" is the most appropriate.


Can you show that "unicorn" wasn't a used English term in 1611 A.D. with a different connotation than it carries today?


Well, it still refers to a creature that has a single horn. Strong's has a great entry on the word.



Secondly, you have no proved the Bible is in error, only stated your prejudicial conjecture that it is.


I didn't claim that the Bible was in error, I claimed that the humans working on the King James translation who translated "rĕ'em" to "unicorn" were in error, which they were. The word refers to something more along these lines.



You can do this of course, but it's your burden of proof to show errors in the Bible if you claim they exist.


I just did, I even used a Christian website to do it.



And 99% of the time skeptics show an utter ignorance to Biblical Hermeneutics anytime they try and claim a contradiction exists.


And 100% of the people who believe in Biblical Hermeneutics show an ignorance of all sorts of subjects relating to science...like how they believe a global flood could happen with no geologic evidence.



I even went on YOUR bandwagon and agreed with the skeptic position and affirmed that all modern versions of the Bible are full of contradictions.


Actually, all versions of the Bible are full of contradictions. The number of contradictions doesn't effect the validity of the translations.





Well, your consideration is false. It is childish.


I'm sure you'll let me be just as arbitrary..

No it isn't.


I'm not being arbitrary, I've showed how childish it is over several posts.





Yes, of course phrasing a negative position as a positive is illogical.


Straw man. I said purposely stating a positive position as a negative one is absurd.


Well, I'm not espousing a positive position. I'm a skeptic of your and all other claims of deities.




Oh, and it is not the belief. It is the opposite of a belief.


No, any belief or though is chemical reactions in the brain, the opposite of such would be nothing, no chemical reaction in the brain.


Ok, now you're branching out to failure in the philosophy of mind.

By your definition a signal in your brain telling you that you need to urinate is a belief. Nice job doing my work for me.



Atheism is a belief or a collection of related beliefs.


Atheism is a skeptical position with relation to deities. It is a lack of acceptance of any deity.



It's a position you arrive at by your personal reasoning.


But that doesn't make it a positive position.




Yours is the positive position.


Yes, I'm fully aware.


So yours is a positive position...and mine is a negative position. Unless you can demonstrate how my position is positive you better just not mention it anymore.




If you are making the positive assertion that a deity exists and I reject that along with all other such claims of deities existing, then I am not making a positive assertion. This is elementary logic.


Not in words, but in rationale you are.


No, I'm not doing so in rationale either. I'm not asserting anything, I'm rejecting an assertion.



That's why it's "irrational".


No, your posts have been. And I'm about to demonstrate another lack of rational thought.



If I claim the Sun is made up of a composite of shoe polish and cat litter and you lack the belief that it is made up of these things then you likewise hold the belief that the Sun is not made of a shoe polish and cat litter composite.


No, I hold that it is not necessarily so. I can say "You may be correct, but there is no evidence to prove it."

Were this an earlier period in history I could go further and say "There is no way for me to assess the composition of the Sun, so I will reject your claim of its composition until you can show me how you assessed its composition."

See? Very easy.



Where does this idea come from that I ever place a deadline on reviewing and responding to material I've presented?


I'm not saying it as a matter of time period. If there's a common practice of putting 3 hour clips as evidence for something, then what's the point of having a text-based discussion forum?

I'll review the material, but I'm not going to respond on this forum. Hell, I'm currently working on some plans to boot up a YouTube channel where I will respond to video material.



Secondly, I have even offered to send you materials to review in your leisure time with NO expectation of a reply/response and you've refused. Even when I shared I'd love to send it on my dime.


That's just a cultural thing. I'm not big on accepting such gifts, at least from people I don't know very well.
I'm no prophet, but I'd bet that you spend a great deal more time on skeptical sources than apologetic ones.




When was the last time you read or viewed and Islamic apologetic material?


I can't specifically say, within the past year.


And what about some Hindu apologetics? I mean, you and I have more or less an equal burden for reviewing apologetics.




Hell, the only works of CS Lewis that I ever read were his apologetics (I never got the fascination of other kids with Narnia, it felt boring to me).


That's fine, but CS Lewis isn't the best at apologetics. He was an author.


True, but I've actually read them and not read his fiction (well, never beyond a few pages).



So what, maybe your claim is accurate, it doesn't change what I said about my "experience" with you. I know you only through ATS so that's my frame of reference. Am I missing something here? How would I respond to your viewing habits outside of ATS?


That's the point. Why are you bothering to make a critique of an individual's habits when you have a very narrow experience of that person's habits? Hell, I've sat through enough William Lane Craig videos to realize that he uses the exact same points in every single debate, almost word for word.



And that's fine, I'm not condemning you for concentrating on your schoolwork, that's quite understandable. And even if we don't see eye to eye on the Bible or god I have nothing against you and even call you my friend here. I was willing to mail you some apologetic from excellent sources. I've never offered anyone else that level of engagement to share ideas.


I may accept, but I have to think about it. Primarily based upon possible summertime employment, guests that might be visiting, travel, etc. I have a busy schedule ahead of me.



You may be busy, but that means you also don't have much time for dedicating hours of research on an innumerable amount of apologetics.


True, but I do dedicate a good portion of it. Hell, last year I had a semester of "natural theology" in philosophy (compulsory). That required dedicating hours of time to apologetics.

The fact of the matter is that I actually bother to read apologetics and I've read the work they're addressing.



You're asking others to show your position is incorrect without first showing why it is correct? That's shifting the burden of proof. You attempt to prove it true, you're the one claiming it is.


I'm arguing with a brick wall. A literal brick wall. I am not claiming anything, I have nothing to show correct.



Then call it what it is Madness, it's Agnosticism.


Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. It can refer to several issues. I am determinism agnostic, though I act as if it is false just in case it isn't.



True "Atheism" I am arguing cannot exist logically.


Atheism exists in more than one form. No form is more "true" than the other.

Gnostic Atheism is what you are referring to, the position that you can know for sure that a deity doesn't exist. I am not a gnostic atheist.

There are gnostic, agnostic, and implicit forms of atheism. In all fairness, implicit would be the closest to 'true' atheism, as it is the only form in which the concept of a deity isn't even known.



Either people are Agnostic about God, or they are irrational about His existence or non-existence.


You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a position unto itself.



Atheism is irrational unless someone has the attributes of God, which we can all agree no one on Earth has.


No, it is not. Gnostic atheism is irrational. As is gnostic theism. Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are perfectly rational positions, though I'd argue that agnostic atheism is the more rational.




If I claim something in the Bible definitively didn't happen (like the flood of Noah) or is physically impossible (like Noah's ark being sea worthy or being able to fit and sustain 2 of every species), that is a positive claim.


I disagree completely with all those conjectures above.


Conjectures? I can actually prove that the flood didn't happen. Why? Well, the absence of evidence isn't always the evidence of absence...unless the evidence should be present. There is no evidence for a global flood. There's no geologic evidence whatsoever.

There's also no genetic evidence to show that the gene pools of all the world's species were restricted to 2-7 individuals. There's also no genetic evidence to show that the human gene pool was restricted in this manner.

There's also ample evidence to show that a ship made of wood designed according to the specifications of the Bible wouldn't be sea worthy. It would literally bend and break in half at the middle, even if you give Noah the luxury of miraculously having iron fastens to joint it. I can provide links to a far more knowledgeable individual on the subject talking about it, but it's a long video and I wouldn't want to put the burden of responding to it on you.

They aren't conjectures. They're scientific fact.




You are making a positive claim, I am skeptical of your claim. End of story.


So what is your response if I tell you that I lack a belief that God cannot exist?


That you're being childish and ignoring basic grammar rules with regards to negatives.




This is where you're wrong. A person doesn't need to "claim" omniscience. If they assume or presuppose omniscience inadvertently to arrive at their belief it's irrational. Even if they don't realize it.


Then you must demonstrate that they assume or presuppose omniscience. It would be a bit irrational for you to claim that a person is doing so without proving it.



Heck, it's now an astonishing discovery of Physics that our universe is nothing more than a digital simulation that exists in another reality.


Um..no, that's not true. Citation needed. You do realize what the word 'digital' means, right?



We live it at least 10 dimensions, 4 measurable and 6 that can be determined by indirect means.


That's true of some forms of string theory, but then there's supergravity theory which posits 11 and M theory which does the same.



What if God does exist outside both realities and outside the space time dimension?


What if there's an invisible, intangible, inaudible, odorless, heatless howler monkey attempting to get your attention right now?



He claims such in His Word.


Citation needed.



He demonstrates such by telling us future events long before they happen with perfect details.


Citation needed. Incorrect statement anyway.



That demonstrates the message was delivered from a source outside the 4th dimension itself.


You do realize that being outside of a dimension doesn't give you incredible abilities to observe that dimension, right?



ALL our knowledge is limited Madness, yours AND MINE. It'd be nice to share some of my evidences with you. You usually reject them from me.


Because they're either illogical or incorrect.



"Evidence" is not a material thing, of course it has no properties Madness. What does involve logic however, is the conclusions derived from said evidence. Do I really need to clarify that to you??


Well, you made a sentence that was quite clear in its meaning.



I'm well aware Madness, you're preaching to the choir.


Then why are you making statements that don't demonstrate a knowledge of the basics I just explained?



That's a positive statement about there being "no" evidence.


I did earlier elaborate that this statement is supposed to be made in the context of "as far as I know".




And quite frankly, without the existence of the God of the Bible you'd have no rational reason for faith in universal laws of logic. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks and likewise the way He expects us to think.


Well, at least that semester on natural theology lets me know why this statement is wrong. You can not prove this statement, it is pure conjecture. Please, break down as a logical syllogism how the deity of the Bible is required for the presence of laws of logic.



Laws of logic are God's standard for rational thinking and truth.


Citation and logical proof requested earlier still needed.



Since the presented God of the Bible is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant things.


Um...immaterial? Citation?
Oh, and an unchanging being you say? I thought it was omnipotent. How can an omnipotent being lack the ability to change?



In other words, His thoughts are not matter, they apply everywhere at all times. The "laws of logic" and directly dependent upon God's unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning.


You didn't prove that they were. You just said that God is unchanging and that the laws of logic are dependent upon them without demonstrating the causation.

Unless I missed something, but I looked over it several times. Maybe if you demonstrated it as a logical syllogism I'd get it better.



Thus, rational reasoning would be utterly impossible without the God of the Bible.


"Thus"? Thus implies that you showed a causation. You merely asserted that they are dependent upon the unchanging nature of a deity.




When skeptics show up to debate they are presupposing the God of the Bible's existence and the Christian worldview. A classic example is someone arguing they do not believe in air. All the while breathing it in and using sound waves that travel through the air to argue against it.


Except that you have failed to show the necessary logical link between the existence of logic and the necessity of a deity for these rules to exist. Hell, you've not even demonstrated how such rules would be dependent upon the deity even if they could exist separately.

You need to actually provide a logical link in these sorts of things. If you want, I can put what you wrote in the form of a syllogism and show you exactly where you have a giant gaping hole.



I honestly don't care if the being(s) exist or not. If you gave me ample evidence of Yahweh, I'd believe in Yahweh. If you gave evidence of Zeus, I'd believe in Zeus. Same for Kali, Sussanoo, or any other deity. I have no stake in their not existing.


Really, you value your life that little Madness?


I value my life immensely, which is why I find value in it whether or not deities exist.



How sad to live life thinking these short 70 or so years are all it is, then nothing. How depressing.


Depressing? Most of the last 13.7 billion years of this universe's existence didn't involve me existing, I didn't seem to mind. In fact, it makes the 70ish years I hope to get all the more worthwhile. If I only get 70 years I'm going to do the best that I can with them.

But honestly, even if it is depressing it doesn't make it false. The truth can hurt.



I have no aversion to dying and would actually prefer it sooner than later. My life is full of humble joy and anticipation of the other side. You have nothing to look forward to... nothing. And furthermore, if and only if I am right, you'd have an enormous "stake" in the matter.


No, not if and only if. If Odin existed I would have a stake in taking up a warrior's life so I could get the rewards of the halls of Valhalla. If Islam is correct then I have a stake in living a life of devotion to Allah. If Buddhism and Hinduism are correct...well, then I get a pass. Of course, I can keep going on with other religions, couldn't I?

You can't really beat the obvious objection to Pascal's wager by simply adding an indefensible "if and only if".




Now you're a Theologian??? God says that He magnifies His Word above His own name.


In a book. It's still idolatry. You should have more faith in the being than in its word.

As you learn in any class about storytelling, words are words, actions are where you get to understand someone's character.



The book itself just holds the printed paper. His Word exists independently of books hot off the printing press. And furthermore, why would it be idolatry to worship the "Word of God"? Last time I checked John said the "Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us."


I'm saying you worship the interpretation of the book in a way in which you fail to allow established science to penetrate into your world. You aren't exalting the book, merely your narrow (and demonstrably false) interpretation of it.

Face it, the plants came after the sun and moon and birds came after land animals.



The fact that you can reason proves Evolution and random chance to be false.


Reason doesn't prove evolution incorrect. Reason would be highly beneficial to survival.

And random chance may not be true. In fact, I don't necessarily believe in the idea of something being random. I honestly find determinism to be the most likely truth and that free will is illusory, but I prefer to act as if free will and random chance exist because it's a safer bet.





Nope, all I see is further dishonesty. I'm not refusing to make a positive claim, my position is not positive.


If you say so Madness.


I've demonstrated that it's not positive and you've yet to demonstrate that it is.




In order for us to study nature, the universe MUST have consistent orderliness. It must be regular over periods of time or previous truths and laws of nature would be different than today. This "orderliness" is uniformity.


Ok, what does your deity have to do with it?



Absolute morality would be impossible without an authority that is universal and higher than man.


Incorrect. Utilitarian morality is a form of absolute morality in which the hedonistic principle dictates the absolute standard of all action.

Granted, I'm skeptical of the claim of absolute morality.

But what does this have to do with the universe...oh.....oh...I see. You're confusing 'law' the practice of human prescription for action with 'law' the determined aspect of the universe.



If the Bible were not true and actually we were merely the result of millions of years of mindless chemical processes and chance then why should we hold to a universal "code" of human actions, right or wrong??


We shouldn't. But that doesn't prove that the universe being orderly necessitates the existence of your being. Laws of nature aren't the same as human law.





I'm not claiming the others are absent, I'm claiming that the burden of proof for their existence has not been met.


I say for me it has. One of us is wrong. I say I need a few evidences to affirm, you need qualities of God to reject.


Gods. I reject the existence of all proclaimed deities for which I've heard claims.




I can no more claim that their deities don't exist than I can claim that there aren't invisible, intangible, inaudible, odorless, heatless beings dancing the samba in my room right now.


Irrelevant.


Fully relevant. I'm speaking of a claim which can not be disproved, so I threw in another claim that cannot be disproved. Now, if I claim that I don't believe invisible, intangible, inaudible, odorless, heatless beings are dancing the samba in my room right now, does that mean I am making the assertion that they necessarily don't exist?

Not necessarily. Unless I am explicit in the claim that they don't exist I am not making the assertion. I am merely stating that there is no evidence that they are regardless of whether or not they are.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Well, that's the definition that the English language uses, so let's go with it.


Okay.


Now explain how you can make an absolute statement based on your non-absolute observations.


According to your own definition:


absolute (ˈæbsəˌluːt) —adj 1. complete; perfect 2. free from limitations, restrictions, or exceptions; unqualified: an absolute choice 3. having unlimited authority; despotic: an absolute ruler 4. undoubted; certain: the absolute truth


my statements, and the evidence, are not absolute.

The god who performed action X does not exist. How do I know? Action X was not performed.

You argue that these are absolute statements. I say that's a load of bull, because they are not free from limitations, restrictions, or exceptions. Of course I am relying on the fact that my memory has not been altered, that action X hasn't just been hidden from me by little green men from Mars, and so on. I simply choose not to voice these restrictions because it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it is necessary. It, quite literally, goes without saying.



It isn't. I never argued that it is. But it is an indication that there is absolutely no reason to believe in him.


Only if you follow the logical fallacy of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."


No. This is a total straw man. This statement would only make sense if I had argued that a lack of evidence where evidence is not expected is a reason to disbelieve, rather than to lack belief. You are still misrepresenting my position.

A total lack of evidence for a god for whom no evidence is expected is not evidence against its existence, but it is also not a reason to possess belief.


Back to your original statement:


if you want to define your god as a god which leaves no evidence of its actions, fine; I admit that it can't be disproven.


Fine, I say that one facet of my view of God, which is not in conflict with anything in scripture or any experience that I've had, is that he need not leave evidence for you, specifically, to find.


And that's fine, but don't try to pretend that that means that:

- no god at all can be disproven (which was your original argument) or
- that that is the god described in the Bible.

You are adding properties to the god described in the Bible. Your god is incredibly similar to that god, but it is not the same. If I define a man and you define a man who is exactly the same except in that your man had coffee for breakfast this morning, we are not talking about the same man, even though all you did was add a piece of information.


You said that you would prove that God, no matter what definition one might come up with, doesn't exist


No, I didn't. Stop strawmanning.


but you've yet to even prove that your made up "Bob" doesn't exist.


Yes, I have. That you don't understand that I have does nothing to alter this.


This isn't just me being obstinate


Yes, it is.


I agree that "Bob" doesn't exist, I'm just trying to show you why it cannot be proven.


And you are wrong. It can be proven. The gods that you are arguing that I have not disproved are not Bob.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy

The god who performed action X does not exist. How do I know? Action X was not performed.


Just using some binary operators..

[if X = 0, then A = 0]

What is the direct correlation? Why does X = A?

i believe it would also be relevant to follow along the lines of [if X = 1, then A = 1]. (conceptually represented by saying "the God (A) who performed action (X) does exist, how do i know? Action X was performed).

What is the direct causal relationship between X and A here to be able to make such assumptions?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by Golden Boy

The god who performed action X does not exist. How do I know? Action X was not performed.


Just using some binary operators..

[if X = 0, then A = 0]

What is the direct correlation? Why does X = A?


X does not equal A. Your comparison is flawed.

The actual representation in logic symbols would be

A ↔ X

"A if and only if X".

"The man who murdered me this morning exists if and only if I was murdered this morning".

"The god who parted the Red Sea exists if and only if the Red Sea was parted".


i believe it would also be relevant to follow along the lines of [if X = 1, then A = 1]. (conceptually represented by saying "the God (A) who performed action (X) does exist, how do i know? Action X was performed).


Small nitpick: It's X∧Y→A, not X→A. "The god who performed action X exists if action X was performed and was not performed by any other entity (Y)".

But yes, broadly correct.


What is the direct causal relationship between X and A here to be able to make such assumptions?


The law of identity. A ≡ A. If A is defined as an object whose existence results in effect X, then we can know if A does not exist if X has not been effected.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join