Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
@ BIC, you have been mislead to believe that coneys are ruminants or practise refection. Its is a fact that coneys/ badgers are not BY evidence of absence.
@Tcmc and despo,
A claim will need evidence to be held true. Not all situations can have evidence of absence or just ridiculous to demand when its not feasible, approaching appeal to ignorance. Tcmc understood me better... I feel warm inside :)
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
For what we currently know and with the lack of evidence currently, yes it's true. It might not be true in future, (maybe evidence might surface for gods in future) but it is true for now.
You have a warped notion of truth. What is true now cannot be false tomorrow. If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God.
-
tcmc,
this i have clarified wif pastors and christians. on their behalf, i apologise for using the word ''false'' which led to the misunderstanding...u must understand tat to christians, God is defined as the Creator along wif other things...so based on tat definition and believing that theres is only One creator which is the christian God, any other gods will be deemed as ''false''...false in the sense tat these gods are not the creator...
i modified the qn further by asking...wad if i define God as simply meaning higher being, would they still say all other gods are false and guess wad? the answer is no!!! as usual, u can choose to say i am lying or choose to doubt tat i am telling the truth since i cun provide evidence tat i have done my clarification...but this sth i noe i have done personally and the answer i got was satisfactory...
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
who said Buddha is a god.
Buddha was not a god, never claimed to be a god, and did not call himself a god. He lived his life like a nor mall human He was awake and a human just like you and me, he bled, got sick and he he died of food poisoning. A god would not die from food poisoning.
--- Yes Buddha never claimed himself as a god, but he was a great teacher..., he is a human yet not an ordinary human, he reached the enlightenment, a maximum knowledge.. has neutral condition of anything around... he understood more than us could expected , the only way you can reached by practice meditation...
if you ever meet dhamma (buddha's teaching), then you have found a priceless, extraordinary diamond... , you can find out by yourself, why buddha is so special ... whatever your belief, you still can accept dhamma, because dhamma is truth .. valuable life knowledge... with loving based teaching, if you don't like it then you can leave it immediately..
~When asked if he were a God, Buddha said No. "Then, teacher, what are you?" to which he replied... "Awake!"
So the Buddha is not a God He is a teacher of all the things he learnt in his life.
But one more thing a normall human would just die as we know but when the Buddha died he met his enlightenment.
No, Buddha is not a God. Buddha was a man named Siddharta Gautama, who was the first person to receive enlightenment, or nirvana...Jacky,
THink no one said hes god here.
We are just saying buddhism has supernatural elements in it, like gods, spirits , depending on the sect and denomination.
So it qualifies to be a religion.
-
to aneslayer...
gd tat tcmc understood u better...lets hope he is enlightened by u...
-
if we define god as higher being, then buddha qualifies for it...
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You have a warped notion of truth. What is true now cannot be false tomorrow. If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God.
BIC
Fact is some truths change everyday. Even christian morals and christian truths change over time. (cremation, rock music etc)
Waht is true today might not be tomorrow.
Same for the evidence for gods. Today and for years to come, there will be no evidence to provr gods, but in future, who knows.
Now its true.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
if we define god as higher being, then buddha qualifies for it...
despondent,
your way of thinking is way to simplistic for buddhism. Higher being means god? Cant he be a saint, a demi god or just a prophet?
-
tcmc,
some ppl define god as higher being...i am juz echoing their definition...tat is definitely not my definition...if anything these ppl are the simple-minded ones...
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
@ BIC, you have been mislead to believe that coneys are ruminants or practise refection. Its is a fact that coneys/ badgers are not BY evidence of absence.
@Tcmc and despo,
A claim will need evidence to be held true. Not all situations can have evidence of absence or just ridiculous to demand when its not feasible, approaching appeal to ignorance. Tcmc understood me better... I feel warm inside :)
You really missed the point about the use of the language of appearance, and merely trying to impose a modern restrictive meaning onto the text. In short, you just disregard the answer. Nothing in the website says that coneys or rabbits are ruminants. It only says that the term "chewing the cud" has been used on rabbits because that's what they would seem to do when observed by the Hebrew folks.
-
u see, offhand u alredi gave ''god'' so many possible definitions...tats why BIC and even myself have said before tat if a discussion is not started on a similar definition, nth will anount to it...to a person who believes god is finite and limited, then he needs a creator but to a person who believes god is infinite and limitless, he cun be created...so to the former ''who created God'' is a legitimate qn but to the latter its a flawed qn...the dispute arise cos of different definitions of ''God''...
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Fact is some truths change everyday. Even christian morals and christian truths change over time. (cremation, rock music etc)
Waht is true today might not be tomorrow.
Same for the evidence for gods. Today and for years to come, there will be no evidence to provr gods, but in future, who knows.
Now its true.
You are still confused over the notion and nature of truth.
What changes is our beliefs about many things. Whether you bury or burn is a matter of practice, not truth.
Whether God exists or not is a statement of truth, regardless of the availability of evidence.
-
"You have a warped notion of truth." - Ad hominem
"What is true now cannot be false tomorrow." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
"If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God." - One can only say one don't belief in existence of god/s to be logically sound. In the absence of evidence, one can say there is no god/s out of ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Jacky,
THink no one said hes god here.
We are just saying buddhism has supernatural elements in it, like gods, spirits , depending on the sect and denomination.
So it qualifies to be a religion.
the supernatural and the deities were mixed with the folks religion in China, Tibet when it was transmitted from India. Sure India has a lot of god religions, about 300 plus when Buddha was alive, but Buddha has rejected the concept of a creator god. Buddhism has some similarities with Hinduism, which has existed in India for about 5000 years, but their teachings differ. Shiva, Brahma, part of the trinity in Hinduism, but Buddha was never a god. even their teachings on karma also differs in its meanings.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You have a warped notion of truth." - Ad hominem
"What is true now cannot be false tomorrow." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
"If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God." - One can only say one don't belief in existence of god/s to be logically sound. In the absence of evidence, one can say there is no god/s out of ignorance.
You seem confused about what is an ad hominem argument. It is to bypass the argument to attack the person. I am thus not guilty of that because I actually explain where Tcmc's error lies.
And please explain why you think I committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Don't just drop names of fallacies if you are not sure how to use them.
An argument is either sound or unsound. A statement by itself is usually not treated as logically sound or unsound, unless that statement is crafted in such a way as to become an argument. So you need premises which leads to the right conclusion.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
An argument is either sound or unsound.
I am glad you know how to say this, but you cannot see for yourself how sounded your argument were
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I thought I already answered that. I reproduce again the answer from the website.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.
I still don't quite get your double-standard point.
Again, what false attribution? Add some details can?
Dude, I said not restrictive meaning, it does not mean unlimited meaning lah! Fallacy count start for you?
For my "gay" analogy I used the conditional "IF". Anyway, the word "gay" does appear in the KJV in James 2:3. Does that mean you reduce my fallacy count by 1. Actually I think you should reduce it by 2.
Anyway, would you like the challenge of counting fallacies committed by atheists? I'm sure you would find it easier to count.
"I thought I already answered that. I reproduce again the answer from the website.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong."
You thought I think who confirm? I'll repeat my simple question again: So coneys refect or don't? Can you explain it the same way as the rabbit?
"I still don't quite get your double-standard point." - I'm saying you have double standard on your posts and the other users here.
"Again, what false attribution? Add some details can?" - What does creationists have to do with our discussions on ruminants and refection?
"Dude, I said not restrictive meaning, it does not mean unlimited meaning lah! Fallacy count start for you?" - You said "...limited scientific meaning...". Things are either limited or not. They are mutually exclusive. What fallacy did you think I commit? Name and list like I do if you can... which I doubt.
:For my "gay" analogy I used the conditional "IF". Anyway, the word "gay" does appear in the KJV in James 2:3. Does that mean you reduce my fallacy count by 1. Actually I think you should reduce it by 2. - You said "It's like you telling me..." Whatever happens aside from chewer of the cud, is strawmaning....
"Anyway, would you like the challenge of counting fallacies committed by atheists? I'm sure you would find it easier to count." - Yes its easier to count just because its lesser. Glad that we agree on something....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You seem confused about what is an ad hominem argument. It is to bypass the argument to attack the person. I am thus not guilty of that because I actually explain where Tcmc's error lies.
And please explain why you think I committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Don't just drop names of fallacies if you are not sure how to use them.
An argument is either sound or unsound. A statement by itself is usually not treated as logically sound or unsound, unless that statement is crafted in such a way as to become an argument. So you need premises which leads to the right conclusion.
"You seem confused about what is an ad hominem argument. It is to bypass the argument to attack the person. I am thus not guilty of that because I actually explain where Tcmc's error lies."
argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.
You did another... when you said " You seem confused about what is an ad hominem argument..." Simple as such, an attempt to negate the (subjective) truth of a claim by pointing a negative. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong.
"And please explain why you think I committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Don't just drop names of fallacies if you are not sure how to use them."
Change is the only constant. Maybe the change may not occur not tomorrow but we can have infinite tomorrows theorectically. Unless you are arguing objective truths... which does not seemed so... so far....
"An argument is either sound or unsound. A statement by itself is usually not treated as logically sound or unsound, unless that statement is crafted in such a way as to become an argument. So you need premises which leads to the right conclusion."
Any statement can be argued if its deemed unsound, untruthful or illogical. What premise are you taking regarding your statement "If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God."? What premise did you think your opponent took?
-
Originally posted by despondent:
to aneslayer...
gd tat tcmc understood u better...lets hope he is enlightened by u...
I'm not enlightened.... thus I can't illuminate anyone...
But I do what I do best, bridging a reasonable communication standard. Not implying anyone being unreasonable...
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
I'm not enlightened.... thus I can't illuminate anyone...
But I do what I do best, bridging a reasonable communication standard. Not implying anyone being unreasonable...
Food for thought: why is it that we can communicate to each other and employ laws of logic in our reasoning? How does atheism account for the existence of the laws of logic and our ability to communicate, bearing in mind that atheism holds that are evolved pondscum that came from nonliving mattee? -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"I thought I already answered that. I reproduce again the answer from the website.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong."
You thought I think who confirm? I'll repeat my simple question again: So coneys refect or don't? Can you explain it the same way as the rabbit?
"I still don't quite get your double-standard point." - I'm saying you have double standard on your posts and the other users here.
"Again, what false attribution? Add some details can?" - What does creationists have to do with our discussions on ruminants and refection?
"Dude, I said not restrictive meaning, it does not mean unlimited meaning lah! Fallacy count start for you?" - You said "...limited scientific meaning...". Things are either limited or not. They are mutually exclusive. What fallacy did you think I commit? Name and list like I do if you can... which I doubt.
:For my "gay" analogy I used the conditional "IF". Anyway, the word "gay" does appear in the KJV in James 2:3. Does that mean you reduce my fallacy count by 1. Actually I think you should reduce it by 2. - You said "It's like you telling me..." Whatever happens aside from chewer of the cud, is strawmaning....
"Anyway, would you like the challenge of counting fallacies committed by atheists? I'm sure you would find it easier to count." - Yes its easier to count just because its lesser. Glad that we agree on something....
Coneys and rabbits are very similar, if not the same. So what's your point? See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coney#section_2
Yes I know you are accusing me of double standards. I am asking you WHY you say that. Based on what?
Creationists have answered that question about chewing the cud, so why would it be false to give credit to them?
Your English got problem. The point is not to argue what is the opposite of limited, but the context is saying that chewing the cud has a broader meaning to the Hebrews and applied to the rabbit even in today's scientifically minded use it would exclude the rabbit.
And you failed to understand what is a strawman argument.
So how many fallacies have you spotted that were committed by atheists? List a few if you can? Let me know if you need help ya?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
LOL? So you just disregard Ninian Smart's contribution to this? Mind you, other social studies researchers and philosophers of religions uses his works. You refuse to accept that to avoid the undeniable conclusion that atheism is a religion?
Nothing wrong with that. Atheists and Christians are diverse groups in outlook.
Some but not all Atheists have a faith-based view of Atheism. But ALL Christians have a religion.
I simply say I won't believe in fairy tales. Another Atheist might say there definitely cannot possibly be a god.
-
he is not against atheists specifically
he is against non christians, but he only dare to attack atheists because he know there will not be reprisals against him
do not mistaken cowardice for justified biases
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are still confused over the notion and nature of truth.
What changes is our beliefs about many things. Whether you bury or burn is a matter of practice, not truth.
Whether God exists or not is a statement of truth, regardless of the availability of evidence.
BIC,
You fail to stand in the shoes of christians who lived hundreds of years ago. To them, cremation is wrong and the truth was to bury. To them , the truth was cremation would prevent them from being resurrected, and cremation was considered a sin .
You are totally ignorant and self-centred, only thinking about your form of modern christianity.
Similary, christians 50 years ago believed in truth that christian rock music or any rock music is satanic and will lead christians to hell.
Of course now, these truths have changed.
That is what I mean when i say christian truths and morals also change.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
he is not against atheists specifically
he is against non christians, but he only dare to attack atheists because he know there will not be reprisals against him
do not mistaken cowardice for justified biases
Agreed.
He is actually against all nonchristians.