Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
there is nothing great about god cos it doesnt exists. atheism is merely the anti thesis of god.
anyway we have been thru this before. if god exists, prove it. if god exists, surely it is not written in the bible and in science journals, documentaries in discovery channel, textbooks, articles etc
Which begs the question, on what basis you say God doesn't exist?
And yes, we have been through this before. The arguments for the existence of God has been laid out before. And for you to demand that God's existence must be stated in science journals for it to be true is to betray your ignorance of what science is and its limitations. MInd you, great scientists in the past were believers in God. It wasn't their science that proved God exists but that it was God's existence that motivated them to do science. You would do well to read up on the basis of modern science. We have been through this before!
-
"The Biblical definition of is not necessarily the same as the biological/scientific definition of life. Yes, living things need to die in order to decompose, but this does not contradict a pre-Fall world where there was no death of nephesh chayah. For a detailed theological explanation and clarification see http://creation.com/the-fall-a-cosmic-catastrophe"
When I ask a science question you gave biblical answers. When I ask a biblical question you gave a science question. That is the part where I really wondered what were you up to.
"And it is not hard not to be offensive at all, believe me. Like I said before, it is different strokes for different folks."
The merry mention of my kids betray your apparent intention.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"The Biblical definition of is not necessarily the same as the biological/scientific definition of life. Yes, living things need to die in order to decompose, but this does not contradict a pre-Fall world where there was no death of nephesh chayah. For a detailed theological explanation and clarification see http://creation.com/the-fall-a-cosmic-catastrophe"
When I ask a science question you gave biblical answers. When I ask a biblical question you gave a science question. That is the part where I really wondered what were you up to.
"And it is not hard not to be offensive at all, believe me. Like I said before, it is different strokes for different folks."
The merry mention of my kids betray your apparent intention.
God created the world and gave us His Word, so why should a Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific explanation? And why take offense at the mention of your kids? The scientific method emphasizes repeatability as a hallmark. You can repeat it five times and get the same answer. If you do not like me to mention your kids at all, that's perfectly fine with me too. -
"You don’t communicate well. That beliefs change over time was already a point I made earlier. But that is not the same as saying truth changes. Assuming that I became a Christian in 2011, then it is TRUE that I was not a Christian in 2010. And it is TRUE that I was a Christian in 2011. My religious position changed but not the truth. To say that truth changes would be to change the earlier claim and say that I was a Christian in 2010. But that would not be true at all."
Your question was phrased “Since when is belief defined as subjective truth?”. You are the one causing the confusion.
"And since you also believe in objective truth, then I have no quarrel with you. My issue is with Tcmc who believes in relativism aka subjective truths. But then again she just admitted that there are objective truths too. At least she finally came round to changing her mind about the truth."
Everyone but you got the context right the 1st time. Its only after Tcmc elaborated that you thought she changed her mind about the matter which she didn't.
"And by any-o-how labelling fallacies is still you showing off your confusion about what fallacies are. And why would filling in on your ignorance on what is a self-defeating argument be a strawman?"
It just show that you fail to follow the logic or fail to see your own fallacy. Try again.
"You failed to grasp the meaning of “feet firmly planted in mid-air” within the context of relativism. Your attempted demonstration of the simple phenomenon based on your own defining aside, I was referring to the absurdity of trying to stand on air. Planting something means to fix something securely down, as in planting a tree, you need a solid ground/base. You can’t plant your feet in midair because you cannot stand on air."
You fail to see its the dictionary defintion. What else can the definition be to make " plant your feet in mid-air " sensible?
FYI, its possible to stand on air. I can show you another but slightly more complicated phenomenon."Truth does not change with time or over time. Beliefs can. Preferences can. Tastes can. And even if you like durians in 1990 but hate it in 2000, the truth did not change over time but your preferences did. The truth remains that you like durians in 1990 but not in 2000. And it is the same with the flat earth issue where beliefs changed to be in accordance to the truth."
Is this your better objective truth example: Truth of the statement? Its dependent on the subjectivity of the... subject.
"Regarding the “argument” issue, you played word games by arbitrarily defining something = argument so that you can argue that a statement is a clear expression of “argument” in writing or speech. This holds no water at all. An argument is NOT a statement but you said it is. You said I have no evidence for my claim, though it is so obvious that you are wrong. I said that an argument is a connected SERIES OF STATEMENTS. Yet when a third party definition is given you teh-gong and asked what relevance? It is not about me wanting to win an argument, it’s about you not willing to admit you lost one."
Arbitrarily?
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/statement
Accusation with no basis. You were insisting I was wrong. As for me I'd apply occam's razor and an argument can be contained in a statement. And what was the 3rd party?
"And you beg the question, why is being cruel not considered right or wrong? Of course we all know that you are just trying to be funny. Do you teach your five kids that cruel is neither good or bad? That it can be good to be cruel? And you any-o-how accuse me of arguing a strawman when all I demanded from Tcmc was her justification for posing a moral judgement when her atheistic worldview does not supply such a basis, something which you obviously did not grasp."
You made that assumptiion that being cruel is morally wrong not me. Why is being cruel morally wrong. You are trolling by referencing my kids or are you advising me how to teach my kids when its not your influence to do so. What has Tcmc has to do with me saying God had been cruel?
"Regarding “chewing the cud” your ignorance shows again. The issue isn’t about not knowing which animal chews the cud, the issue is that the text has clearly identified the rock badger and the rabbit as two animals that are not to be eaten."
I did ask you what "chewer of the cud" means in your text. You mentioned ruminant and refectings. The rock badger is observed not being ruminant or practise refecting. Are there observable behaviours that the cows, goats, rabbit does as the rock badger, but different from non "chewer of the cud" like pigs?
"Unless you can give me a third alternative, it is not necessarily a false dilemma that you are either ignorant or playing daft."
The other options being you did insult or having no restrain to keep insulting or did not see your own inadequacy to realise the relevance of false dilema.... I can go on for 2 pages... But you would still not accept its false dilema. You gave only two: 1) I'm not insulted, 2) I'm petty and narrow minded(ad hominem) just to direct the attention away from the fact that you did insult.
Killing is murder only when with murderous intent. Else its called man slaughter. As if the man died for something worth discussing..." You are shifting goalposts here. You made the claim “since when are creationists credible?” The onus is not on me to prove their credibility but that you should first provide evidence that they are not credible if you do not wish to be guilty of the genetic fallacy. "
You brought the creationists to gain weight for your argument "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know that." . I'm asking you to prove their credibility in the context of bible not a science text. Else its you shifting the burden of proof or just being flatulent. One more round it will be you committing an ad nauseum.
"As to bridging reasonable communicating standards, I think you failed here since you are so guilty of committing many fallacies, and some more still have the cheek to say that I failed to spot more that you committed. It’s only fun for you to spot fallacies because when exposed you just act blur and throw up more alleged spotting of fallacies but the truth is that you can’t even properly identify them. To me, it’s easier for you to keep spewing names of informal fallacies and pretend that you know what you are talking about when you actually don't. "
Show it, present your claim then. Making me feel and looked guilty before I can defend myself against your baseless accusations.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
God created the world and gave us His Word, so why should a Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific explanation? And why take offense at the mention of your kids? The scientific method emphasizes repeatability as a hallmark. You can repeat it five times and get the same answer. If you do not like me to mention your kids at all, that's perfectly fine with me too.
"God created the world and gave us His Word, so why should a Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific explanation?"
Local context. Unless your kids attend creationists science classes.
" And why take offense at the mention of your kids? The scientific method emphasizes repeatability as a hallmark. You can repeat it five times and get the same answer. If you do not like me to mention your kids at all, that's perfectly fine with me too."
Its your priviledge that I have no right to intervene. Your mother must be so proud of you. But if she had aborted you or her mum had a miscarriage when carrying her, I guess its fine with me too.
See where this is going? -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You don’t communicate well. That beliefs change over time was already a point I made earlier. But that is not the same as saying truth changes. Assuming that I became a Christian in 2011, then it is TRUE that I was not a Christian in 2010. And it is TRUE that I was a Christian in 2011. My religious position changed but not the truth. To say that truth changes would be to change the earlier claim and say that I was a Christian in 2010. But that would not be true at all."
Your question was phrased “Since when is belief defined as subjective truth?”. You are the one causing the confusion.
"And since you also believe in objective truth, then I have no quarrel with you. My issue is with Tcmc who believes in relativism aka subjective truths. But then again she just admitted that there are objective truths too. At least she finally came round to changing her mind about the truth."
Everyone but you got the context right the 1st time. Its only after Tcmc elaborated that you thought she changed her mind about the matter which she didn't.
"And by any-o-how labelling fallacies is still you showing off your confusion about what fallacies are. And why would filling in on your ignorance on what is a self-defeating argument be a strawman?"
It just show that you fail to follow the logic or fail to see your own fallacy. Try again.
"You failed to grasp the meaning of “feet firmly planted in mid-air” within the context of relativism. Your attempted demonstration of the simple phenomenon based on your own defining aside, I was referring to the absurdity of trying to stand on air. Planting something means to fix something securely down, as in planting a tree, you need a solid ground/base. You can’t plant your feet in midair because you cannot stand on air."
You fail to see its the dictionary defintion. What else can the definition be to make " plant your feet in mid-air " sensible?
FYI, its possible to stand on air. I can show you another but slightly more complicated phenomenon."Truth does not change with time or over time. Beliefs can. Preferences can. Tastes can. And even if you like durians in 1990 but hate it in 2000, the truth did not change over time but your preferences did. The truth remains that you like durians in 1990 but not in 2000. And it is the same with the flat earth issue where beliefs changed to be in accordance to the truth."
Is this your better objective truth example: Truth of the statement? Its dependent on the subjectivity of the... subject.
"Regarding the “argument” issue, you played word games by arbitrarily defining something = argument so that you can argue that a statement is a clear expression of “argument” in writing or speech. This holds no water at all. An argument is NOT a statement but you said it is. You said I have no evidence for my claim, though it is so obvious that you are wrong. I said that an argument is a connected SERIES OF STATEMENTS. Yet when a third party definition is given you teh-gong and asked what relevance? It is not about me wanting to win an argument, it’s about you not willing to admit you lost one."
Arbitrarily?
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/statement
Accusation with no basis. You were insisting I was wrong. As for me I'd apply occam's razor and an argument can be contained in a statement. And what was the 3rd party?
"And you beg the question, why is being cruel not considered right or wrong? Of course we all know that you are just trying to be funny. Do you teach your five kids that cruel is neither good or bad? That it can be good to be cruel? And you any-o-how accuse me of arguing a strawman when all I demanded from Tcmc was her justification for posing a moral judgement when her atheistic worldview does not supply such a basis, something which you obviously did not grasp."
You made that assumptiion that being cruel is morally wrong not me. Why is being cruel morally wrong. You are trolling by referencing my kids or are you advising me how to teach my kids when its not your influence to do so. What has Tcmc has to do with me saying God had been cruel?
"Regarding “chewing the cud” your ignorance shows again. The issue isn’t about not knowing which animal chews the cud, the issue is that the text has clearly identified the rock badger and the rabbit as two animals that are not to be eaten."
I did ask you what "chewer of the cud" means in your text. You mentioned ruminant and refectings. The rock badger is observed not being ruminant or practise refecting. Are there observable behaviours that the cows, goats, rabbit does as the rock badger, but different from non "chewer of the cud" like pigs?
"Unless you can give me a third alternative, it is not necessarily a false dilemma that you are either ignorant or playing daft."
The other options being you did insult or having no restrain to keep insulting or did not see your own inadequacy to realise the relevance of false dilema.... I can go on for 2 pages... But you would still not accept its false dilema. You gave only two: 1) I'm not insulted, 2) I'm petty and narrow minded(ad hominem) just to direct the attention away from the fact that you did insult.
Killing is murder only when with murderous intent. Else its called man slaughter. As if the man died for something worth discussing..." You are shifting goalposts here. You made the claim “since when are creationists credible?” The onus is not on me to prove their credibility but that you should first provide evidence that they are not credible if you do not wish to be guilty of the genetic fallacy. "
You brought the creationists to gain weight for your argument "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know that." . I'm asking you to prove their credibility in the context of bible not a science text. Else its you shifting the burden of proof or just being flatulent. One more round it will be you committing an ad nauseum.
"As to bridging reasonable communicating standards, I think you failed here since you are so guilty of committing many fallacies, and some more still have the cheek to say that I failed to spot more that you committed. It’s only fun for you to spot fallacies because when exposed you just act blur and throw up more alleged spotting of fallacies but the truth is that you can’t even properly identify them. To me, it’s easier for you to keep spewing names of informal fallacies and pretend that you know what you are talking about when you actually don't. "
Show it, present your claim then. Making me feel and looked guilty before I can defend myself against your baseless accusations.
Weren't you the one who talked about beliefs when I was pointing out the problems with the notion of subjective truths? Well, since it was just the three of us, I don't presume you can speak for "everyone" who understood Tcmc right. But like I said, since she already finally conceded that objective truth exists, the case is closed, in my favour.
I would be interested to see how you actually stand on air i.e. plant your feet in mid-air. No wires please.
Since you are unhappy with the examples of objective truth that I have pointed out, even though I see no problem at all with them, perhaps you like to give me one very good undisputable example that would support the notion that objective truth exists?
Yes, arbitrarily as in #2. You know, there is really no need to cut and paste whole sale dictionary definitions. The meaning of any word is dependent on the context. Trying to apply Occam's Razor here is not appropriate at all. Third party means those links or people who support my view and not yours. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a coherent series of STATEMENTS leading from a premise to a conclusion". It's plural, not singular. And if you more evidence why you are wrong about an argument being a statement and not a series of statements, see http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm
You interjected into my discussion with Tcmc, so why would it not be right for me to question you as well? This is not guerilla tactics whereby you just interject as and when you like and when pressed you say "what has that to do with me?" So let's settle this once and for all, is being cruel good/right? And why the mere mention of your kids is tantamount to trolling is beyond comprehension. And why can't I or anyone advise you how to influence your kids? No one is taking over your role, just giving opinions on how to play it. In any case, let's remove your kids from this discussion since you are not comfortable with that.
I already explained what "chewing the cud" means as far as the Biblical text is concerned. It means to bring up. The point of that text is to tell the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or the coney. Critics are pointing that out as an error but as mentioned many times, it is not an error at all. I think you have missed that point and are overly fixated with whether rabbits are ruminants or not, or how we should decide which animal chews the cud. The Bible is not teaching us HOW to identify such, but has identified certain animals as forbidden even though they "chew the cud".
I already mention about the truce and not turning this into a slugfest so I am not going to address your allegations about me insulting you. Let's just agree that we were both guilty of it and let's just be nice, deal? I am extending the olive branch.
You need to divorce the issue talking about what creationists believe and their credibility. It is a fact (whether you recognise it or not) that creationists do not regard the Bible as a science textbook, and counting myself as one there was really no need to educate me on that. Nothing is mentioned about their authority or credibility, but just the fact of what they believe about the Bible. That's when you tried to discredit creationists as a whole.
I think I have already pointed out your fallacies. Remember you even mocked me for pointing out only two when you actually committed more?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"God created the world and gave us His Word, so why should a Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific explanation?"
Local context. Unless your kids attend creationists science classes.
" And why take offense at the mention of your kids? The scientific method emphasizes repeatability as a hallmark. You can repeat it five times and get the same answer. If you do not like me to mention your kids at all, that's perfectly fine with me too."
Its your priviledge that I have no right to intervene. Your mother must be so proud of you. But if she had aborted you or her mum had a miscarriage when carrying her, I guess its fine with me too.
See where this is going?Local context or not, why should a Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific explanation?
If you thought mentioning your kids doing science experiments with you is akin to you insulting my mother, then you are wrong. But like I said earlier, no slugfest so I am going to drop this.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You still missed the point.
God CANNOT lie. God hates a lying tongue. Jesus said "I am the Truth...."
And you would be hardpressed to find a specific instance whereby God APPROVED of lying or praised the act of lying. One apologetics website has this to say and I quote,
"If critics of the Bible would consider the Scriptures in their entirety, rather than isolating individual passages in an attempt to justify their preconceived conclusion that the Bible contains contradictions and discrepancies, controversy over such matters would cease to exist. Furthermore, it reeks of inconsistency for the critic to pick and choose matters that at first glance appear to support his allegations and to ignore the plain and simple passages that refute those same allegations."
You cannot use exceptions to normalise things or use exceptions to prove that situational ethics is true. One must always start with the clear teachings of Scripture. Even in everyday life it is the same. It is an offense to go when the light is red. The law deems you to have committed an offense when you do that, but perhaps you did that because you were racing to the hospital with a injured person. In this case the law would accept this exception and not charge you with an offense. But you can't take this exception and say that the law is wishy washy or that one is too extreme to say that going against the red light is wrong.
And mind you, you did not distinguish between my saying that lying is acceptable and your saying that lying is good. Acceptable and good are not to be equivocated. The only thing I would acknowledge is that lying may be acceptable sometimes, and this is far from saying that lying is good. It is NOT good. It is not a moral virtue. There is a big difference between saying "You should not do this but under these extreme circumstances it is acceptable" and saying "There is no law for or against lying, it is morally neutral so just go with the flow and act accordingly as you deem fit." The latter basically means anyone can get away with anything so long as he thinks he has a good reason, and who are you to disagree or judge otherwise?
BIC
hahaha. I have shown you verses before that your god does lie! And to reiterate, lying is not always bad!
EVen you god lies!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Weren't you the one who talked about beliefs when I was pointing out the problems with the notion of subjective truths? Well, since it was just the three of us, I don't presume you can speak for "everyone" who understood Tcmc right. But like I said, since she already finally conceded that objective truth exists, the case is closed, in my favour.
I would be interested to see how you actually stand on air i.e. plant your feet in mid-air. No wires please.
Since you are unhappy with the examples of objective truth that I have pointed out, even though I see no problem at all with them, perhaps you like to give me one very good undisputable example that would support the notion that objective truth exists?
Yes, arbitrarily as in #2. You know, there is really no need to cut and paste whole sale dictionary definitions. The meaning of any word is dependent on the context. Trying to apply Occam's Razor here is not appropriate at all. Third party means those links or people who support my view and not yours. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a coherent series of STATEMENTS leading from a premise to a conclusion". It's plural, not singular. And if you more evidence why you are wrong about an argument being a statement and not a series of statements, see http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm
You interjected into my discussion with Tcmc, so why would it not be right for me to question you as well? This is not guerilla tactics whereby you just interject as and when you like and when pressed you say "what has that to do with me?" So let's settle this once and for all, is being cruel good/right? And why the mere mention of your kids is tantamount to trolling is beyond comprehension. And why can't I or anyone advise you how to influence your kids? No one is taking over your role, just giving opinions on how to play it. In any case, let's remove your kids from this discussion since you are not comfortable with that.
I already explained what "chewing the cud" means as far as the Biblical text is concerned. It means to bring up. The point of that text is to tell the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or the coney. Critics are pointing that out as an error but as mentioned many times, it is not an error at all. I think you have missed that point and are overly fixated with whether rabbits are ruminants or not, or how we should decide which animal chews the cud. The Bible is not teaching us HOW to identify such, but has identified certain animals as forbidden even though they "chew the cud".
I already mention about the truce and not turning this into a slugfest so I am not going to address your allegations about me insulting you. Let's just agree that we were both guilty of it and let's just be nice, deal? I am extending the olive branch.
You need to divorce the issue talking about what creationists believe and their credibility. It is a fact (whether you recognise it or not) that creationists do not regard the Bible as a science textbook, and counting myself as one there was really no need to educate me on that. Nothing is mentioned about their authority or credibility, but just the fact of what they believe about the Bible. That's when you tried to discredit creationists as a whole.
I think I have already pointed out your fallacies. Remember you even mocked me for pointing out only two when you actually committed more?
"Weren't you the one who talked about beliefs when I was pointing out the problems with the notion of subjective truths? Well, since it was just the three of us, I don't presume you can speak for "everyone" who understood Tcmc right. But like I said, since she already finally conceded that objective truth exists, the case is closed, in my favour."
If you insist... Congratulations on winning favour from an internet argument, if Tcmc did ever concede as you meant to say.
"I would be interested to see how you actually stand on air i.e. plant your feet in mid-air. No wires please."
Stand on air. Plant your feet. No wires to lift the weight.
"Since you are unhappy with the examples of objective truth that I have pointed out, even though I see no problem at all with them, perhaps you like to give me one very good undisputable example that would support the notion that objective truth exists?"
Your are still arguing for objective truth, right? The definition of objective truth is objectivity and not affected by time. Your 1st inout was affected by time, the 2nd was subjective to the subject. Are you pleading with me? If yes, you are doing it wrong. If no, no obligations.
"Yes, arbitrarily as in #2."
Wrong. Read something.
"You know, there is really no need to cut and paste whole sale dictionary definitions. The meaning of any word is dependent on the context. Trying to apply Occam's Razor here is not appropriate at all. Third party means those links or people who support my view and not yours. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a coherent series of STATEMENTS leading from a premise to a conclusion". It's plural, not singular. And if you more evidence why you are wrong about an argument being a statement and not a series of statements, see http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm "
You are just insisting you are right when I did not say you were wrong, but still insist that I was wrong because your are right anyway.
"You interjected into my discussion with Tcmc, so why would it not be right for me to question you as well? This is not guerilla tactics whereby you just interject as and when you like and when pressed you say "what has that to do with me?" "
And you are causing confusion by bringing Tcmc to the topic of cruelty...
"So let's settle this once and for all, is being cruel good/right?
Being cruel(Causing pain or suffering) is neither right or wrong.
"And why the mere mention of your kids is tantamount to trolling is beyond comprehension. And why can't I or anyone advise you how to influence your kids? No one is taking over your role, just giving opinions on how to play it. In any case, let's remove your kids from this discussion since you are not comfortable with that."
The trolling here is your attempt to elicit an emotional reaction by invoking the personal part of your opponent which he/she values, when you can perfectly state your point without mention of such. E.g. Your mum really be something to have brought you up this way.
I have to assert again that its anyone's priviledge to say or type anything when anyone else have no rights or power to intervene. I seek the true nature beyond words."I already explained what "chewing the cud" means as far as the Biblical text is concerned.
Your link specified it as ruminant or refect behaviour in animals.
"It means to bring up. The point of that text is to tell the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or the coney. Critics are pointing that out as an error but as mentioned many times, it is not an error at all. I think you have missed that point and are overly fixated with whether rabbits are ruminants or not, or how we should decide which animal chews the cud. The Bible is not teaching us HOW to identify such, but has identified certain animals as forbidden even though they "chew the cud"."
To use "to bring up", all herbivorve are likely chewer of the cud as they eat the plants thats nurished by their own dung. I'm not concerned of what you think about me but what you may know. Its less of an error than a critical ambiguity. If its not meant for identifying, it would not be described. If its meant for identifying, people would know how to identify by "chewer of the cud".
"I already mention about the truce and not turning this into a slugfest so I am not going to address your allegations about me insulting you. Let's just agree that we were both guilty of it and let's just be nice, deal? I am extending the olive branch."
No. That would be collaborating with you on a false compromise.
"You need to divorce the issue talking about what creationists believe and their credibility. It is a fact (whether you recognise it or not) that creationists do not regard the Bible as a science textbook, and counting myself as one there was really no need to educate me on that. Nothing is mentioned about their authority or credibility, but just the fact of what they believe about the Bible. That's when you tried to discredit creationists as a whole."
If its a fact as you claim you'll need to back it up... as I happened to read about creation science before unfortunately. I need not discredit the creationists as the have none in voicing about what to use as a science text as a identity.
"I think I have already pointed out your fallacies. Remember you even mocked me for pointing out only two when you actually committed more?"
You point out to win arguments, I point out to measure the soundness of the argument. Don't even think of comparing me to you.
"Local context or not, why should a Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific explanation?"
Rephrase for the benefit of my poor understanding on your question.
"If you thought mentioning your kids doing science experiments with you is akin to you insulting my mother, then you are wrong. But like I said earlier, no slugfest so I am going to drop this."
Did I say the two should be similar? Where/ when/ how did I insult your mother? <umadbro?.jpg>
You are damn cute not to troll.... but you completely missed my point as you take offense. -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
hahaha. I have shown you verses before that your god does lie! And to reiterate, lying is not always bad!
EVen you god lies!
Really? Please show again the verses that God lied.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Weren't you the one who talked about beliefs when I was pointing out the problems with the notion of subjective truths? Well, since it was just the three of us, I don't presume you can speak for "everyone" who understood Tcmc right. But like I said, since she already finally conceded that objective truth exists, the case is closed, in my favour."
If you insist... Congratulations on winning favour from an internet argument, if Tcmc did ever concede as you meant to say.
"I would be interested to see how you actually stand on air i.e. plant your feet in mid-air. No wires please."
Stand on air. Plant your feet. No wires to lift the weight.
"Since you are unhappy with the examples of objective truth that I have pointed out, even though I see no problem at all with them, perhaps you like to give me one very good undisputable example that would support the notion that objective truth exists?"
Your are still arguing for objective truth, right? The definition of objective truth is objectivity and not affected by time. Your 1st inout was affected by time, the 2nd was subjective to the subject. Are you pleading with me? If yes, you are doing it wrong. If no, no obligations.
"Yes, arbitrarily as in #2."
Wrong. Read something.
"You know, there is really no need to cut and paste whole sale dictionary definitions. The meaning of any word is dependent on the context. Trying to apply Occam's Razor here is not appropriate at all. Third party means those links or people who support my view and not yours. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a coherent series of STATEMENTS leading from a premise to a conclusion". It's plural, not singular. And if you more evidence why you are wrong about an argument being a statement and not a series of statements, see http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/argument.htm "
You are just insisting you are right when I did not say you were wrong, but still insist that I was wrong because your are right anyway.
"You interjected into my discussion with Tcmc, so why would it not be right for me to question you as well? This is not guerilla tactics whereby you just interject as and when you like and when pressed you say "what has that to do with me?" "
And you are causing confusion by bringing Tcmc to the topic of cruelty...
"So let's settle this once and for all, is being cruel good/right?
Being cruel(Causing pain or suffering) is neither right or wrong.
"And why the mere mention of your kids is tantamount to trolling is beyond comprehension. And why can't I or anyone advise you how to influence your kids? No one is taking over your role, just giving opinions on how to play it. In any case, let's remove your kids from this discussion since you are not comfortable with that."
The trolling here is your attempt to elicit an emotional reaction by invoking the personal part of your opponent which he/she values, when you can perfectly state your point without mention of such. E.g. Your mum really be something to have brought you up this way.
I have to assert again that its anyone's priviledge to say or type anything when anyone else have no rights or power to intervene. I seek the true nature beyond words."I already explained what "chewing the cud" means as far as the Biblical text is concerned.
Your link specified it as ruminant or refect behaviour in animals.
"It means to bring up. The point of that text is to tell the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or the coney. Critics are pointing that out as an error but as mentioned many times, it is not an error at all. I think you have missed that point and are overly fixated with whether rabbits are ruminants or not, or how we should decide which animal chews the cud. The Bible is not teaching us HOW to identify such, but has identified certain animals as forbidden even though they "chew the cud"."
To use "to bring up", all herbivorve are likely chewer of the cud as they eat the plants thats nurished by their own dung. I'm not concerned of what you think about me but what you may know. Its less of an error than a critical ambiguity. If its not meant for identifying, it would not be described. If its meant for identifying, people would know how to identify by "chewer of the cud".
"I already mention about the truce and not turning this into a slugfest so I am not going to address your allegations about me insulting you. Let's just agree that we were both guilty of it and let's just be nice, deal? I am extending the olive branch."
No. That would be collaborating with you on a false compromise.
"You need to divorce the issue talking about what creationists believe and their credibility. It is a fact (whether you recognise it or not) that creationists do not regard the Bible as a science textbook, and counting myself as one there was really no need to educate me on that. Nothing is mentioned about their authority or credibility, but just the fact of what they believe about the Bible. That's when you tried to discredit creationists as a whole."
If its a fact as you claim you'll need to back it up... as I happened to read about creation science before unfortunately. I need not discredit the creationists as the have none in voicing about what to use as a science text as a identity.
"I think I have already pointed out your fallacies. Remember you even mocked me for pointing out only two when you actually committed more?"
You point out to win arguments, I point out to measure the soundness of the argument. Don't even think of comparing me to you.
"Local context or not, why should a Biblical answer be precluded from having a scientific explanation?"
Rephrase for the benefit of my poor understanding on your question.
"If you thought mentioning your kids doing science experiments with you is akin to you insulting my mother, then you are wrong. But like I said earlier, no slugfest so I am going to drop this."
Did I say the two should be similar? Where/ when/ how did I insult your mother? <umadbro?.jpg>
You are damn cute not to troll.... but you completely missed my point as you take offense.Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists, and that's the objective truth!
Using magnetic forces to hold you up (as substitute for wires) is not planting your feet in mid air. The same goes for using the law of aerodynamics to make planes fly. Nice try but no cookies. But I suppose you did not go one step further and ask why do these laws of nature exist and who established them?
Your definition of objective truth is grossly inadequate. Objective truth is that which really is, independent of place, time, feelings, perceptions etc. It refers to facts that are independent of whether anyone believes in them or not. As mentioned before, you have confused matters of beliefs (which can change over time) with matters of truth (which does not change over time). Both examples I gave were examples of objective truth which you failed to see.
But if I was right about an argument being a series of statements then why were you so reluctant to affirm it? You were wrong not merely because of my insistence that I am right, but because your error has been shown. An argument is NOT a statement (singular) but a series of statements (plural).
Why accuse me of causing confusion when Tcmc was the one who said God was cruel? Like I said, I was only asking Tcmc to justify her moral stance since atheism provides no basis for moral judgement.
Regarding being cruel see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty
Why would eliciting an emotional response from you when talking about things you value personally be tantamount to trolling? Is that even the defintion of trolling? Whatever happened to other defining factors, like being inflammatory?
My link more than just specified about ruminant or refection concerning the issue of cud chewing. Again the text is not teaching the how to of identifying animals that chew the cud, it is about telling the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or coney.
What false compromise are you talking about? Are you denying that you ever insulted me? I'm just telling you that we were both guilty of that and move on. But it seems that you prefer to continue hostilities.
Facts that back up my claim that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook can be found on these main creationist sites in the following http://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook or http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/can-creation-models-be-wrong
It is a fallacious appeal to motive that you accuse me of pointing out your fallacies to win the argument whereas you make out yours to be so noble sounding. But even if true, it does not invalidate the fact that you committed fallacies in your reasoning, which calls into question the soundness of your arguments. Not only that it amounts to you committing the fallacy of appeal to motive.
Whatever re the last point. Slugfest not entertained.
-
"Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists, and that's the objective truth!"
Conditional. Congratulations only if concede = true.
"Using magnetic forces to hold you up (as substitute for wires) is not planting your feet in mid air. The same goes for using the law of aerodynamics to make planes fly."
Raising the bar... saw it coming when you were unwilling to commit on the definitions.
"But I suppose you did not go one step further and ask why do these laws of nature exist and who established them?"
The respective science did not attempt to go further. I have no incentive or obligations to ask, but if it delights you, go ahead.
"Your definition of objective truth is grossly inadequate.
You had agreed to it previously... and now you say not adequate... Men... *sigh*
Objective truth is that which really is, independent of place, time, feelings, perceptions etc. It refers to facts that are independent of whether anyone believes in them or not. As mentioned before, you have confused matters of beliefs (which can change over time) with matters of truth (which does not change over time). Both examples I gave were examples of objective truth which you failed to see."
I repeat again. Your 1st example was affected by time. You 2nd example was a truth of the statement where it is subjective to the subject. Does not help your argument to add more definitions... One more time before ad nauseum...
"Why accuse me of causing confusion when Tcmc was the one who said God was cruel? Like I said, I was only asking Tcmc to justify her moral stance since atheism provides no basis for moral judgement."
What a confusion you have shown yourself to be in... Tcmc did not for the last ten pages of this thread. I was the one... if Tcmc ever did, tell me which page.
"Regarding being cruel see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty"
There is nothing moralistic regarding your link above. What is your point.
"Why would eliciting an emotional response from you when talking about things you value personally be tantamount to trolling? Is that even the defintion of trolling? Whatever happened to other defining factors, like being inflammatory?"
Troll.<--- click here to be educated so that you will be more initiated to find out more on the subject before asking stupid questions which lead you being spoon fed.
"My link more than just specified about ruminant or refection concerning the issue of cud chewing. Again the text is not teaching the how to of identifying animals that chew the cud, it is about telling the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or coney."
If the animals can be identified(rabbit, coneys, cows..), there are no reasons that the behaviours or appearance(chews cud, split hooves...) can't. Critical ambiguity. And I award you an ad nauseum.
"What false compromise are you talking about? Are you denying that you ever insulted me? I'm just telling you that we were both guilty of that and move on. But it seems that you prefer to continue hostilities."
You did not click the link in the word. I insult your hypocrisies. To compromise is to collaborate with the hypocrisies that I hate and would imply that I'm one. ����相为谋
"Facts that back up my claim that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook can be found on these main creationist sites in the following http://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook or http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/can-creation-models-be-wrong"
And you totally ignore the fact that there are creationists teaching creation science using the bible. *slow claps*
"It is a fallacious appeal to motive that you accuse me of pointing out your fallacies to win the argument whereas you make out yours to be so noble sounding. But even if true, it does not invalidate the fact that you committed fallacies in your reasoning, which calls into question the soundness of your arguments. Not only that it amounts to you committing the fallacy of appeal to motive."
Told you I'm not for winning arguments, I'm tearing down fallacious ones to build a reasonable communication standards, so that the discussion can yield better benefits. Is it so hard to believe...
"Whatever re the last point. Slugfest not entertained."
I did not insult your mother. Please take back your accusation.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists, and that's the objective truth!"
Conditional. Congratulations only if concede = true.
"Using magnetic forces to hold you up (as substitute for wires) is not planting your feet in mid air. The same goes for using the law of aerodynamics to make planes fly."
Raising the bar... saw it coming when you were unwilling to commit on the definitions.
"But I suppose you did not go one step further and ask why do these laws of nature exist and who established them?"
The respective science did not attempt to go further. I have no incentive or obligations to ask, but if it delights you, go ahead.
"Your definition of objective truth is grossly inadequate.
You had agreed to it previously... and now you say not adequate... Men... *sigh*
Objective truth is that which really is, independent of place, time, feelings, perceptions etc. It refers to facts that are independent of whether anyone believes in them or not. As mentioned before, you have confused matters of beliefs (which can change over time) with matters of truth (which does not change over time). Both examples I gave were examples of objective truth which you failed to see."
I repeat again. Your 1st example was affected by time. You 2nd example was a truth of the statement where it is subjective to the subject. Does not help your argument to add more definitions... One more time before ad nauseum...
brb
Again, Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists. Think about it: To say that there is no objective truth is already to presuppose there is, otherwise that claim is irrational.
I did not raise any bar. I made clear what is meant by feet firmly planted in mid-air. Your magnetic levitation and aeroplane do not fit at all and it misses the point. But ASSUMING that I grant your examples, does it mean relativism is true. Of course not.
Why the lack of obligation or incentive to ask where the laws of nature come from? Is it because you do not wish to see that the answer is ultimately philosophical, even theological but not scientific? Sciences cannot go beyond and ask why there are natural laws or who establish them is because that's beyond the capabilities of science. But that just mean that science is limited, we do not need to be limited in the same way. We can always ask further. To do science one has to PRESUPPOSE the existence and uniformity of these laws.
My first example was that my BELIEFS changed over time, but not the objective truth about my religious position in 1990. Same too with durians example. The objective truth is that I like durian in 1990 but hate it in 2000. My tastes changed but the truth did not. It would be objectively wrong to change it to say that I hate durian in 1990 but love it in 2000, that would be contradictory to the facts in the example.
-
Reserved... pending BIC's unreserved input.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I am not judging you, I am telling you what the Bible says. Unless you can tell me this is not what the Bible says?
The issue IS about the existence of hell! And you are equally being judgemental of me. Besides, I never claimed to be the one who decides who goes to hell. If you repent and turn to God, you will be saved as well. The choice in this life is YOURS. I am only telling you what the CONSEQUENCES are if you choose to rebel against God. How can telling you of the consequences of your actions be deemed judgemental? Can the drug pushers accuse you of being judgemental for telling him that if he smuggles drugs he will get the death penalty?
BIC
LOL. Similarly, the choice is yours to choose the Muslim heaven or the Greek one.
It's YOUR choice.
You know the consequences!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
LOL. Similarly, the choice is yours to choose the Muslim heaven or the Greek one.
It's YOUR choice.
You know the consequences!
The consequences depend upon the TRUTH. But then again, an atheist cannot account for the existence of truth.
-
There are a host of problems in an atheistic worldview based on philosophical naturalism that are self-refuting. The following includes a few examples:
1. The consistent atheist says there is nothing immaterial. Those who say otherwise can’t be atheists, as that would allow God, who is immaterial (John 4:24), to possibly exist. But this means that logic cannot exist either as it is immaterial (i.e., abstract). Logic has no mass and is universal (even the universe obeys the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction). Being made in the image of a logical God who created and sustains the universe makes sense. Of course, many people do not perform logic correctly. That is because we have lived in a sin-cursed world ever since Genesis 3. Our fallible, imperfect minds do not always correctly “think God’s thoughts after Him.” But in the atheistic viewpoint, how can one maintain that there is no immaterial and yet refer to the immaterial at the same time in the same relationship? Information is immaterial, Truth is also immaterial. Love, hate, sadness, and all other emotions are immaterial.
2. The consistent atheist says the universe came from nothing, is going to nothing, and nothing matters (i.e., no purpose). So why debate the subject of God, the Bible, Christianity, and so on (why have this purpose)? In other words, how can one have purpose and have no purpose at the same time in the same relationship?
3. The consistent atheist says there is no morality (since there is no God who sets an absolute standard of morality). Yet many atheists say there are some absolute moral standards, such as not to murder.
4. Science comes out of a Christian worldview where God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion (e.g., Genesis 8:22; Hebrews 1:3). And God, who knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 22:13), has declared that this consistency will be the same in the future until the end (Genesis 8:22), so we have a basis to do science since things like the laws of nature should not change (i.e., allowing repeatable and observable science). But why would that be the case in an atheistic evolutionary worldview? How can one know things won’t change tomorrow? Furthermore, how can one know that one accident could explain another accident? There is no basis for science in an atheistic worldview. How can one have no basis for science and yet do science?
Bottom line: Unbelievers must borrow from the biblical worldview to make sense of the world. They must betray their professed worldview and stand on the Bible’s truth to argue for atheism and oppose the Bible!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The consequences depend upon the TRUTH. But then again, an atheist cannot account for the existence of truth.
His word? Her word? My word?
Absolute Truth is 1+1 = 2 (Based on true integer value)
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
There are a host of problems in an atheistic worldview based on philosophical naturalism that are self-refuting. The following includes a few examples:
1. The consistent atheist says there is nothing immaterial. Those who say otherwise can’t be atheists, as that would allow God, who is immaterial (John 4:24), to possibly exist. But this means that logic cannot exist either as it is immaterial (i.e., abstract). Logic has no mass and is universal (even the universe obeys the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction). Being made in the image of a logical God who created and sustains the universe makes sense. Of course, many people do not perform logic correctly. That is because we have lived in a sin-cursed world ever since Genesis 3. Our fallible, imperfect minds do not always correctly “think God’s thoughts after Him.” But in the atheistic viewpoint, how can one maintain that there is no immaterial and yet refer to the immaterial at the same time in the same relationship? Information is immaterial, Truth is also immaterial. Love, hate, sadness, and all other emotions are immaterial.
2. The consistent atheist says the universe came from nothing, is going to nothing, and nothing matters (i.e., no purpose). So why debate the subject of God, the Bible, Christianity, and so on (why have this purpose)? In other words, how can one have purpose and have no purpose at the same time in the same relationship?
3. The consistent atheist says there is no morality (since there is no God who sets an absolute standard of morality). Yet many atheists say there are some absolute moral standards, such as not to murder.
4. Science comes out of a Christian worldview where God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion (e.g., Genesis 8:22; Hebrews 1:3). And God, who knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 22:13), has declared that this consistency will be the same in the future until the end (Genesis 8:22), so we have a basis to do science since things like the laws of nature should not change (i.e., allowing repeatable and observable science). But why would that be the case in an atheistic evolutionary worldview? How can one know things won’t change tomorrow? Furthermore, how can one know that one accident could explain another accident? There is no basis for science in an atheistic worldview. How can one have no basis for science and yet do science?
Bottom line: Unbelievers must borrow from the biblical worldview to make sense of the world. They must betray their professed worldview and stand on the Bible’s truth to argue for atheism and oppose the Bible!
1. Strange. Many Buddhists say that they believe in the immaterial. Energy is immaterial, yet we can study it. The real problem is in regards to existence. Whether it can be observed and studied. How know if the observations seen are only because of 1 explanation, or can other explanations properly explain it.
2. Most I know would say that, while Science is trying to understand what is going on at time very close to the start of the universe, they do not yet know how the universe came into existence. Neither do scientists say that the universe is going into nothing, or that nothing matters.3. Once again, not that I've heard of. Morals, by definition are what people perceive as principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethicality. Every one has their own idea. Just as different Christians (and all other religions as well) have different ideas of morality, so do atheists. (Euthanasia, divorcing, marriage, slavery, skin color, etc.?)
Also, if your God is your idea of what goodness is, how do you know he is really good? Was good defined before God? Was good defined by God? Why are certain actions defined as so?4. The entire idea of Science is to try to make sense of the world, to find patterns. If there were be change, scientists will try to understand it and why. Of course, by your logic, atheists would have absolutely no basis on why things wouldn't change radically all of sudden tomorrow. So far in the history of the world, that has yet to happen though.
The idea of Science is to predict, observe, explain, and predict some more. Scientists do not have 100% certainty that some is or something will happen, but they have a pretty good understanding of what would happen from past observations.
For example, I can say now that I predict you will disagree with my statements. Whether or not this is true, I have to wait and see, and then alter it accordingly to have a better psychological analysis of you. This is what Science is. How would I know you wouldn't radically or minutely change before I complete your analysis of at this very moment? I don't know. It is just a premise or assumption that I have to work on. Until otherwise shown that my premise is false, I am just assuming it to be true. -
Originally posted by Nelstar:
His word? Her word? My word?
Absolute Truth is 1+1 = 2 (Based on true integer value)
Indeed, absolute truth exists. We all know that and live by that all the time. Problem is, atheism CANNOT account for the existence of truth. They can surely affirm it, but they cannot account for it. That's my point.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Bottom line: Unbelievers must borrow from the biblical worldview to make sense of the world. They must betray their professed worldview and stand on the Bible’s truth to argue for atheism and oppose the Bible!
Right.
Make them read. Propaganda works best this way.
Insist they must read Bible.
It is as good as saying, "My faeces taste good. You must betray your nose telling you the taste is horrible. You must eat it first before you can argue it taste horrible." -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Indeed, absolute truth exists. We all know that and live by that all the time. Problem is, atheism CANNOT account for the existence of truth. They can surely affirm it, but they cannot account for it. That's my point.
I see your point.
However, your point suffers when you mix truth with faith. Account for the faith and account for the truth are not really the same.
Faith is believing. It is a process.
Truth does not requires believing. It is a state.
You are suggesting that they cannot prove that your faith is falsified but you are claiming it that it is already truth when you cannot prove to them that their beliefs are falsified either.
Getting them to acceptance does not mean it changes the process into a state. It just changes the side which they believe.Instantly stating it as a truth is like saying you had proven their beliefs are falsified through scientific methods where intervention of any type cannot change the state of justification.
-
Based on TS original subject and first post.
A physical count contains 20 questions.I believed, you might consolidate your points rather than throw more than 6 questions and then cause readers to wonder why you ask so many and which six of these questions you want answered.
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life?
3. If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?
4. Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end?
5. How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier?
6. If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?
7. If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?
8. If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning, so why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault?
9. When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it. In other words, what set of actions are consistent with particular belief commitments?
10. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved,so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer?
11. Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
12. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most?
13. Whose voice will be heard?
14. Whose tastes or preferences will be honored?
15. In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway?
16. Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong?
17. Where do those standards come from?
18. If there is no God, we don’t make sense, so how do we explain human longings and desire for the transcendent?
19. How do we even explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty?
20. Why do we hunger for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing can exist beyond the material world?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists, and that's the objective truth!"
Conditional. Congratulations only if concede = true.
"Using magnetic forces to hold you up (as substitute for wires) is not planting your feet in mid air. The same goes for using the law of aerodynamics to make planes fly."
Raising the bar... saw it coming when you were unwilling to commit on the definitions.
"But I suppose you did not go one step further and ask why do these laws of nature exist and who established them?"
The respective science did not attempt to go further. I have no incentive or obligations to ask, but if it delights you, go ahead.
"Your definition of objective truth is grossly inadequate.
You had agreed to it previously... and now you say not adequate... Men... *sigh*
Objective truth is that which really is, independent of place, time, feelings, perceptions etc. It refers to facts that are independent of whether anyone believes in them or not. As mentioned before, you have confused matters of beliefs (which can change over time) with matters of truth (which does not change over time). Both examples I gave were examples of objective truth which you failed to see."
I repeat again. Your 1st example was affected by time. You 2nd example was a truth of the statement where it is subjective to the subject. Does not help your argument to add more definitions... One more time before ad nauseum...
"Why accuse me of causing confusion when Tcmc was the one who said God was cruel? Like I said, I was only asking Tcmc to justify her moral stance since atheism provides no basis for moral judgement."
What a confusion you have shown yourself to be in... Tcmc did not for the last ten pages of this thread. I was the one... if Tcmc ever did, tell me which page.
"Regarding being cruel see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty"
There is nothing moralistic regarding your link above. What is your point.
"Why would eliciting an emotional response from you when talking about things you value personally be tantamount to trolling? Is that even the defintion of trolling? Whatever happened to other defining factors, like being inflammatory?"
Troll.<--- click here to be educated so that you will be more initiated to find out more on the subject before asking stupid questions which lead you being spoon fed.
"My link more than just specified about ruminant or refection concerning the issue of cud chewing. Again the text is not teaching the how to of identifying animals that chew the cud, it is about telling the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or coney."
If the animals can be identified(rabbit, coneys, cows..), there are no reasons that the behaviours or appearance(chews cud, split hooves...) can't. Critical ambiguity. And I award you an ad nauseum.
"What false compromise are you talking about? Are you denying that you ever insulted me? I'm just telling you that we were both guilty of that and move on. But it seems that you prefer to continue hostilities."
You did not click the link in the word. I insult your hypocrisies. To compromise is to collaborate with the hypocrisies that I hate and would imply that I'm one. ����相为谋
"Facts that back up my claim that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook can be found on these main creationist sites in the following http://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook or http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/can-creation-models-be-wrong"
And you totally ignore the fact that there are creationists teaching creation science using the bible. *slow claps*
"It is a fallacious appeal to motive that you accuse me of pointing out your fallacies to win the argument whereas you make out yours to be so noble sounding. But even if true, it does not invalidate the fact that you committed fallacies in your reasoning, which calls into question the soundness of your arguments. Not only that it amounts to you committing the fallacy of appeal to motive."
Told you I'm not for winning arguments, I'm tearing down fallacious ones to build a reasonable communication standards, so that the discussion can yield better benefits. Is it so hard to believe...
"Whatever re the last point. Slugfest not entertained."
I did not insult your mother. Please take back your accusation.
OK, you were right, you were the one who said that God was cruel. This is what you said, "So are you saying the other lifeforms suffered mortality because of one man sin? Conclusion: God is cruel to impose such suffering to other lifeforms on the 1st mistake that man supposedly made." So you are telling me that you were NOT making a moral judgement about God being cruel but just stating something neutral? I don't see how you can maintain this. The point is that people with a properly working moral compass all agree that being cruel is morally wrong. But now you said it is neither good or evil?
I know what the definition of troll is, I am challenging YOUR accusation that the mere emotional response you have to my talking about your kids is tantamount to trolling. Mind you I wasn't even badmouthing them. But I am willing to let this pass so that we can move on.
Concerning the "chewing the cud" issue, what critical ambiguity are you talking about really? As mentioned ad nauseum to you, the context was about the kind of animals that are considered unclean to the Israelites. They were to eat only those that chew the cud AND have divided hoofs, but not if only one of the conditions were met, as with the rabbit and coney.
Whether you insult me or my alleged hypocrises, the fact is that you DID insult. But like I said, I am not going to continue this slugfest, though you have trampled and spit on my olive branch that was extended to you, justifying that as a refusal to compromise.
You are CONFUSED between treating the Bible as a science textbook and using the Bible to inform our scientific study of the world. The Bible is NOT a science textbook. It is a HISTORY book as it tells us about beginnings, and also a futuristic one as it informs us of the end to come.
Yes, I find it hard to believe that you are not here to win arguments. If you were that conscious of tearing down your opponent's fallacies, then why are your posts peppered with such fallacies as well, to the extent that you mocked me for not pointing out more which you committed? Pretty inconsistent, aren't you?
And whether you intend to insult mother or not, I'm going let it pass. If you did not, then your conscience is clear. And if you did, I'm letting it go and choosing not to hold it against you. So you have absolutely nothing to lose and is walking out of this. A good deal really, win win for you.
-
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:
1. Strange. Many Buddhists say that they believe in the immaterial. Energy is immaterial, yet we can study it. The real problem is in regards to existence. Whether it can be observed and studied. How know if the observations seen are only because of 1 explanation, or can other explanations properly explain it.
2. Most I know would say that, while Science is trying to understand what is going on at time very close to the start of the universe, they do not yet know how the universe came into existence. Neither do scientists say that the universe is going into nothing, or that nothing matters.3. Once again, not that I've heard of. Morals, by definition are what people perceive as principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethicality. Every one has their own idea. Just as different Christians (and all other religions as well) have different ideas of morality, so do atheists. (Euthanasia, divorcing, marriage, slavery, skin color, etc.?)
Also, if your God is your idea of what goodness is, how do you know he is really good? Was good defined before God? Was good defined by God? Why are certain actions defined as so?4. The entire idea of Science is to try to make sense of the world, to find patterns. If there were be change, scientists will try to understand it and why. Of course, by your logic, atheists would have absolutely no basis on why things wouldn't change radically all of sudden tomorrow. So far in the history of the world, that has yet to happen though.
The idea of Science is to predict, observe, explain, and predict some more. Scientists do not have 100% certainty that some is or something will happen, but they have a pretty good understanding of what would happen from past observations.
For example, I can say now that I predict you will disagree with my statements. Whether or not this is true, I have to wait and see, and then alter it accordingly to have a better psychological analysis of you. This is what Science is. How would I know you wouldn't radically or minutely change before I complete your analysis of at this very moment? I don't know. It is just a premise or assumption that I have to work on. Until otherwise shown that my premise is false, I am just assuming it to be true.1. Yes, science studies cause and effect. And from the effects we can infer certain things about the cause(s). Once we have postulated possible causes we can examine them further to narrow down the plausible ones, and arrive at that which is the best explanation.
2. What science has recently confirmed is that the beginning verse of the Bible is absolutely true, that time, space & matter has a beginning. And the book of Genesis dates back thousands of years. Yes, there are many things that science is still discovering, but no discovered fact would contradict the Bible, though the INTERPRETATIONS of these facts may.
3. Question is, are moral values a matter of one's opinions i.e. we decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, or are they objectively revealed by God. Morality is not to be confused with skin colour, that would be to commit the is-ought fallacy. And to answer your question, God IS good. Goodness is God's nature. So what God says or commands is an expression of His good and morally perfect nature.
4. Question is, why is the universe so intelligible? Why are there uniform laws of nature? Who established them? Atheism CANNOT account or explain this at all. Science has to presuppose them and assume that these laws of nature will hold in the future just as they were so in the past. But nothing in the philosophy of atheism will explain why this ought to be so.
