Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Explain? I'll just let the Bible speaks for itself.
It is written, "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the opening. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man." Genesis 2:21
Now would you be so kind as to tell me why the above is illogical and false?
God bless you.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
here's many laughs for the troll BIC
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
From the beginning, your arguments are just as flawed as your understanding.
Can you destroy the universe? If you can't, how can you claimed it was created?You talk about everything having a cause, and instead of understanding why people refuse to accept unproven information. You keep insisting there must be a cause. There are many people who can accept that unproven information are a waste of time.
If humans can clone animals, why can't humanity be a clone of another homo sapien species outside earth? Why must it be God? Why must God exists? Can you prove God's existence?I'm not atheist if you realized, but I'm agnostic. That means whether or not they are true or false, I don't really have a problem with either. I don't really have a problem with atheists, they don't preach to me daily to do good for God. They don't care and they won't ask me to join either. You are a typical example of the Christians who goes about preaching without understanding that we cannot be bothered with your unproven information that you read from your Bible. You are the same example of Christians who cannot accept that there are people who can live without God, be morally acceptable (without your Godly standards) and still sleep peacefully without worrying about death, without asking themselves questions whether their lives was worth it.
What I cannot accept is your lack of understanding that your arguments are just as flawed as the guy who insisted on Darwin's evolution.Your method of insisting that we must definitely have an answer to life by tying it to a figure, unit, some random possibility.
Do you really need a "cause" to live your life? If yes, and if Bible is good for you, I have no qualms.Do I need to justify my existence is due to God? Do I need to prove afterlife? Not really and I really don't care. I don't need to. I am proven by science that I exist. Can you prove my existence is due to God? Go ahead and try, I'll laugh at you as much as I laughed at you from the start.
On the contrary, it is your arguments that are flawed.
1. What has the claim that the universe was created got to do with my ability to destroy it? This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis.
2. I did not say that everything has a cause. This is your strawman fallacy. I said that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Reasoning from effects to causes or is how science works, in case you don't know. Even if the cause is unknown, no scientist will say there is no cause. It's a matter of logic and common sense which you seem uncomfortable with.
3. If you wish to argue that some other beings created humans, then go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I believe God created humans, just like what the Bible says. I only need to defend this view, not defend other hypothetical views that your fertile imaginative mind can conceive of. Any being capable of creating the universe is God, and this is also what most people would mean by that term.
4. No, I don't know that you are an agnostic. But then again, many agnostics are really atheists under the guise of epistemic humility. And so what if atheists don't preach to you about God, why should they anyway since they are atheists? You claimed that the Bible is unproven information, yet it is a claim that can only be made from a position of ignorance. I can certainly accept that there are people who are indifferent and apathetic about God, morality or the afterlife. But then again, the Bible does not tell us to be just as indifferent and apathetic about these people. Sorry, you just have to live with and accept and understand the fact that Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel.
5. In what way are my arguments just as flawed as the evolutionist's? Please elaborate to help my understanding which you say I lack.
6. Like it or not, the truth of the matter is that people are seeking for answers to life, meaning and purpose. And for the few (like you) who don't out of sheer apathy, that does not invalidate the questions or the answers.
7. LOL that you need science to prove your existence. I don't. Most people don't. In fact for much of our daily routines we do not need science to prove the existence of things we see or touch. I can't prove to you that God created you, it's a matter of history. But I would argue that UNLESS God exists, you don't. Since you have been mocking and scoffing at me right from the start, I suppose all my answers to you were just casting pearls before swine then. But nevermind, perhaps these answers would be better appreciated by those of a more noble mind.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
It is a fact, because part of christianity is from judaism. Practices, name of god (yahweh), OT scriptures, moses, adam and eve.
All these are judaic religious characters/traditions. That is why it is a fact that part of christianity is derived or adapted from an older religion. Jesus also went to synagogues and only used the OT scriptures, my friend.
I never disprove christianity using its source. My point to you is christianity is adapted. I am nto saying whether that is right or wrong. As for you, you just have to acknowledge it is adapted from judaism.
Again I ask, So what? What's your point? What are you driving at? Or you just want me to acknowledge it so you feel good? Ego boost needed?
Judaism is the religion of the Jews, so yes, Christianity has Jewish roots. But more importantly we need to see where both are different. Both Christianity and Judaism share the same Scriptures with regards to the OT. The difference is Jesus. Christianity is derived from the Person of Christ. Jesus quoted the OT no doubt, but His teachings were enscripturated into NT teaching not long after.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
another learning point today :)
You are good student. So what did you learn today?
-
"Wrong. My point about relativism was not a strawman. Tcmc was arguing for relativism, but then she saw where it was going and agreed that there are objective truths. If that is not conceding the argument I don't know what is."
Tcmc or anyone but you wasn't arguing for relativism, thus strawman. You have misunderstood what she's trying to say.
"I have elaborate a lot already on why theism is reasonable and why atheism is not."
I believe you still have alot ot say...
"And you failed to quote the earlier part which says "Normally, a single statement in isolation does not constitute an argument, but simply a declaration or assertion." "
The context and premise was understood.
"You are confused concerning objective truth and the part about it being independent of time. What it means is that if the fact is that you were born in 1990, then it can't be that 20 years later the truth changes that you were born in 1980. Geddit? And I mentioned this before, the fact that people can be wrong about anything PRESUPPOSES the existence of objective truth. Relativism or subjective truth means no one can ever be wrong since what's true for you is not true for me."
No, I was using your definition all along... so how is it related to relativism?
"I have already clarified my intention, it was merely using your kids as an example. Why would asking you to do experiments with your kids be trolling? 5 kids = 5 experiments = 5 outcomes. Scientific method is repeatable. Problem is that you get personal when there was no need to, though I can understand it would be upsetting for you to be told 5 times by your kids that you are wrong about plants needing nutrients from dead animals in order to grow. They don't NEED it."
Intentions... your intentions. Can you describe your intentions? I thank you again for correcting my misread. I'll appreciate if you can be honest on your communications. At least there are such things as honest troll...
"No one uses Lev 11:3 to determine which animal chews the cud. Lev 11 already is informing the Israelites what they can or cannot eat, animals that they would typically encounter in their daily lives and is not meant to identify every living animal species under the sky that chews the cud. It seems so desperate that you have to ignore what I said and harp on things beyond what the Bible text is trying to communicate."
The single sentence was to identify the coney. "Chewer of the cud" was describing it. Its ok if you cannot describe the behaviour "chewer of the cud" in current terms.... forget it then, I go find out from other sources.
"What I have written I have written. If what I have written are hypocrisies, then so are yours."
Whatever floats your boat....
"Again I said it before, creationists are NOT using the Bible as a science textbook, but using it to inform us about how we should go about doing science, and providing the lenses through which we interpret the observational data. Mind you we are talking primarily about HISTORICAL science here, not operational science."
Science is... science.
Unless otherwise defined,
noun1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of factsor truths systematically arranged and showing the operationof general laws: the mathematical sciences.2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material worldgained through observation and experimentation.3.4.systematized knowledge in general.5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained bysystematicThe context was still science, I assume it to be understood."Pointed out your fallacies I did, however much you want to deny."You did, however incorrectly... You made me sympathise with your handicap in logical capacity. Its really up to you to believe what is what."And re the last point, I already said I am not going for a slugfest."If it missed your attention what you have started with other users here, I'll try to be understanding in your inability to self reflect very much. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Again I ask, So what? What's your point? What are you driving at? Or you just want me to acknowledge it so you feel good? Ego boost needed?
Judaism is the religion of the Jews, so yes, Christianity has Jewish roots. But more importantly we need to see where both are different. Both Christianity and Judaism share the same Scriptures with regards to the OT. The difference is Jesus. Christianity is derived from the Person of Christ. Jesus quoted the OT no doubt, but His teachings were enscripturated into NT teaching not long after.
BIC
No you were asking me why it is a fact that christianity is adapted from judaism, so I explained it to you.
So yea it's a fact that christianity is a branch/adapted from judaism. I do recognise the differences too. That is why it's called a BRANCH.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
On the contrary, it is your arguments that are flawed.
1. What has the claim that the universe was created got to do with my ability to destroy it? This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis.
2. I did not say that everything has a cause. This is your strawman fallacy. I said that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Reasoning from effects to causes or is how science works, in case you don't know. Even if the cause is unknown, no scientist will say there is no cause. It's a matter of logic and common sense which you seem uncomfortable with.
3. If you wish to argue that some other beings created humans, then go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I believe God created humans, just like what the Bible says. I only need to defend this view, not defend other hypothetical views that your fertile imaginative mind can conceive of. Any being capable of creating the universe is God, and this is also what most people would mean by that term.
4. No, I don't know that you are an agnostic. But then again, many agnostics are really atheists under the guise of epistemic humility. And so what if atheists don't preach to you about God, why should they anyway since they are atheists? You claimed that the Bible is unproven information, yet it is a claim that can only be made from a position of ignorance. I can certainly accept that there are people who are indifferent and apathetic about God, morality or the afterlife. But then again, the Bible does not tell us to be just as indifferent and apathetic about these people. Sorry, you just have to live with and accept and understand the fact that Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel.
5. In what way are my arguments just as flawed as the evolutionist's? Please elaborate to help my understanding which you say I lack.
6. Like it or not, the truth of the matter is that people are seeking for answers to life, meaning and purpose. And for the few (like you) who don't out of sheer apathy, that does not invalidate the questions or the answers.
7. LOL that you need science to prove your existence. I don't. Most people don't. In fact for much of our daily routines we do not need science to prove the existence of things we see or touch. I can't prove to you that God created you, it's a matter of history. But I would argue that UNLESS God exists, you don't. Since you have been mocking and scoffing at me right from the start, I suppose all my answers to you were just casting pearls before swine then. But nevermind, perhaps these answers would be better appreciated by those of a more noble mind.
On the contrary, it is your arguments that are flawed.
1. What has the claim that the universe was created got to do with my ability to destroy it? This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis.
2. I did not say that everything has a cause. This is your strawman fallacy. I said that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Reasoning from effects to causes or is how science works, in case you don't know. Even if the cause is unknown, no scientist will say there is no cause. It's a matter of logic and common sense which you seem uncomfortable with.
3. If you wish to argue that some other beings created humans, then go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I believe God created humans, just like what the Bible says. I only need to defend this view, not defend other hypothetical views that your fertile imaginative mind can conceive of. Any being capable of creating the universe is God, and this is also what most people would mean by that term.
4. No, I don't know that you are an agnostic. But then again, many agnostics are really atheists under the guise of epistemic humility. And so what if atheists don't preach to you about God, why should they anyway since they are atheists? You claimed that the Bible is unproven information, yet it is a claim that can only be made from a position of ignorance. I can certainly accept that there are people who are indifferent and apathetic about God, morality or the afterlife. But then again, the Bible does not tell us to be just as indifferent and apathetic about these people. Sorry, you just have to live with and accept and understand the fact that Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel.
5. In what way are my arguments just as flawed as the evolutionist's? Please elaborate to help my understanding which you say I lack.
6. Like it or not, the truth of the matter is that people are seeking for answers to life, meaning and purpose. And for the few (like you) who don't out of sheer apathy, that does not invalidate the questions or the answers.
7. LOL that you need science to prove your existence. I don't. Most people don't. In fact for much of our daily routines we do not need science to prove the existence of things we see or touch. I can't prove to you that God created you, it's a matter of history. But I would argue that UNLESS God exists, you don't. Since you have been mocking and scoffing at me right from the start, I suppose all my answers to you were just casting pearls before swine then. But nevermind, perhaps these answers would be better appreciated by those of a more noble mind.
1 and 3. If the universe can be created, it does not have to be created by a God. Just as much as you insist it has to be created by a God, you don't have scientific evidence that God creates the universe. Similarly, you are judging that it has to be created by God because you cannot deduce any scientific possible reasons at the moment. That does not rule out any scientific possibility that it can be created by any other being or event. The thought just didn't sit well with you, does not mean it is not a possibility. Unless you have a scientific evidences that eliminates all possibilities leading outside the possibility of universe is created by God, your argument is a strawman fallacy itself because there is no scientific evidence that God exists. For this, I will laugh at you.
4. Now, you say that my claim that the Bible is unproven information is made from a position of ignorance. Can you say that your position is made from a position of knowledge? Scientific knowledge? Or faith? Absolute truth? You are so funny, it makes me think you make the funniest claims ever. You are always so dogmatic, claiming that others are ignorant. Ignorant of your faith or ignorant of science? You say you are not all-knowing but you insist that my claim is from a position of ignorance. So which is which? You know that God exists because you can prove that by Science? Or you know that God exists because I cannot prove that he doesn't by Science?
5. Can you prove God's existence through scientific means? Can you prove Evolution's occurrence through scientific means? You can't see the link?
6. It invalidates your answers because it is not a scientific answer. Simple as that. No matter how much you argue, you did not prove that God's existence through scientific means. What you did is just trying to nitpick.
7. UNLESS God exists, you don't - Greatest joke from the clown. I had my fair share of discussions with other Christians, while they are aware that Science cannot prove God does not exists, they can debate their beliefs that we need faith to lead our lives.
Finally, another one:
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Wrong. My point about relativism was not a strawman. Tcmc was arguing for relativism, but then she saw where it was going and agreed that there are objective truths. If that is not conceding the argument I don't know what is."
Tcmc or anyone but you wasn't arguing for relativism, thus strawman. You have misunderstood what she's trying to say.
"I have elaborate a lot already on why theism is reasonable and why atheism is not."
I believe you still have alot ot say...
"And you failed to quote the earlier part which says "Normally, a single statement in isolation does not constitute an argument, but simply a declaration or assertion." "
The context and premise was understood.
"You are confused concerning objective truth and the part about it being independent of time. What it means is that if the fact is that you were born in 1990, then it can't be that 20 years later the truth changes that you were born in 1980. Geddit? And I mentioned this before, the fact that people can be wrong about anything PRESUPPOSES the existence of objective truth. Relativism or subjective truth means no one can ever be wrong since what's true for you is not true for me."
No, I was using your definition all along... so how is it related to relativism?
"I have already clarified my intention, it was merely using your kids as an example. Why would asking you to do experiments with your kids be trolling? 5 kids = 5 experiments = 5 outcomes. Scientific method is repeatable. Problem is that you get personal when there was no need to, though I can understand it would be upsetting for you to be told 5 times by your kids that you are wrong about plants needing nutrients from dead animals in order to grow. They don't NEED it."
Intentions... your intentions. Can you describe your intentions? I thank you again for correcting my misread. I'll appreciate if you can be honest on your communications. At least there are such things as honest troll...
"No one uses Lev 11:3 to determine which animal chews the cud. Lev 11 already is informing the Israelites what they can or cannot eat, animals that they would typically encounter in their daily lives and is not meant to identify every living animal species under the sky that chews the cud. It seems so desperate that you have to ignore what I said and harp on things beyond what the Bible text is trying to communicate."
The single sentence was to identify the coney. "Chewer of the cud" was describing it. Its ok if you cannot describe the behaviour "chewer of the cud" in current terms.... forget it then, I go find out from other sources.
"What I have written I have written. If what I have written are hypocrisies, then so are yours."
Whatever floats your boat....
"Again I said it before, creationists are NOT using the Bible as a science textbook, but using it to inform us about how we should go about doing science, and providing the lenses through which we interpret the observational data. Mind you we are talking primarily about HISTORICAL science here, not operational science."
Science is... science.
Unless otherwise defined,
noun1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of factsor truths systematically arranged and showing the operationof general laws: the mathematical sciences.2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material worldgained through observation and experimentation.3.4.systematized knowledge in general.5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained bysystematicThe context was still science, I assume it to be understood."Pointed out your fallacies I did, however much you want to deny."You did, however incorrectly... You made me sympathise with your handicap in logical capacity. Its really up to you to believe what is what."And re the last point, I already said I am not going for a slugfest."If it missed your attention what you have started with other users here, I'll try to be understanding in your inability to self reflect very much.1. Nope. It is you who have misunderstood the whole issue between Tcmc and myself. There was no strawman on my part nor any misunderstanding. Tcmc was harping about subjective truths, and relativism is simply another term for it. Please read up more here http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/
2. Suffice to say that definition wise, statement =/= argument, vice versa. An argument IS NOT a statement (thought it CAN be in certain contexts). An argument IS a serious of connected statements called premises and conclusion. Nuff' said on this.
3. If you were indeed using my definition all along, then you clearly were confused or misunderstood. As to how is it related to relativism, it simply shows that relativism is false. If something is true, it cannot be true for you but not for me.
4. Putting the troll label on me will not stick as it cannot be justified. Anyway it's ad hominem.
5. As mentioned ad nauseum, the phrase "chew the cud" IN THE BIBLE is not meant to communicate science or animal biology in today's meaning. To tease this purpose out for yourself is to misuse the Bible.
6. If you are going to narrow your understanding of science by just what the dictionary says, then that is being very myopic. You mentioned being informed about creation literature, are you telling me that you have no idea the distinction we often made between historical and operational science?The question of origins falls under the former. But what evolutionists often do is to equivocate on the term science. Just because we reject their view of evolution (historical science) they say we reject science (operational science). See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/10/logical-fallacies-equivocation
7. I certainly did not point out your fallacies incorrectly. And I see that you are still bent on hurling insults.
8. I said it before, my truce was with you. For Tcmc and the rest, I said it was different strokes for different folks. Or do you prefer a slugfest? I do not doubt your ability to mock, insult or ridicule which you have very much demonstrated here. Where do you wanna go with that? There's a difference between wanting to raise communication standards and raising the standards of argument. The latter would be more of pointing out fallacies, whereas the former would be that people communicate clearer and better. You are doing neither.
-
Originally posted by TrueSon:
God bless you.
Why are you cheering fables and legends?
To me, the fable of Monkey God or Hercules is similar to the Jewish fables in the bible.
All of them are Supernatural And happened a LONG LONG TIME AGO!
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
1 and 3. If the universe can be created, it does not have to be created by a God. Just as much as you insist it has to be created by a God, you don't have scientific evidence that God creates the universe. Similarly, you are judging that it has to be created by God because you cannot deduce any scientific possible reasons at the moment. That does not rule out any scientific possibility that it can be created by any other being or event. The thought just didn't sit well with you, does not mean it is not a possibility. Unless you have a scientific evidences that eliminates all possibilities leading outside the possibility of universe is created by God, your argument is a strawman fallacy itself because there is no scientific evidence that God exists. For this, I will laugh at you.
4. Now, you say that my claim that the Bible is unproven information is made from a position of ignorance. Can you say that your position is made from a position of knowledge? Scientific knowledge? Or faith? Absolute truth? You are so funny, it makes me think you make the funniest claims ever. You are always so dogmatic, claiming that others are ignorant. Ignorant of your faith or ignorant of science? You say you are not all-knowing but you insist that my claim is from a position of ignorance. So which is which? You know that God exists because you can prove that by Science? Or you know that God exists because I cannot prove that he doesn't by Science?
5. Can you prove God's existence through scientific means? Can you prove Evolution's occurrence through scientific means? You can't see the link?
6. It invalidates your answers because it is not a scientific answer. Simple as that. No matter how much you argue, you did not prove that God's existence through scientific means. What you did is just trying to nitpick.
7. UNLESS God exists, you don't - Greatest joke from the clown. I had my fair share of discussions with other Christians, while they are aware that Science cannot prove God does not exists, they can debate their beliefs that we need faith to lead our lives.
Finally, another one:
1. It seems that you do realise that it all boils down to BELIEF. The Christian BELIEVES God created the universe. The atheist BELIEVES that the universe made itself. NOBODY has scientific evidence either way, and that's the point! Which is why it is a matter, or a battle of beliefs, and the atheist has got it all WRONG by insisting that science has proven that there is no God or that creation is false. If you insist that God does not exist because there is no scientific evidence for God, then it is your ignorance about the nature of scientific enquiry that is made into a laughing stock. I think the thought that God created does not sit well with you, ya? Not only that you failed to understand what is a strawman fallacy, which is laughable considering that you seemed to pretend that you know. Mind you, it is not because I cannot think of anything that might have caused the universe that I therefore say "God did it". This is your strawman God-of-the-Gaps argument. That which caused the universe to exists and created time, space, and matter must itself be timeless, immaterial (spirit), and all powerful. No one else but God fits the bill. You know honestly that the answer is God but you REFUSE to submit to the truth but instead choose to put your faith in some future hope that science would give the answer. That's being wilfully ignorant.
2. Indeed for you to say that the Bible is unproven information is a declaration of ignorance because it shows no knowledge of the opinions of scholars and those in academia or those in the various fields of studies who have concluded that the Bible is reliable and supported by historical, scientific, and archaeological evidences. I made my conclusion on what I have researched and read, which is certainly from a position of knowledge compared to yours. There's nothing wrong with being dogmatic. You are also being dogmatic about what science can do and that there is no evidence for God. The question is whether your dogmatism is justified, and it certainly isn't. Do you need science to prove that a painter exists when you see a painting? No, it's common sense. The best explanation for the painting is that there is a painter.
3. I said it before on this forum, that science CANNOT prove the existence or non-existence of God. For you to challenge me to prove God's existence by science is thus absurd. The same with molecules to man evolution. Science CANNOT prove that at all. Which is why, if you are at all even the slightest knowledgeable about the creationist arguments, we say that this is not about the science, but a matter of worldviews and beliefs. We are correcting the atheists' propaganda that it is all a matter of science. It is not. Having said that, I have thus no obligation to prove God's existence to you scientifically. So your challenge is moot and meaningless. All I am showing is that it is reasonable to believe that God created the universe and that faith is rational.
4. You FAILED to understand transcendental logic and thus mock that which you are ignorant of. That's the scoffing of a fool, which befits your style of a court jester. Please educate yourself here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Evidence_for_God_from_Logic
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
No you were asking me why it is a fact that christianity is adapted from judaism, so I explained it to you.
So yea it's a fact that christianity is a branch/adapted from judaism. I do recognise the differences too. That is why it's called a BRANCH.
I am more of the view that both Judaism and Christianity are branches of the same tree, though I think it would be more correct to say that Christianity branched off from Biblical Judaism. Modern Judaism is not really the same as Biblical Judaism, just like many forms of Christianity do not reflect Biblical/Historic Christianity. See http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/worldreligions/Judaism.html
Anyway, for what it's worth the following links do not list Christianity as a branch of Judaism.
http://judaism.about.com/od/denominationsofjudaism/p/branches.htm and http://www.conservapedia.com/Judaism
But really, even if I grant you the argument and "admit" that Christianity is a branch of Judaism, SO WHAT? Where are you taking this to? What's your point?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Why are you cheering fables and legends?
To me, the fable of Monkey God or Hercules is similar to the Jewish fables in the bible.
All of them are Supernatural And happened a LONG LONG TIME AGO!
To use your relativistic view of truth on yourself, what's true for you is not true for others. So end of argument liao, right?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I am more of the view that both Judaism and Christianity are branches of the same tree, though I think it would be more correct to say that Christianity branched off from Biblical Judaism. Modern Judaism is not really the same as Biblical Judaism, just like many forms of Christianity do not reflect Biblical/Historic Christianity. See http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/worldreligions/Judaism.html
Anyway, for what it's worth the following links do not list Christianity as a branch of Judaism.
http://judaism.about.com/od/denominationsofjudaism/p/branches.htm and http://www.conservapedia.com/Judaism
But really, even if I grant you the argument and "admit" that Christianity is a branch of Judaism, SO WHAT? Where are you taking this to? What's your point?
BIC
Branches of the "same tree"? What same tree are you talking about? A Deity?
Of cos Jews do not see Christianity as a branch. THey see it as a DEVIATED branch.
No point. Just saying.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Branches of the "same tree"? What same tree are you talking about? A Deity?
Of cos Jews do not see Christianity as a branch. THey see it as a DEVIATED branch.
No point. Just saying.
Metophorically speaking lah. Tree can refer to the body of Scriptures, roots also can if you like.
OK, even if Jews see Christianity as a deviated branch, so? No point to it, ya? Just say shiok shiok only?
I suggest we try to say things that carry a point or two, otherwise no point saying it if it makes no point saying it.
-
I refer to the points:
<< It seems that you do realise that it all boils down to BELIEF. The Christian BELIEVES God created the universe. The atheist BELIEVES that the universe made itself. NOBODY has scientific evidence either way, and that's the point! >>
Took you real long to come to conclusion with that. From the start I mentioned: Faith is believing. It is a process.
<< Which is why it is a matter, or a battle of beliefs, and the atheist has got it all WRONG by insisting that science has proven that there is no God or that creation is false. >>
Science has not proven God's existence or non-existence. Thanks for reiterating a fact.
<< If you insist that God does not exist because there is no scientific evidence for God, then it is your ignorance about the nature of scientific enquiry that is made into a laughing stock. I think the thought that God created does not sit well with you, ya? Not only that you failed to understand what is a strawman fallacy, which is laughable considering that you seemed to pretend that you know. Mind you, it is not because I cannot think of anything that might have caused the universe that I therefore say "God did it". This is your strawman God-of-the-Gaps argument. That which caused the universe to exists and created time, space, and matter must itself be timeless, immaterial (spirit), and all powerful. No one else but God fits the bill. >>
I never insisted on God's existence or non-existence, mind you. I am just laughing at the way you go about insisting. Similarly, I am laughing at you now that you insist that there must be a creator for universe. Neither do I disagree or agree whether an universe must have an occurrence, material must have occurrence, timekeeping, a measurement unit must be crafted. I am just amazed and amused at how uniformly you go about your faith and insists it is true. Seriously, it is about faith. Nothing else. You can't prove anything. Neither can they. You cannot prove them wrong, they can't to you.
<< You know honestly that the answer is God but you REFUSE to submit to the truth but instead choose to put your faith in some future hope that science would give the answer. That's being wilfully ignorant. >>
Now, now, perceived truth and factual truth or absolute truth are totally different things. Putting faith in proven (no, I don't mean scientific theories) science, isn't wrong either. Again, claiming others to be ignorant is just purely a dogmatic approach to a problem. Since it is about faith, your "truth" is not really "truth" for everyone. You may see it that way, but have you ever even perceived the world in their eyes to say they are wrong? Are they wrong to go for concrete answers and adopting a "false until proven truth" stance? Being condescending and claiming they are ignorant does not mean you are right.
<< Indeed for you to say that the Bible is unproven information is a declaration of ignorance because it shows no knowledge of the opinions of scholars and those in academia or those in the various fields of studies who have concluded that the Bible is reliable and supported by historical, scientific, and archaeological evidences. >>
Again, you missed my point. Having historical, scientific and archaelogical evidences only proves an event occurred. It does not prove God's influence. Referencing it to God is about faith. It is not a proof of God's existence. You can say what you want, but all those references in the Bible linked to actual historical events does not even have any proof that God existed. It only proved that the bible contained a historical event that occurred.
<< I made my conclusion on what I have researched and read, which is certainly from a position of knowledge compared to yours. There's nothing wrong with being dogmatic. You are also being dogmatic about what science can do and that there is no evidence for God. The question is whether your dogmatism is justified, and it certainly isn't. Do you need science to prove that a painter exists when you see a painting? No, it's common sense. The best explanation for the painting is that there is a painter. >>
Same issue here. You missed the point. You believed based on the information and reached a conclusion. Someone didn't believe as they see the information is incomplete. Both are not wrong. Rather, just plain opinions. You already mentioned "God" is immaterial, subjecting it to scientific proof is impossible. I had never disagreed that. Rather I had pointed out, it is an argument of faith. Similarly, the universe is immaterial and a term to describe the whole of the distance in space. Can scientists quantify it? Not really. Thus, going about your method and practice in your faith is to put a full-stop to all quantified, unquantified, substantial, non-substantial, consequential, non-consequential matter, behaviour, act, substance to a unified solution that transcends all these. Is this a correct method? No one can say it is right or wrong. Rather it is whether you believe or not. Simple as that. It is easier though, if you think within the fixtures of the boxed logics. Thinking out of the box is a little more different and are their thinking wrong? No.
<< I said it before on this forum, that science CANNOT prove the existence or non-existence of God. For you to challenge me to prove God's existence by science is thus absurd. The same with molecules to man evolution. Science CANNOT prove that at all. Which is why, if you are at all even the slightest knowledgeable about the creationist arguments, we say that this is not about the science, but a matter of worldviews and beliefs. We are correcting the atheists' propaganda that it is all a matter of science. It is not. Having said that, I have thus no obligation to prove God's existence to you scientifically. So your challenge is moot and meaningless. All I am showing is that it is reasonable to believe that God created the universe and that faith is rational. >>
Did I say Faith is not rational? Please quote me again. You tend to jump to conclusions early. What I am saying is that your methods of arguments leads to nothing since they believed in Science (+theories). Do they have a choice in belief? Yes, they can believe those theories since you cannot fully prove them wrong. You can insist evolution is wrong, you can insist alien creators, dreams, parallel realities etc to be wrong, but can you prove them wrong? Can you say they are making a decision in their choice of beliefs to be ignorant? You can, it is your belief.
<< You FAILED to understand transcendental logic and thus mock that which you are ignorant of. That's the scoffing of a fool, which befits your style of a court jester. Please educate yourself here >>Again the clown at work. You are definitely befitting of a jester yourself. As you had failed many times to even understand from where my point was. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just don't get your justification that others are wrong even though you cannot prove their faith wrong (faith in scientific theories, aliens, parallel universes etc)
-
How's the siege mentality going, BIC?
-
At least discussions got some substance.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:I refer to the points:
<< It seems that you do realise that it all boils down to BELIEF. The Christian BELIEVES God created the universe. The atheist BELIEVES that the universe made itself. NOBODY has scientific evidence either way, and that's the point! >>
Took you real long to come to conclusion with that. From the start I mentioned: Faith is believing. It is a process.
<< Which is why it is a matter, or a battle of beliefs, and the atheist has got it all WRONG by insisting that science has proven that there is no God or that creation is false. >>
Science has not proven God's existence or non-existence. Thanks for reiterating a fact.
<< If you insist that God does not exist because there is no scientific evidence for God, then it is your ignorance about the nature of scientific enquiry that is made into a laughing stock. I think the thought that God created does not sit well with you, ya? Not only that you failed to understand what is a strawman fallacy, which is laughable considering that you seemed to pretend that you know. Mind you, it is not because I cannot think of anything that might have caused the universe that I therefore say "God did it". This is your strawman God-of-the-Gaps argument. That which caused the universe to exists and created time, space, and matter must itself be timeless, immaterial (spirit), and all powerful. No one else but God fits the bill. >>
I never insisted on God's existence or non-existence, mind you. I am just laughing at the way you go about insisting. Similarly, I am laughing at you now that you insist that there must be a creator for universe. Neither do I disagree or agree whether an universe must have an occurrence, material must have occurrence, timekeeping, a measurement unit must be crafted. I am just amazed and amused at how uniformly you go about your faith and insists it is true. Seriously, it is about faith. Nothing else. You can't prove anything. Neither can they. You cannot prove them wrong, they can't to you.
<< You know honestly that the answer is God but you REFUSE to submit to the truth but instead choose to put your faith in some future hope that science would give the answer. That's being wilfully ignorant. >>
Now, now, perceived truth and factual truth or absolute truth are totally different things. Putting faith in proven (no, I don't mean scientific theories) science, isn't wrong either. Again, claiming others to be ignorant is just purely a dogmatic approach to a problem. Since it is about faith, your "truth" is not really "truth" for everyone. You may see it that way, but have you ever even perceived the world in their eyes to say they are wrong? Are they wrong to go for concrete answers and adopting a "false until proven truth" stance? Being condescending and claiming they are ignorant does not mean you are right.
<< Indeed for you to say that the Bible is unproven information is a declaration of ignorance because it shows no knowledge of the opinions of scholars and those in academia or those in the various fields of studies who have concluded that the Bible is reliable and supported by historical, scientific, and archaeological evidences. >>
Again, you missed my point. Having historical, scientific and archaelogical evidences only proves an event occurred. It does not prove God's influence. Referencing it to God is about faith. It is not a proof of God's existence. You can say what you want, but all those references in the Bible linked to actual historical events does not even have any proof that God existed. It only proved that the bible contained a historical event that occurred.
<< I made my conclusion on what I have researched and read, which is certainly from a position of knowledge compared to yours. There's nothing wrong with being dogmatic. You are also being dogmatic about what science can do and that there is no evidence for God. The question is whether your dogmatism is justified, and it certainly isn't. Do you need science to prove that a painter exists when you see a painting? No, it's common sense. The best explanation for the painting is that there is a painter. >>
Same issue here. You missed the point. You believed based on the information and reached a conclusion. Someone didn't believe as they see the information is incomplete. Both are not wrong. Rather, just plain opinions. You already mentioned "God" is immaterial, subjecting it to scientific proof is impossible. I had never disagreed that. Rather I had pointed out, it is an argument of faith. Similarly, the universe is immaterial and a term to describe the whole of the distance in space. Can scientists quantify it? Not really. Thus, going about your method and practice in your faith is to put a full-stop to all quantified, unquantified, substantial, non-substantial, consequential, non-consequential matter, behaviour, act, substance to a unified solution that transcends all these. Is this a correct method? No one can say it is right or wrong. Rather it is whether you believe or not. Simple as that. It is easier though, if you think within the fixtures of the boxed logics. Thinking out of the box is a little more different and are their thinking wrong? No.
<< I said it before on this forum, that science CANNOT prove the existence or non-existence of God. For you to challenge me to prove God's existence by science is thus absurd. The same with molecules to man evolution. Science CANNOT prove that at all. Which is why, if you are at all even the slightest knowledgeable about the creationist arguments, we say that this is not about the science, but a matter of worldviews and beliefs. We are correcting the atheists' propaganda that it is all a matter of science. It is not. Having said that, I have thus no obligation to prove God's existence to you scientifically. So your challenge is moot and meaningless. All I am showing is that it is reasonable to believe that God created the universe and that faith is rational. >>
Did I say Faith is not rational? Please quote me again. You tend to jump to conclusions early. What I am saying is that your methods of arguments leads to nothing since they believed in Science (+theories). Do they have a choice in belief? Yes, they can believe those theories since you cannot fully prove them wrong. You can insist evolution is wrong, you can insist alien creators, dreams, parallel realities etc to be wrong, but can you prove them wrong? Can you say they are making a decision in their choice of beliefs to be ignorant? You can, it is your belief.
<< You FAILED to understand transcendental logic and thus mock that which you are ignorant of. That's the scoffing of a fool, which befits your style of a court jester. Please educate yourself here >>Again the clown at work. You are definitely befitting of a jester yourself. As you had failed many times to even understand from where my point was. I understand exactly what you are saying, I just don't get your justification that others are wrong even though you cannot prove their faith wrong (faith in scientific theories, aliens, parallel universes etc)
1. It is one thing to say that faith is believing (actually it is more than that but that's besides the point) and quite another to say that the question of origins boils down to a matter of belief. And it did not take me long at all. It seems that you are a relatively new-comer to this thread, but if you have bothered to look at my past postings you would have realised that I have long said this.
2. Then why do you keep insisting that I prove God's existence scientifically?
3. So you are mocking because I am dogmatic about there being a cause whereas you take a non-committal approach? But which makes more sense, that the universe has a cause or that it does not? There's nothing wrong with insisting on a cause, so long as it is reasonable and justified. Your neither-here-nor-there position does not give you the right to judge those who have reasons for belief, much less to mock and scoff.
4. Why should faith be opposed to truth? Besides, what makes you think I have not perceived their worldviews? Again had you bothered to read my postings you would have realised that I had mentioned the worldviews of atheism, theism, pantheism and how only theism makes better sense of the world. It is not condescending at all if I can back up the assertion that the atheists are ignorant, which I did.
5. If you agree that the Bible is supported by scientific, historical and archaeological evidences, then the statement that the Bible is unprovable information is FALSE. One cannot detach the events with the causes. The very first verse of the Bible speaks of God creating the universe, an event which science has only recently caught up to acknowledge that there is a beginning. Sure I cannot prove that God did it, but I have very good reasons to believe that God did it. What do you have to offer besides the sneer and scoffs?
6. Wow, my beliefs based on information gathered you simply dismissed as mere opinions? Like that everything is opinions! The argument that God created is either a good argument or bad argument, faith is not really the issue here. In the final analysis yes it is a matter of belief for both the theist and the atheist, but as of now I am talking about evaluating the arguments.
7. I also never accuse you of saying that faith is irrational, no need to be defensive. How can you say that my arguments lead to nothing? People who believe in science must first be able to account for why it is possible to even do science in the first place, why the laws of nature are uniform and who established them. Again only theism provides the preconditions for intelligibility.
8. If we are to abide by your "prove me wrong" standard of proof, nothing will take place at all and all arguments will be moot. You are being absurd here. We only need to give REASONS and cogent arguments for what we believe, supported by the data/evidences/facts so interpreted. People who believe in aliens or parallel universes must first show us why we should believe that as well. There is no obligation for me to prove them wrong when they should be the one to supply reasons for believing these things.
-
Still don't get the point?
<< 1. It is one thing to say that faith is believing (actually it is more than that but that's besides the point) and quite another to say that the question of origins boils down to a matter of belief. And it did not take me long at all. It seems that you are a relatively new-comer to this thread, but if you have bothered to look at my past postings you would have realised that I have long said this.
2. Then why do you keep insisting that I prove God's existence scientifically?>>
I think if you understand the point, then you have to look at whether you are dismissing Atheist's views that evolution exists or just atheists in general. Like I mentioned from the start, atheists in general do not believe God exists. That does not conclude they agree to Darwin's theory on evolution. And most atheists adopt a false until proven true approach to their views. They do not need to believe in anything being the cause, but rather, they can choose not to believe in anything until someone proves it. To give an declaration that God created the world as Truth, you are already on the wrong track since you lacked proof that they believe. They are open to all concepts, provided proof is provided. Your declaration of truth is easily dismissed as you already mentioned your "God" as immaterial. To most atheists, they do not believe in spirit or immaterial nature. In fact, they won't recognise it. They recognise proof that can be re-created or designed.
When you suggested archaelogical evidence and scientific evidence, these are not proofs of existence.
Let me show an example:
In a new building, where there is only one entrance, (it is the crudest construct where there is only 1 opening, no windows, leaks, cracks etc.) there are paw prints of a dog. However, installed on the entrance is a camera and on the records of the camera, no one or nothing bring the dog into the building but there were paw prints of a dog.
Group A suggests that the dog is invisible to naked eye and left the paw prints. They also insist that during the construction of the building, there were no dogs trapped within as verified by witness X, Y and Z.
Group B insists that the prints may not be from a dog as there is no evidence of the dog as justified by witness X, Y and Z and the camera.
Now, think at this situation. Why does Group B have to provide an answer to why there were dog paw prints if the evidence does not prove a dog's presence even though Group A believes it was caused by a dog?Now read the situation again. Why does Group B has to be inquisitive in nature when they do not believe or are not bothered by the results?
Your argument from the start is that because the dog paw print exists, that's why the invisible dog exists is truth. Now, that is subjective truth and to insist the other party ignorant is rather a useless feint.
<< 3. So you are mocking because I am dogmatic about there being a cause whereas you take a non-committal approach? But which makes more sense, that the universe has a cause or that it does not? There's nothing wrong with insisting on a cause, so long as it is reasonable and justified. Your neither-here-nor-there position does not give you the right to judge those who have reasons for belief, much less to mock and scoff. >>
I am mocking you because you think without faith, their actions are not justified, their lives are meaningless and thus, hopeless. I am mocking you because you think that their view is wrong even though you cannot prove them wrong. I am mocking you because regardless of how much information you put forward, you are still not seeing the main reason why they don't believe. The answer is simple for these people: There is no proof. You can insist you don't need to prove God's existence because he's omnipresent, blah blah blah, but you cannot see that these people only believe in proven truth or their alternate views which you cannot prove them wrong. You can claim as much as you want that your decision is an informed decision but there is no proof that the other decision, choice, view, is wrong. Am I mocking you for believing? No, I never mocked the belief. I mocked your insistence that the other side is wrong.
<< 4. Why should faith be opposed to truth? Besides, what makes you think I have not perceived their worldviews? Again had you bothered to read my postings you would have realised that I had mentioned the worldviews of atheism, theism, pantheism and how only theism makes better sense of the world. It is not condescending at all if I can back up the assertion that the atheists are ignorant, which I did. >>
The key point here is proof. It makes sense to you does not mean it makes exact sense to them because there are many dubious, illogical concepts to them which cannot be proven such as ressurrection, turning sticks into snake etc.
<< 5. If you agree that the Bible is supported by scientific, historical and archaeological evidences, then the statement that the Bible is unprovable information is FALSE. One cannot detach the events with the causes. The very first verse of the Bible speaks of God creating the universe, an event which science has only recently caught up to acknowledge that there is a beginning. Sure I cannot prove that God did it, but I have very good reasons to believe that God did it. What do you have to offer besides the sneer and scoffs?
6. Wow, my beliefs based on information gathered you simply dismissed as mere opinions? Like that everything is opinions! The argument that God created is either a good argument or bad argument, faith is not really the issue here. In the final analysis yes it is a matter of belief for both the theist and the atheist, but as of now I am talking about evaluating the arguments.>>
Detaching events with causes, nice way to defend but still a failed answer. Go back to the dog analogy. You cannot prove the historical events is caused by God. You can only insist your answer is better than other answers because no one had proof to say your answer is false. No one can prove the leading causes to the event does not mean your answer is absolute. The dog analogy applies here.
<< 7. I also never accuse you of saying that faith is irrational, no need to be defensive. How can you say that my arguments lead to nothing? People who believe in science must first be able to account for why it is possible to even do science in the first place, why the laws of nature are uniform and who established them. Again only theism provides the preconditions for intelligibility. >>
The dog analogy applies here again. They do not believe because they prefer making a decision over proven records. Similarly, if it makes it easier for you to accept the laws of nature being uniform is due to a creator, then it does not mean that the non-believer is less intelligent.
<< 8. If we are to abide by your "prove me wrong" standard of proof, nothing will take place at all and all arguments will be moot. You are being absurd here. We only need to give REASONS and cogent arguments for what we believe, supported by the data/evidences/facts so interpreted. People who believe in aliens or parallel universes must first show us why we should believe that as well. There is no obligation for me to prove them wrong when they should be the one to supply reasons for believing these things. >>
Similarly, the ground of non-believing is that the data, evidences or facts you had provided so far is incomplete, you can feel as much as you want that you made a good judgement. Go back to the dog analogy.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Still don't get the point?
<< 1. It is one thing to say that faith is believing (actually it is more than that but that's besides the point) and quite another to say that the question of origins boils down to a matter of belief. And it did not take me long at all. It seems that you are a relatively new-comer to this thread, but if you have bothered to look at my past postings you would have realised that I have long said this.
2. Then why do you keep insisting that I prove God's existence scientifically?>>
I think if you understand the point, then you have to look at whether you are dismissing Atheist's views that evolution exists or just atheists in general. Like I mentioned from the start, atheists in general do not believe God exists. That does not conclude they agree to Darwin's theory on evolution. And most atheists adopt a false until proven true approach to their views. They do not need to believe in anything being the cause, but rather, they can choose not to believe in anything until someone proves it. To give an declaration that God created the world as Truth, you are already on the wrong track since you lacked proof that they believe. They are open to all concepts, provided proof is provided. Your declaration of truth is easily dismissed as you already mentioned your "God" as immaterial. To most atheists, they do not believe in spirit or immaterial nature. In fact, they won't recognise it. They recognise proof that can be re-created or designed.
When you suggested archaelogical evidence and scientific evidence, these are not proofs of existence.
Let me show an example:
In a new building, where there is only one entrance, (it is the crudest construct where there is only 1 opening, no windows, leaks, cracks etc.) there are paw prints of a dog. However, installed on the entrance is a camera and on the records of the camera, no one or nothing bring the dog into the building but there were paw prints of a dog.
Group A suggests that the dog is invisible to naked eye and left the paw prints. They also insist that during the construction of the building, there were no dogs trapped within as verified by witness X, Y and Z.
Group B insists that the prints may not be from a dog as there is no evidence of the dog as justified by witness X, Y and Z and the camera.
Now, think at this situation. Why does Group B have to provide an answer to why there were dog paw prints if the evidence does not prove a dog's presence even though Group A believes it was caused by a dog?Now read the situation again. Why does Group B has to be inquisitive in nature when they do not believe or are not bothered by the results?
Your argument from the start is that because the dog paw print exists, that's why the invisible dog exists is truth. Now, that is subjective truth and to insist the other party ignorant is rather a useless feint.
<< 3. So you are mocking because I am dogmatic about there being a cause whereas you take a non-committal approach? But which makes more sense, that the universe has a cause or that it does not? There's nothing wrong with insisting on a cause, so long as it is reasonable and justified. Your neither-here-nor-there position does not give you the right to judge those who have reasons for belief, much less to mock and scoff. >>
I am mocking you because you think without faith, their actions are not justified, their lives are meaningless and thus, hopeless. I am mocking you because you think that their view is wrong even though you cannot prove them wrong. I am mocking you because regardless of how much information you put forward, you are still not seeing the main reason why they don't believe. The answer is simple for these people: There is no proof. You can insist you don't need to prove God's existence because he's omnipresent, blah blah blah, but you cannot see that these people only believe in proven truth or their alternate views which you cannot prove them wrong. You can claim as much as you want that your decision is an informed decision but there is no proof that the other decision, choice, view, is wrong. Am I mocking you for believing? No, I never mocked the belief. I mocked your insistence that the other side is wrong.
<< 4. Why should faith be opposed to truth? Besides, what makes you think I have not perceived their worldviews? Again had you bothered to read my postings you would have realised that I had mentioned the worldviews of atheism, theism, pantheism and how only theism makes better sense of the world. It is not condescending at all if I can back up the assertion that the atheists are ignorant, which I did. >>
The key point here is proof. It makes sense to you does not mean it makes exact sense to them because there are many dubious, illogical concepts to them which cannot be proven such as ressurrection, turning sticks into snake etc.
<< 5. If you agree that the Bible is supported by scientific, historical and archaeological evidences, then the statement that the Bible is unprovable information is FALSE. One cannot detach the events with the causes. The very first verse of the Bible speaks of God creating the universe, an event which science has only recently caught up to acknowledge that there is a beginning. Sure I cannot prove that God did it, but I have very good reasons to believe that God did it. What do you have to offer besides the sneer and scoffs?
6. Wow, my beliefs based on information gathered you simply dismissed as mere opinions? Like that everything is opinions! The argument that God created is either a good argument or bad argument, faith is not really the issue here. In the final analysis yes it is a matter of belief for both the theist and the atheist, but as of now I am talking about evaluating the arguments.>>
Detaching events with causes, nice way to defend but still a failed answer. Go back to the dog analogy. You cannot prove the historical events is caused by God. You can only insist your answer is better than other answers because no one had proof to say your answer is false. No one can prove the leading causes to the event does not mean your answer is absolute. The dog analogy applies here.
<< 7. I also never accuse you of saying that faith is irrational, no need to be defensive. How can you say that my arguments lead to nothing? People who believe in science must first be able to account for why it is possible to even do science in the first place, why the laws of nature are uniform and who established them. Again only theism provides the preconditions for intelligibility. >>
The dog analogy applies here again. They do not believe because they prefer making a decision over proven records. Similarly, if it makes it easier for you to accept the laws of nature being uniform is due to a creator, then it does not mean that the non-believer is less intelligent.
<< 8. If we are to abide by your "prove me wrong" standard of proof, nothing will take place at all and all arguments will be moot. You are being absurd here. We only need to give REASONS and cogent arguments for what we believe, supported by the data/evidences/facts so interpreted. People who believe in aliens or parallel universes must first show us why we should believe that as well. There is no obligation for me to prove them wrong when they should be the one to supply reasons for believing these things. >>
Similarly, the ground of non-believing is that the data, evidences or facts you had provided so far is incomplete, you can feel as much as you want that you made a good judgement. Go back to the dog analogy.
1. In what way am I guilty of dismissing the atheist's views? Mind you I actually INTERACTED with their views to show how flawed/false/deficient/bankrupt atheism really is. Maybe you really need to start reading my posts from the beginning.
2. You show me an atheist who does not believe in evolution and I will show you someone who is confused about what atheism entails, deal? Here's the undisputed fact, an atheist MUST be an evolutionist. Think also about why Dawkins said that evolution made it possible for him to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist. BTW, how many theories of evolution are there? As far as I know, only Darwinian evolution reigns in secular academia.
3. Atheists adopt a false until proven true approach? Well, do they apply this approach to their own atheism? I guess not. Like it or not, this is simply an a priori bias, not a sound methodology to knowledge. In the first place, an atheist already does not accept the idea that theism can be true, so any proof to them is really moot. A person who says that nature is all there is leaves no room for the supernatural. They will always explain it away as unknown natural causes that science will one day uncover. Sounds familiar? Anyway you are wrong, atheists BELIEVE in many things, even the cause of the universe. I already said it, they believe nothing caused everything. It can't be God, so it must be nothing, nobody. Atheists don't have much options really. Truth claims can be evaluated on their logical coherence, not just by demanding proofs for this or that.
4. Your dog analogy fails flat. The objective facts (in the example) are that there are dog paw prints. Effects must have a cause. Group B is not entitled to dismiss the evidence though they may dismiss Group A's explanation. What alternative cause does Group B offer as cause for the paw prints? Don't tell me they do not have to offer any explanation hor! Group A cannot prove the existence of the invisible dog, but at least they recognise LOGICALLY that something must have caused it, perhaps an invisible dog. I mean, once you rule out all other possibilities, you are left with little else, and you should go where the evidence leads, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Group A is right to be inquisitive. Group B is INDIFFERENT, bo chap. They have no answer so they dismiss everything and hide their heads in the sand and pretend not to see, it's being wilfully ignorant. In addition I would say that their Intellectual honesty and integrity is zero. BTW, you also buy into the truth is subjective nonsense?
5. You are making a mockery of yourself here for making a false accusation. For the umpteenth time I say this: it is not that atheists have no morals or no purpose for life, but that atheism cannot account for such things. Yes, atheists have morals and purpose, but that's not BECAUSE of atheism but in spite of it. Where do atheists get their basis for meaning and purpose, by borrowing it from theism. And it's not that there is no proof for God's existence, but that the atheists REJECTS and SUPPRESSES the evidence. Is there design in nature? Yes, but atheists like Dawkins attribute it to an illusion or appearance of design and call those who disagree with him as deluded religious folk. Perhaps you should mock your own double standards by insisting that I cannot be insistent that others are wrong.
6. You keep harping on proof, but do you know there are many kinds of proof? But atheists seem only fixated with scientific proofs, but is scientific proofs the ONLY determinant of what's true? There are mathematical proofs, logical proofs etc. In any case, these atheists are not consistent with themselves for they entertain many beliefs for which they do not demand such rigor of proofs or standard of proofs. Again historical matters are not the subject of scientific proofs since the past cannot be replicated and tested repeatedly, if you fail to understand this then again the mockery is on you.
7. Again you keep harping prove this prove that but shows an utter lack of understanding here. No one is saying that the existence of God has been empirically proven. At the very least the Christian apologist is arguing that the case for the existence of God is logically sound and is a better explanation than atheism. Why can't I insist that the atheist is wrong on logical grounds if both theist and atheist are not capable of proving their beliefs? Mind you, do you consider it intelligent to believe that the laws of nature made themselves or they just appeared uncaused miraculously so that life as we know it just miraculously happen? From what I know, atheists do not believe in miracles. Or maybe they do, just so long as God isn't behind them.
8. Citing lack or incompleteness of data is one thing, saying there is NO data is another. Make up your mind, which is which? And how much is enough? And I have shown why your dog analogy is flawed. No bones for you.
-
Originally posted by alize:
How's the siege mentality going, BIC?
From what I see, the atheists' siege mentality is really coming under fire. The atheists are reeling from the onslaught of theistic arguments here. They fight back not with cogent arguments but with mockeries and insults and scoffings.
But they are making a stand and trying to fight back, see http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/atheists-holding-reason-rally-washington-dc-weekend-193419793.html
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. In what way am I guilty of dismissing the atheist's views? Mind you I actually INTERACTED with their views to show how flawed/false/deficient/bankrupt atheism really is. Maybe you really need to start reading my posts from the beginning.
2. You show me an atheist who does not believe in evolution and I will show you someone who is confused about what atheism entails, deal? Here's the undisputed fact, an atheist MUST be an evolutionist. Think also about why Dawkins said that evolution made it possible for him to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist. BTW, how many theories of evolution are there? As far as I know, only Darwinian evolution reigns in secular academia.
3. Atheists adopt a false until proven true approach? Well, do they apply this approach to their own atheism? I guess not. Like it or not, this is simply an a priori bias, not a sound methodology to knowledge. In the first place, an atheist already does not accept the idea that theism can be true, so any proof to them is really moot. A person who says that nature is all there is leaves no room for the supernatural. They will always explain it away as unknown natural causes that science will one day uncover. Sounds familiar? Anyway you are wrong, atheists BELIEVE in many things, even the cause of the universe. I already said it, they believe nothing caused everything. It can't be God, so it must be nothing, nobody. Atheists don't have much options really. Truth claims can be evaluated on their logical coherence, not just by demanding proofs for this or that.
4. Your dog analogy fails flat. The objective facts (in the example) are that there are dog paw prints. Effects must have a cause. Group B is not entitled to dismiss the evidence though they may dismiss Group A's explanation. What alternative cause does Group B offer as cause for the paw prints? Don't tell me they do not have to offer any explanation hor! Group A cannot prove the existence of the invisible dog, but at least they recognise LOGICALLY that something must have caused it, perhaps an invisible dog. I mean, once you rule out all other possibilities, you are left with little else, and you should go where the evidence leads, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Group A is right to be inquisitive. Group B is INDIFFERENT, bo chap. They have no answer so they dismiss everything and hide their heads in the sand and pretend not to see, it's being wilfully ignorant. In addition I would say that their Intellectual honesty and integrity is zero. BTW, you also buy into the truth is subjective nonsense?
5. You are making a mockery of yourself here for making a false accusation. For the umpteenth time I say this: it is not that atheists have no morals or no purpose for life, but that atheism cannot account for such things. Yes, atheists have morals and purpose, but that's not BECAUSE of atheism but in spite of it. Where do atheists get their basis for meaning and purpose, by borrowing it from theism. And it's not that there is no proof for God's existence, but that the atheists REJECTS and SUPPRESSES the evidence. Is there design in nature? Yes, but atheists like Dawkins attribute it to an illusion or appearance of design and call those who disagree with him as deluded religious folk. Perhaps you should mock your own double standards by insisting that I cannot be insistent that others are wrong.
6. You keep harping on proof, but do you know there are many kinds of proof? But atheists seem only fixated with scientific proofs, but is scientific proofs the ONLY determinant of what's true? There are mathematical proofs, logical proofs etc. In any case, these atheists are not consistent with themselves for they entertain many beliefs for which they do not demand such rigor of proofs or standard of proofs. Again historical matters are not the subject of scientific proofs since the past cannot be replicated and tested repeatedly, if you fail to understand this then again the mockery is on you.
7. Again you keep harping prove this prove that but shows an utter lack of understanding here. No one is saying that the existence of God has been empirically proven. At the very least the Christian apologist is arguing that the case for the existence of God is logically sound and is a better explanation than atheism. Why can't I insist that the atheist is wrong on logical grounds if both theist and atheist are not capable of proving their beliefs? Mind you, do you consider it intelligent to believe that the laws of nature made themselves or they just appeared uncaused miraculously so that life as we know it just miraculously happen? From what I know, atheists do not believe in miracles. Or maybe they do, just so long as God isn't behind them.
8. Citing lack or incompleteness of data is one thing, saying there is NO data is another. Make up your mind, which is which? And how much is enough? And I have shown why your dog analogy is flawed. No bones for you.
1. You claimed they are ignorant. Enuf' said. You cannot claim they are not if you didn't dismiss their ideas.
2. That is your conclusion that an atheist must believe in Darwin's evolution theory. Seriously, your opinion is fixated at Darwin's theory.
3. That is still your opinion of atheists. I tend to differ from your conclusion.
4. So based on your argument, group B is wrong, ignorant while group A's answer is absolute?
5. Go back to the dog analogy again. Think harder what I meant with "false until proven true".
6. Go read the dictionary for the actual meaning of atheists. It has nothing to do with them believing Darwin at all. They are just not accepting your version of Truth.
7. That's why I consider it a discussion of faith rather than truth. You keep calling it truth, but where, since no one can outright reject each other and no one agrees to give in to the interpretations of another, it is a faith debate or truth?
8. How much is enough? Proof of existence. Not proof of historical events. Geddit? Just one proof of existence, not one proof of a biblical event that coincides with a historical event. Proof of existence which cannot be proven since you admitted he's immaterial. You still don't understand why I laughed?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
1. You claimed they are ignorant. Enuf' said. You cannot claim they are not if you didn't dismiss their ideas.
2. That is your conclusion that an atheist must believe in Darwin's evolution theory. Seriously, your opinion is fixated at Darwin's theory.
3. That is still your opinion of atheists. I tend to differ from your conclusion.
4. So based on your argument, group B is wrong, ignorant while group A's answer is absolute?
5. Go back to the dog analogy again. Think harder what I meant with "false until proven true".
6. Go read the dictionary for the actual meaning of atheists. It has nothing to do with them believing Darwin at all. They are just not accepting your version of Truth.
7. That's why I consider it a discussion of faith rather than truth. You keep calling it truth, but where, since no one can outright reject each other and no one agrees to give in to the interpretations of another, it is a faith debate or truth?
8. How much is enough? Proof of existence. Not proof of historical events. Geddit? Just one proof of existence, not one proof of a biblical event that coincides with a historical event. Proof of existence which cannot be proven since you admitted he's immaterial. You still don't understand why I laughed?
1. Huh? You seem confused. I am claiming they are ignorant and have shown why the claim is supported. I am not dismissing the views of atheists. Rather it is the atheists who are guilty of dismissing the claims of Christianity.
2. My beef is not just with Darwin's Theory, but with the entire evolution edifice. The evolution edifice is the entire belief system that the universe made itself and reached the present situation over millions of years by sheer long naturalistic and undirected processes. You should really read up my postings to get a better grasp of my beliefs.
3. It's so convenient of you to DISMISS my arguments by simply calling it an opinion. If everyone adopt such cavalier dismissals then nothing to argue already, just say it's your opinion and that's all there is to it. Is that your idea of how discussions should be?
4. Read my post again and see why Group B is wrong in how they handled the case of the dog paw prints. I didn't say Group A is absolutely correct in their answer, they cannot prove it. But compared to B's bad approach and non-answer and assuming that there is no other better alternative (short of someone rigging the video and paying off all the witnesses), I would say an invisible dog or some supernatural intervention should not be dismissed. It may sound strange but then again, compared to the idea that the prints made itself, which is more strange?
5. I've thought about what you meant by "false until proven true" and I am asking why you or atheists don't apply it to atheism. Or are you telling me that atheism has been proven true? In fact, you should even apply it onto itself and ask why should the statement "false until proven true" be treated as true and not false until proven true? See how this is really an unworkable approach?
6. You are misusing the dictionary. What makes you think that the brief definition of atheism in the dictionary gives a detailed explanation of what atheism is and entails? In any case truth is truth, not your version or my version. The rejection of theism is not the same as a refutation of theism. Any bloke can reject my beliefs or arguments and call them false, these are but mere assertions. Refuting them is another thing.
7. Why must it be either/or? That's the fallacious false dilemma. Why can't it be both/and? Religions make claims about truth and reality. Faith claims can be truth claims. Just because we cannot (empirically) prove faith claims does not mean they are not true.
8. Do I need to prove to you the existence of a painter by the existence of a painting, or is that the logical truth that a painting must have a painter? If you mock and laugh at my reasoning here, then it's the silly laugh of a moron, really.
And if you have time please see http://www.existence-of-god.com/
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Huh? You seem confused. I am claiming they are ignorant and have shown why the claim is supported. I am not dismissing the views of atheists. Rather it is the atheists who are guilty of dismissing the claims of Christianity.
2. My beef is not just with Darwin's Theory, but with the entire evolution edifice. The evolution edifice is the entire belief system that the universe made itself and reached the present situation over millions of years by sheer long naturalistic and undirected processes. You should really read up my postings to get a better grasp of my beliefs.
3. It's so convenient of you to DISMISS my arguments by simply calling it an opinion. If everyone adopt such cavalier dismissals then nothing to argue already, just say it's your opinion and that's all there is to it. Is that your idea of how discussions should be?
4. Read my post again and see why Group B is wrong in how they handled the case of the dog paw prints. I didn't say Group A is absolutely correct in their answer, they cannot prove it. But compared to B's bad approach and non-answer and assuming that there is no other better alternative (short of someone rigging the video and paying off all the witnesses), I would say an invisible dog or some supernatural intervention should not be dismissed. It may sound strange but then again, compared to the idea that the prints made itself, which is more strange?
5. I've thought about what you meant by "false until proven true" and I am asking why you or atheists don't apply it to atheism. Or are you telling me that atheism has been proven true? In fact, you should even apply it onto itself and ask why should the statement "false until proven true" be treated as true and not false until proven true? See how this is really an unworkable approach?
6. You are misusing the dictionary. What makes you think that the brief definition of atheism in the dictionary gives a detailed explanation of what atheism is and entails? In any case truth is truth, not your version or my version. The rejection of theism is not the same as a refutation of theism. Any bloke can reject my beliefs or arguments and call them false, these are but mere assertions. Refuting them is another thing.
7. Why must it be either/or? That's the fallacious false dilemma. Why can't it be both/and? Religions make claims about truth and reality. Faith claims can be truth claims. Just because we cannot (empirically) prove faith claims does not mean they are not true.
8. Do I need to prove to you the existence of a painter by the existence of a painting, or is that the logical truth that a painting must have a painter? If you mock and laugh at my reasoning here, then it's the silly laugh of a moron, really.
And if you have time please see http://www.existence-of-god.com/
You are definitely falling very deep into myopia.
Atheist do not believe in God's existence != Atheists believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Neither does Atheists who do not believe in God's existence have to believe in any alternate forms of evolution. Read the dictionary meaning and stop drawing conclusions with assumptions that it has to be evolution. Just because it is one of the alternative theories that some atheists believe in, does not conclude all atheists are believers. Your brain can't process it because you believe there must be a cause.
Read the dog analogy again and based it against your painter theory. Atheists do not need to believe in your claims and neither are you required to believe in theirs. Paw prints does not equate to have the prints created by an invisible dog. Simple as that.
All that you said so far are still your opinions and beliefs. You can scream and shout and whine and cry that they are truth but they are perceived truth. That means they are only true to those who see it that way. Making a claim on truth that cannot be proven will only get the following smiley:
As for your answer to the bad approach, is believing absolutely correct information as bad approach? Different viewpoint again. It is more like you are assuming superiority because you think you know better based on your Bible. That which you interpreted as truth and others interpreted as not-truth. You can say as much as you want, no proof of existence is as good as try to find an invisible dog.
Atheism entails? Sorry, but you are saying as if theism means other religions believe in exact information as Christianity that is one God? Some believe in multitudes of God. Are you implying that atheism means every single atheists believe in the same secular theories? Hello, you are questioning a big venn diagram contain a multitude of secular beliefs and Darwin's theory of evolution is a small part of it. Misinterpreting the dictionary? Why don't you read the description of Christian and understand why atheists do not encompass as much?
Oh that means you have successfully refuted the point when you already say that there is no scientific proof to God's existence or non-existence?