Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems to me that we have two main arguments here. One is essentially the validity of human logic and scientific data. The other is rather pointing up flaws in the reasoning and arguments that atheists do.
There is one argument from what I can see. You may think I am picking on atheists. Look at my track record when I discuss and you will see that often I have pointed to theists what I do not agree with. Also, look when I have made comments about their Biblical moral views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The track record of science in finding fact as opposed to any of the other methods should make it clear that it is the only reliable method of fact -finding. Logic also is, rather like mathematics, a set of mental tools for solving particular mental problems regarding real things and situations. Simple propositions like 'small things look smaller than big things' 'distant trees look smaller than nearby bushes' 'therefore trees are smaller than bushes' is clearly wrong and thus logic has to applied correctly.
OK, I agree. Was this suppose to prove or disprove a point of mine? Is so, which one please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Correctly means that the person making the claim has to provide the evidence. It also means that not being persuaded by inadequate evidence is not making a claim about anything other than the claim that the evidence is not persuasive.
Where I do not share your claim. To me it is a selective way to reason. You make a claim, any claim, prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It may be inconvenient that it is the claimant who has to do the work rather than demand that the claim be accepted as true until the other side disproves it, but that is the way logic works and if one doesn't accept that, they have abandoned credible logic.
Again, logic does not have a rule that you cannot be asked to make ANY claim, does it? I you make any asertion, I may request for you to prove it BUt I do not see anything wrong if I am asked to prove why I disagree. Debates like this exist all the time in many public forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Now, when we are talking of God or gods, there is an awful lot of confusion. I agree that atheists do often find themselves saying 'there is no God. God does not exist'. I have found myself doing it. Technically this is a logically invalid position since of course we cannot be 100% sure and we have not looked everywhere is the universe.
Good! Glad to hear that. This is pure logic. The point is what does scientic data and logic support more conclusively? Here is where the big debates come into play. From what I can see both sides have their zealots as there are the open minded ones that are open to unbiased discussion as best as they can. However, when I see atheist coming up with goblins and fairies as examples they are using fallacious statements. They may claim to be sincere but condescending remarks like that or put downs do not suppor their claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
However, in the everyday rather logically sloppy way of thinking, we can say the same about leprechauns, fiery dragons and santaclaus. Strictly logically we cannot say 'They do not exist', but we do and nobody thinks that we are wrong for doing so.
Agreed. The same as I wrote above. However, even the dragons, leprechans, and Santa may see a seed o truth on how they came to exist in folklore. They could be simple distorted and/embelished stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The only people who do so object are those who do believe in such things and we laugh at them because there is no good reason to believe in them.
I am a strong believer that to have a good opportunity to have open minded discussion is not to demean or make fun of people that believe in things I may think are far fetched, stupid, illogical, etc. If I want to truly learn the angle other people come from, I need to to show respect to their views. There are atheists in this forum that their demeanor is to be disrespectful and demeaning. The same applies to theists I must say. Example: Have you seen two christians discussing a topic between them about a biblical point and suddenly an atheist comes with some remark about Santa, fairies, etc? He is not there to maybe see why they believe the way they do, he is there to demean. I do not share you behavior in laughing at others for the way they believe. I suppose it is a matter of upbringing, mine is not like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
That, elamigo, is the atheist position and it is a perfectly valid, reasonable and rational one.
Well, you claim is made by theists also. I am not going to demean your position nor theirs. I just ask and question both sides. How often do you see people arguing for any point, regardless of mental capabilities, and claim they are irrational, illogical, and perfectly invalid? So your claim is as good as anybody and neither proves you are right or wrong. Take care.
I am sure polls can be taken. Still, until one is taken we can somehow come up with some type of agreement. Remember though. It has to meet strict polling guidelines as professional polsters do.
Not necessarily. A poll presented to the forum users may not draw a response from every atheist member, but would provide a good sampling and enough information to make a reasonable statement.
Quote:
First mistake. How do you know your words mean nothing to me? For a critical thinker you made an assumption based on no facts. If your words did not mean nothing to me I assure you I would not be wasting my time with you. Can you read minds?
Because you don't know me personally, you are not obligated to take my word as a credible source
.
Quote:
However, I must say it is somewhat humorous to say "soft atheists". To me it is something as if a woman tells you "I am kind of pregnant". Atheist definition is clear. You either are or are not. Agnostics to me are more open minded because some may think there is no god but at least say they are open for discussion and the possibility they may be wrong.
As far as being a member of a critical thinking group does not make you a Vulcan automatically. You are a human being and you do have biases. You are trapped in them and may not realize you can be biased when presenting your points. We all do that at varying degrees.
You claim to Arequipa that you wouldn't join in with laughter at other people's beliefs, yet you do chuckle at what I have presented as to what is considered a legitimate title of "soft atheist". Do you not agree that one can make a statement that though we cannot make a definitive statement about there being no god, we can state with certainty that we have no belief in a god?
Quote:
I clearly admitted I had no data. Also, also admited to a perception. I am open to see data. You make statements that are not based on data from what I can see. Is your claim about youtube based on polls that follow accepted polling guidlines? If not, then you fall under the same category you are placing me under. At least I did accept my perception is based on simple observation.
I essentually admitted the same by inviting you to watch Youtube videos of the leading spokespersons for atheism and critical thinking. If you can find one that definitively states that there are no gods, I will be surprised. So far I have found none.
Quote:
Thanks for the reply. I do agree with you on those point and that is why I do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, nor Jesus his son. However, those points do not prove or disprove of the existence of God. There are atheists that use this logic to prove God does not exists. To me all they are saying they do not agree with certain moral views and I must say I agree with certain moral views. But because I agree with them does not mean it is proof of God existsence or not. I must also say that a god does not has to be benevolent. He could exist but not posses good attributes. I do not know. What you state is based on views that I usually see from Bible believers. To believe in God does not require to believe in the Bible as his word.
I am sure there are those. However, don't lump all of them in the same group. I am inclined that there is a God. However, my belief does not lead me to pray to him and think how he feels about me. I just do not know. So for me to conclude that he/she exists is simple pure reasoning in my journey seeking truth as best as I can.
It is no different when evolutionists do fill gaps where there is no answer to explain their theories. Both sides do the same. Here again, you are making assumptions about many of those guys. In some ways I give them more credit because I can state that they are able to detach their biblical views to seek what science says. The same applies with agnostics in my opinion but less on atheists from my point of view. Take care.
I have lumped none or no one together. You asked for some attributes that can be disproven and I have provided some. I wasn't focused on making a case for the nonexistence of any god or collection of gods. I don't see these as moral arguments as much as contradictions. Many gods are claimed to have one or more of these attributes, not just the Abrahamic god.
Where are the gaps we are discussing? They are in scientific knowledge, not theology. So the fact that these gaps in science exist, and are freely admitted, demonstrates that science does not fill these gaps. Science will present hypotheses for these gaps, i.e. the multiverse, while theists present their obvious hypotheses as facts, i.e. god did it. This demonstrates the differences in scientific solutions and those presented from a faith-based view.
While I get the idea that god = natural law there is the distinction of a forward planning intelligence which has to be demonstrated before the 'god' label can correctly be attached.
Please provide a quote from the Hebrew Bible showing that God is a forward planning intelligence.
Well? Is this discussion to remain devoid of facts?
Well? Is this discussion to remain devoid of facts?
I thought this was a religious discussion about the existence of god. Since when do facts play a part in such a discussion? Conjecture and beliefs, sure - but facts?
Well? Is this discussion to remain devoid of facts?
Sorry, I missed that. Would the OT do? Well pretty much all of genesis for starters. It was decided beforehand to do all the creation, and the flood and it was done. That is what we call forward planning.
If we say it was not planned and then executed, why then we are talking about unthinking nature.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
There is one argument from what I can see. You may think I am picking on atheists. Look at my track record when I discuss and you will see that often I have pointed to theists what I do not agree with. ...
(etc etc .)
I'm not sure I'm even interested in responding. I invite people to read what you and I posted and decide what makes sense to them. Sorry, but I think I have got burned out recently justifying the burden of proof on another thread .
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-25-2013 at 01:49 PM..
Got some proof, any proof, of this god thingie you speak of?
Yes, the proof of God's existence comes with the receipt of His Divine Love into our soul when it has become awakened. God is soul and invisible, but we can know Him best when our soul becomes developed with a certain degree of His Love, which is His Essence.
Sorry, I missed that. Would the OT do? Well pretty much all of genesis for starters. It was decided beforehand to do all the creation, and the flood and it was done. That is what we call forward planning.
Genesis never says that God decided all this beforehand. You could replace "God" with "the forces of nature" and Genesis would still work fine.
Quote:
If we say it was not planned and then executed, why then we are talking about unthinking nature.
There is an entire field dedicated to unthinking nature. It is called science. And I think it is interesting to talk about.
The Hebrew Bible is basically about a part of science that our science hasn't yet reached, namely the science of morality. And God is mostly that natural force that supports morality which is an element of evolution. Atheists basically reject this aspect of science, the science of morality, and instead choose morality based on fashion with inevitable disastrous results.
Yes, the proof of God's existence comes with the receipt of His Divine Love into our soul when it has become awakened. God is soul and invisible, but we can know Him best when our soul becomes developed with a certain degree of His Love, which is His Essence.
That's proof for all non-Christian and polytheist dieties as well, meaning no proof at all.
Genesis never says that God decided all this beforehand. You could replace "God" with "the forces of nature" and Genesis would still work fine.
There is an entire field dedicated to unthinking nature. It is called science. And I think it is interesting to talk about.
The Hebrew Bible is basically about a part of science that our science hasn't yet reached, namely the science of morality. And God is mostly that natural force that supports morality which is an element of evolution. Atheists basically reject this aspect of science, the science of morality, and instead choose morality based on fashion with inevitable disastrous results.
Morality as understood currently through riggorous study in academia is far beyond any thoughtless dogmas that slyful demons could write into your inky idols or speak through your imaginary friends.
Morality as understood currently through riggorous study in academia is far beyond any thoughtless dogmas that slyful demons could write into your inky idols or speak through your imaginary friends.
Academia today is the priesthood of atheism, studying morality based on their own fantasies while avoiding science, history, or any other hard facts that would contradict their fantasies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
