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.
Mystic, please read what I said above about the well-regulated process of asking questions versus us making assumptions about "assumptions".
Quote:
That too would have to be tested within the same levels of rigid documentation and levels of proof, and that's where the problem comes. Given that your God has chosen to never show Himself to us, irrefutibly, incontrovertibly and unambiguously, we thus far have no evidence to accept Him. On top of that, we DO have a lot of conclusionary, logical evidence that the things we see in nature have completely non-theistic explanations that, BTW, also make complete logical sense.
Reproduced here for your reference. I HAVE read your explanations and all your other ones as well that are targeted at the easy to refute religionist nonsense. If my views were at such an infantile intellectual level your dismissal of them would be understandable. But you seem not to even grasp the epistemological issues that plague your certitude and the assumptions you yourself make while you charge others with making them.
I bolded the utter nonsense you assert. It is inescapable that ALL the evidence you have is of God, period. You have in no way established scientifically that it is otherwise . . nor can you . . . since THAT is at a level beyond your UNPROVABLE presumptions that underlie your empirical processes. You cannot assert an UNPROVABLE premise and then establish a logical syllogistic process FROM there to achieve a final result that you use to support your UNPROVABLE premise. That you can reliably establish and assert the subsequents does nothing to affirm the taken as a given unprovable premises . . . a failing in logic that seems to plague all atheists. You clearly did not understand JRemy's excellent attempt to simplify this for you.
Quote:
Remember, many including myself, started out as devout Christians. I/we have carefully considered both side of the evidence, realizing what we had to lose. I'm betting you haven't. My educational background includes, in order, engineering, biology, toxicology, evolution and finally geology. I think I"m qualified, even if you don't agre, to discuss the scientific approach. By the "absolute" statements you've provided, I'm willling to bet you haven't availed yourself of the other side of the argument. If so, tell me about it. if not, how can you confidently make such sweeping and unqualified statements?
Your education is not the issue, rifleman . . . your philosophical naivete' IS! You can't seem to distinguish between what is established science (like evolution) and the assertions you make that exceed the bounds within which that science is established (God, design, etc.).
Theist: Excuse me...Is this "nature" and "universe" you study and test , known through your research to be "in fact" entities capable of creation?
Atheist: Oh, yes. They create constantly.
Theist: Isn't "creative power" PROVEN by your studies to only be assigned to entities that are intellectual and conscious?
Atheist: Ummm, yes. HEEEEY, wait a minute! I KNOW where this is going!
Theist: So you KNOW, don't you? Then how can you deny the conscious intellect that either, the universe IS, or is being directed BY?
Atheist: You just don't GET IT do you? It's all a matter of random chance. Given enough time ANYTHING can happen...and DOES! The creating is a derivative of random occurrences in the universe.
Theist: But that flies in the face of your own research, by which you have told us a conscious intellect is a prerequisite for creative power...does it not?
Atheist: What do YOU know! Are YOU a scientist? I AM!!! I KNOW!! Forget it!!! There's just no talking to you because you are too ignorant to understand! Just go back to your winged people sitting on clouds playing harps, bad guy with a pointy tail and a pitch fork, and the next time you need your oil lamp to burn for a week put an ounce of oil in it. HAHAHAHA! You're SUCH a moron!! But then being a MORON makes you part of the majority, so you have plenty of company! Now get out of my face and let me get back to my research!
Atheist: You don't understand randomness. Random is just a label for what we don't currently know.
Well you got that right anyway.
Quote:
Atheist: The universe is governed by processes that explain how things work. Disbelief in undetectable magic doesn't mean something 'just happened.'
You changed it as I was posting. Admittedly your "governed by processes that govern" was ludicrously easy to take apart. The changes didn't help your position, tho. What are the processes established by . . . given the unconscious, undirected, purposeless, universe of raw energy/matter you assume?
Many try to credit what governs to their own inventions: a bearded single white shemale, a conscious galaxy ... the goal is always the same: I am magical, you need to listen to me.
Atheist: The universe is governed by processes that explain how things work. Disbelief in undetectable magic doesn't mean something 'just happened.'
I can see where the theist would be scratching their head...anybody being given a line like that would be.
And those processes that "serve as the governor" of the universe...pray tell, by what authority do they govern? What, no Emperor? Are they elected governor, or are they appointed? What/who elects them? What/who appoints them? You say you don't know? Well, it's your lucky day, because I do! And I won't even charge you for my findings I made after years of non paid research. The answer is----GOD!
I can see where the theist would be scratching their head...anybody being given a line like that would be.
And those processes that "serve as the governor" of the universe...pray tell, by what authority do they govern? What, no Emperor? Are they elected governor, or are they appointed? What/who elects them? What/who appoints them? You say you don't know? Well, it's your lucky day, because I do! And I won't even charge you for my findings I made after years of non paid research. The answer is----GOD!
Remember--You gotta have FAITH.
Faith isn't something you turn on and off. You are either a faithful person and choose what to aim your faith at, or you are not a faithful person.
I am not a faithful person. I have always asked to many questions and never been satisfied with "We can't know Deity's plan".
Faith isn't something you turn on and off. You are either a faithful person and choose what to aim your faith at, or you are not a faithful person.
I am not a faithful person.
What a deficiency! If one had to chose any character trait to lack, it probably wouldn't be that. Your wife, friends, employers, and business associates have my sympathy.
What a deficiency! If one had to chose any character trait to lack, it probably wouldn't be that. Your wife, friends, employers, and business associates have my sympathy.
Me--Semper Fidelis
What does that mean?
Are you suggesting that because I do not have religious faith, I am a deficient husband, my friends are in danger, and I don't do my job at work?
Are you suggesting that because I do not have religious faith, I am a deficient husband, my friends are in danger, and I don't do my job at work?
WTF?
You said someone is either a faithful person, or not...and that you weren't. Based on your statement, would it not make sense to assume you were unfaithful to family, friends, employers, etc...if faithful is something "you are not"?
Being faithful is not exclusive to theological beliefs...it's a general character trait. You said you weren't a faithful person...furthermore (and this was the real catch), that it couldn't be "turned on and off". If that is so, how do you turn it *off* for theological beliefs, but turn it *on* for other aspects of your life? Based on the, "can't turn it on and off" part of what you wrote I dismissed your lack of faithfulness as possibly just limited to being "religious". If somebody told you, "Mr X is not a faithful person", what would you deduce from that? You proclaimed yourself as lacking that character trait, not me.
You responded to my post, I responded back. Possibly I misunderstood, or you needed to qualify your general statement of not being a faithful person. But the conclusions I drew were logical based on what you wrote, were they not?
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.
Atheism made eeeeeeeasy!
