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.
Harry's posts speak for themselves. Do I believe they reflect lower-caliber reasoning skills? Well, yes, indeed I do. As Mystic has suggested, there may also be something of a language barrier. Or, as I suspect, there may also be a degree of intellectual disingenuousness and dishonesty on his part.
There MAY be??? How on earth could he NOT be disingenuous when dishonestly asking for proof that Peter resurrected a cooked fish???!!!!???
I look at it completely differently. From my perspective the OP was designed to make a point. And a valid point.
One valid point - which I believe I was the first to make - is that no claim about the origin of the natural order can be proved by evidence from within the natural order. An attempt to explain the origin of the natural order is necessarily speculative. "There is no deity" is just as speculative as "There is a deity." This does not mean all speculation is pointless or that all speculation has equal merit. The OP pretty obviously recognized this point, or he would not have posted his "invitation" in the A&A forum.
The more pertinent point - which I made repeatedly - is that there is a vast body of scientific evidence spanning many disciplines that is at least consistent with deism and theism. Secular scientists and even atheists acknowledge this fact without accepting deism or theism. This body of evidence is called "fine-tuning" throughout the scientific community because it is, at the least, suggestive of a tuner.
You and the atheists who have contributed here apparently think the valid point is (to quote Harry) that there is "no credible evidence" for deism or theism. This is ignorant and dishonest. It's such an atheist meme that the atheists here don't even care whether it makes sense within the context of a discussion.
The "no credible evidence" meme flows from an a priori assumption that evidence for fine-tuning cannot be considered as supportive of deism or theism because deism and theism are too improbable to be taken seriously. This is intellectually dishonest and is why serious atheists regard the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins as an embarrassment.
One valid point - which I believe I was the first to make - is that no claim about the origin of the natural order can be proved by evidence from within the natural order. An attempt to explain the origin of the natural order is necessarily speculative. "There is no deity" is just as speculative as "There is a deity." This does not mean all speculation is pointless or that all speculation has equal merit. The OP pretty obviously recognized this point, or he would not have posted his "invitation" in the A&A forum.
The more pertinent point - which I made repeatedly - is that there is a vast body of scientific evidence spanning many disciplines that is at least consistent with deism and theism. Secular scientists and even atheists acknowledge this fact without accepting deism or theism. This body of evidence is called "fine-tuning" throughout the scientific community because it is, at the least, suggestive of a tuner.
You and the atheists who have contributed here apparently think the valid point is (to quote Harry) that there is "no credible evidence" for deism or theism. This is ignorant and dishonest. It's such an atheist meme that the atheists here don't even care whether it makes sense within the context of a discussion.
The "no credible evidence" meme flows from an a priori assumption that evidence for fine-tuning cannot be considered as supportive of deism or theism because deism and theism are too improbable to be taken seriously. This is intellectually dishonest and is why serious atheists regard the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins as an embarrassment.
Lets Remove the word deity. Oh wait, if we do that then your sect of atheism starts to rely on blind faith and flawed thinking as some theist do.
Some believers are hypocrites. They are totally fine with their nonsense beliefs, like walking around a city and banging into churches leaves the only explanation of past lives being real. But they are more willing to bash any belief they don't like using flawed thinking and personal emotions. I love one about a person saying something with confidence so that renders their opinion void. lmao, that is the funniest one.
But I guess when we are circled up in group, thinking about our responsibility in all this doesn't really apply. It is so much easier pointing the finger.
There is no reason to assume that fighting religion is a good enough reason to deny that most "none's" believe in some thing. Some reference to us being part of a larger more complex system.
To just keep denying it, avoiding it, shunning it, and when need to attack the person saying it makes it just go away.
You and Harry need to stop presuming you have ANY authority to evaluate or proclaim one-liner judgments without explanation or substantive rebuttal.
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.
How on earth could he NOT be disingenuous when dishonestly asking for proof that Peter resurrected a cooked fish???!!!!???
