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.
I can only put this down to Blind or blinkered Faith, which for example is why, although they know, deep down that prayer doesn't work, they will not recognize this. In the same way when they try to excuse God's bad deeds they are applying human morals in judgement of God's deeds into good and bad, but to be fair, not many of the experts and savants seem to have realised that one.
There is another possibility, that O'Darby is not here for a honest discussion, that they have some need to attack, possibly to feel superior. That is why they have to argue about our reliance on these terms as if we are only making claims of using rational tools instead of actually using those tools. That is why O'Darby evades all of our arguments using logic, science, mathematics and history, because O'Deary can not win.
That is why they O'Darby has to make arguments such as most religious theist geniuses were men, therefore women are stupid, ...
no, that was not it. Wait, most theists must be on the less intelligent end of the spectrum, therefore atheists must be geniuses, ...
No, that too was not it. Ha, yes, most scientists and great thinkers throughout history were theists, therefore atheists are irrational.
And I do not mind if to attack atheists, O'Darby must make theists look stupid, just as Goldie did. It amuses me.
No, the burden of proof is when one is trying to persuade the other that you are correct.
I understood what O'Darby was saying. He's saying that he doesn't need to provide proof because he's not trying to prove anything to anyone or persuade anyone of anything. Fair enough.
Although he then goes on to say that atheists have nothing to say. Well by that logic, theists have nothing to say either.
I understood what O'Darby was saying. He's saying that he doesn't need to provide proof because he's not trying to prove anything to anyone or persuade anyone of anything. Fair enough.
One does not make snake oil unless you are trying to sell it. O'Darby has so much of it, I just hope it is environment friendly.
As long as we DO NOT KNOW what the hell our existence actually IS the simple fact of the matter is that the ASSUMPTIONN about what it IS or IS NOT is devoid of proof. Burden schmurden!!! Your faith is in an unvalidated lack-of-God claim!! How often do I need to say it, Arq? There is no such thing as the supernatural! Everything is completely natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
We have done this before and you listen learn and remember nothing. Let us do it again.
The materialist default is the default database of the model of reality. Claims outside that are broadly called the 'Supernatural' as no natural thing is validated about it. IF it were validated, explained and researched, then yes, it would become natural and even science, but until then 'Supernatural' is a comprehensible term and the burden of proof is on those who claim such things are real and true. We have done your tinkering with semantics before, but like the way the burden of proof goes, you never remember.
What scientific or empirical MEASURE was used to determine WHAT was being investigated to call it "material reality"? This is especially relevant given the utter "immateriality" of the actual composition of "reality" revealed by the "unmeasurable" quantum level that comprises 95+% of it.
I don't feel like getting banned from the site, so I'm not going to respond to my 'favorite' Northern Irishman-turned-Texan. The guy is pretty adept at sophistry, though, it must be said.
I understood what O'Darby was saying. He's saying that he doesn't need to provide proof because he's not trying to prove anything to anyone or persuade anyone of anything. Fair enough.
Although he then goes on to say that atheists have nothing to say. Well by that logic, theists have nothing to say either.
You're missing a critical distinction: I don't claim atheists have nothing to say. I claim that those here say nothing. Quite a difference. I could've had an absolutely fascinating and worthwhile discussion with Bertrand Russell and could have one now with Thomas Nagel.
Atheism, as expressed on these forums, consists of little more than "Why I hate Christianity." Even in this narrow context, there is little evidence of any deep or mature understanding of Christianity (or, for that matter, any deep or mature understanding of atheism). The substance is pretty much zero.
Certainly, some Christians here, and many in the world at large, operate at a similarly shallow, non-substantive, mud-slinging level in their "discussions" with atheists and sometimes even in their debates with each other. But it seems to me that on these forums those of virtually all religious and quasi-religious beliefs, not just Christianity, deal far more in substance than do the atheists. To borrow a phrase from the OP, the atheists here seem to be locked into the New Atheist "hyperbolic antireligious fervor" that finally caused even Dawkins to wear out his welcome with serious atheists.
It's a simple fact that the ranks of serious, mature Christians and other theists have always included some of the greatest, most-disciplined minds from the most demanding philosophical, academic and scientific disciplines. They have reached and hold their theistic positions for sound philosophical, theological, evidential and experiential reasons. The New Atheist-type hyperbole in which the atheists here continue to deal just makes them look silly and uninformed. The fact they are oblivious to this speaks volumes in itself.
Neither theism nor atheism is irrational, delusional, devoid of critical thinking, without a philosophical or evidential basis, blah blah blah. But the atheists here consistently deal in these sorts of non-substantive and obviously false statements, as though they occupied some self-evident intellectual higher ground by default and weren't obligated to deal in substance. In so doing, they say nothing - and that was my point, not that a Bertrand Russell or Thomas Nagel has nothing to say.
You're missing a critical distinction: I don't claim atheists have nothing to say. I claim that those here say nothing. Quite a difference. I could've had an absolutely fascinating and worthwhile discussion with Bertrand Russell and could have one now with Thomas Nagel.
Atheism, as expressed on these forums, consists of little more than "Why I hate Christianity." Even in this narrow context, there is little evidence of any deep or mature understanding of Christianity (or, for that matter, any deep or mature understanding of atheism). The substance is pretty much zero.
Certainly, some Christians here, and many in the world at large, operate at a similarly shallow, non-substantive, mud-slinging level in their "discussions" with atheists and sometimes even in their debates with each other. But it seems to me that on these forums those of virtually all religious and quasi-religious beliefs, not just Christianity, deal far more in substance than do the atheists. To borrow a phrase from the OP, the atheists here seem to be locked into the New Atheist "hyperbolic antireligious fervor" that finally caused even Dawkins to wear out his welcome with serious atheists.
It's a simple fact that the ranks of serious, mature Christians and other theists have always included some of the greatest, most-disciplined minds from the most demanding philosophical, academic and scientific disciplines. They have reached and hold their theistic positions for sound philosophical, theological, evidential and experiential reasons. The New Atheist-type hyperbole in which the atheists here continue to deal just makes them look silly and uninformed. The fact they are oblivious to this speaks volumes in itself.
Neither theism nor atheism is irrational, delusional, devoid of critical thinking, without a philosophical or evidential basis, blah blah blah. But the atheists here consistently deal in these sorts of non-substantive and obviously false statements, as though they occupied some self-evident intellectual higher ground by default and weren't obligated to deal in substance. In so doing, they say nothing - and that was my point, not that a Bertrand Russell or Thomas Nagel has nothing to say.
1. No, actually we have said a lot over time. You just don't like what we say.
2. I am sure those men might have been very fascinating. That's not saying you would be. I find your posts rather mundane.
3. Most of us here who are atheists were christians, often for a long period of our lives (in my case, to varying degrees, from age 8-67. And some of us struggled through more than one iteration of christianity, in my case mathodism and catholicism. But it doesn't take a doctorate in maudlin religions for us to know we don't believe.
4. And what's wrong with 'why I hate christianity'. There's a lot there to hate. Just ask the American Indian culture, or many of the South and Central American cultures, and Islam. All that hate didn't just happen for no reason. Y'all earned it.
5. And you're one of the paramount mudslingers...as evidenced in this very post of yours.
6. Those "greatest, most-disciplined minds"...you may farm them, but you ain't one of 'em. Your posts may often be long, but they can be summed up in one phrase: 'christianity is king'. Well, that's to you.
You're missing a critical distinction: I don't claim atheists have nothing to say. I claim that those here say nothing.
I have logically explained why there is probably something rather than nothing, something you admit to have been studying without a solution for decades. Perhaps you think we say nothing because you are so far behind in your journey.
I use science, history, mathematics and logic in many of my posts. The work is there for all to see and attempt to refute. You do not, you simply dismiss it, like several other alleged religious geniuses. One need not ask why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
It's a simple fact that the ranks of serious, mature Christians and other theists have always included some of the greatest, most-disciplined minds from the most demanding philosophical, academic and scientific disciplines. They have reached and hold their theistic positions for sound philosophical, theological, evidential and experiential reasons. The New Atheist-type hyperbole in which the atheists here continue to deal just makes them look silly and uninformed. The fact they are oblivious to this speaks volumes in itself.
That we need to explain this again speaks volumes. I would explain again, but all the Irkle bird does is squawk.
As long as we DO NOT KNOW what the hell our existence actually IS the simple fact of the matter is that the ASSUMPTIONN about what it IS or IS NOT is devoid of proof. Burden schmurden!!! Your faith is in an unvalidated lack-of-God claim!! How often do I need to say it, Arq? There is no such thing as the supernatural! Everything is completely natural.
Have we not known what the hell our existence actually is?
I feel I know. Many of us know what there is to know in any case. The rest is a work-in-progress effort to learn as much more about the truth of these matters as we can. So far most of that effort has refuted claims about God doing this or that and so far nothing that gives any real credence to believe in the existence of a god in the first place. None of which has anything to do with assumptions either. It's all simply fact based.
Or again, we'd all be believers by now!
"No such thing as supernatural! Everything is completely natural."
Too bad we can't simply leave it at this. I am certainly satisfied doing so, but you and others then go on about a god. Of course, you are using your own definitions to perform you circular magic act, but most people's definition or notion about a god is a supernatural one. Beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
If on the other hand, I want to claim a square is the same thing as a circle and a circle is the same thing as a square, well then it follows that everything is the same thing as everything else. If this is some sort of proof a god exists, then I'm afraid this sort of "higher math and logic" is well over my head.
Or maybe like claiming a square is the same thing as a circle, simply just wrong. Not the truth.
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.
