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.
Gradual assemblage of “evidence”?
No, I dont think I said that.
“Gradual assemblage of “faith” in believing the existence of a creating force, based on our observation and using our logic and intelligence”, is perhaps a better way to put what I said.
That's the same thing in different words. Whether it's an assemblage of faith without any facts, observations or data to base it on, or whether it is facts, observations and data to base it on that is in fact invalid, mistaken or misinterpreted, it is still built up with (blind) faith.
Only conclusions based on valid and sound evidence can avoid doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
I don’t see a claim being made here.
If I say, “I am Jesus Christ”, then yes that’s a claim I am making, for which you are obliged to demand an evidence.
However, when I believe in the existence of God based on faith, then how is this making a claim?
It is a claim if you say that you believe in the existence of God and tell someone else. If you keep it to yourself, it isn't a claim.
Again, even if you don't say that you believe it but present the existence of a god as credible or plausible to someone else - that also is a claim. You are in both cases logically obligated to support the claim with valid reasons or your claim is shown to be invalid.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-10-2019 at 11:56 AM..
That's the same thing in different words. Whether it's an assemblage of faith without any facts, observations or data to base it on, or whether it is facts, observations and data to base it on that is in fact invalid, mistaken or misinterpreted, it is still built up with (blind) faith.
Only conclusions based on valid and sound evidence can avoid doing that.
It is a claim if you say that you believe in the existence of God and tell someone else. If you keep it to yourself, it isn't a claim.
Again, even if you don't say that you believe it but present the existence of a god as credible or plausible to someone else - that also is a claim. You are in both cases logically obligated to support the claim with valid reasons or your claim is shown to be invalid.
No, you mean your anti-religious/god sect of atheism is less valid so you make yourself feel better by saying its me. exactly like a Fundy theist does. and raf as your support group? that's like a sinking ship clutching onto an iron curtain for a floating device.
you can't beat a more sound line of logic trains. anti-religion/god just doesn't cut the mustard. I have tried every angle to make it work, it just doesn't.
the only angles that allow tit to work is when we deploy "the truth makes no real diference in my life so change it a bit.". "although valid, just don't use it and make atheism harder to sell." and 'religion is dangerous its ok to make up whatever we need to sto stop it."
its why you will always be outnumbered by my type of atheist. Its why you will put the truth to a cross if you have too.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50678
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You aren't worth the effort. Raffs was right.
That's the same thing in different words. Whether it's an assemblage of faith without any facts, observations or data to base it on, or whether it is facts, observations and data to base it on that is in fact invalid, mistaken or misinterpreted, it is still built up with (blind) faith.
Only conclusions based on valid and sound evidence can avoid doing that.
It is a claim if you say that you believe in the existence of God and tell someone else. If you keep it to yourself, it isn't a claim.
Again, even if you don't say that you believe it but present the existence of a god as credible or plausible to someone else - that also is a claim. You are in both cases logically obligated to support the claim with valid reasons or your claim is shown to be invalid.
This is the problem with this thinking: no, he isn't obligated to support his claim.
If I'm selling you a vacuum cleaner and claim it's the best vacuum cleaner, I'm obligated to support that claim, or at least, it better be true in your experience with it.
If I'm telling you how fabulous Craigslist used furniture section is, and go on to describe the leather couch I got, I'm under no obligation whatsoever to prove anything at all to you. Nor do I have to be knowledgable about who founded craigslist, where you go if you have a complaint about the service, when the website was formed, or answer your statements that you know people who have had terrible experiences on Craigslist. No obligation whatsoever. I sure love this fabulous leather couch i got for 100 bucks.
But personal preference is not the same thing as justifying facts. If you happen to like a particular couch, I have no problem with that. But if you say that it is better than other couches, you have to give reasons why - if you expect anyone to accept that claim.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50678
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
But personal preference is not the same thing as justifying facts. If you happen to like a particular couch, I have no problem with that. But if you say that it is better than other couches, you have to give reasons why - if you expect anyone to accept that claim.
My experience of getting quick answers to prayer (even if that answer is a definite no, or that answer is hey do this instead), is my $100 leather couch I'm telling you about from Craigslist.
And no, I don't have to tell you why I think it's a great couch. Nor do I have to tell you when the Bible was written to tell you my experience of my answer to prayer. Nor do I EVEN have to tell you what the prayers were that were answered.
That's the entire crux of this here. I can tell you of my experience, and I'm under no obligation to convince you.
The only response you can make, that will require me to conform, is if you say please stop talking to me about it. Then I have to do that.
My experience of getting quick answers to prayer (even if that answer is a definite no, or that answer is hey do this instead), is my $100 leather couch I'm telling you about from Craigslist.
And no, I don't have to tell you why I think it's a great couch. Nor do I have to tell you when the Bible was written to tell you my experience of my answer to prayer. Nor do I EVEN have to tell you what the prayers were that were answered.
That's the entire crux of this here. I can tell you of my experience, and I'm under no obligation to convince you.
The only response you can make, that will require me to conform, is if you say please stop talking to me about it. Then I have to do that.
The claims of Answered Prayer have been dealt with before. Bottom line is that you can believe whatever you like; you don't have to justify that to me or anyone else.
But without providing some back -up there is no reason why anyone should accept the claim. If you then say you don't intend to convince anyone else, the conversation is effectively over.
Now you may play the 'just telling, not arguing' card, but anyone who posts here about religion can expect to be called on it. It is going be a bit tough to maintain a position of 'I just want to tell you all about it - i don't expect to asked to show why anyone should believe it'.
"And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”
So why are you getting a 'no'?
The usual excuse, old Pheasant -plucker, is that God of course grants whatever is asked in Faith...if He thinks its' ok that you should be granted it. Which is a neat get out but effectively means that the Gospel promise is nullified by the Small print that wasn't even there. What this means is that prayer is 'Answered' at about the same as not praying. Count the hits (with a very broad 'hit' rate...even well 'it turned out for the best or even...it taught me a lesson in faith...losing everything'.) and anyone can talk themselves into thinking tgat Prayer Works. It's a Delusion -one of many.
Quote:
If you are making a claim of truth, then you need to support the claim.
Yes. One cannot get away with repeated 'explanations' posted again and again and then get out of having to substantiate them by saying it's just talking about it. It's the thin end of telling atheists to shut up and stop asking awkward questions.
We are not going to shut up, go away or stop putting unwelcome arguments or asking awkward questions. Never again.
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.
