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.
Here is a video I watched this morning that compares atheism and Christianity via what science shows.
The Christians here will like it the atheist will not so I don't expect many atheist will give it the time of day, but the Christians here might wont to listen to the whole thing.
]
I can tell you without looking at it that science does not "kill god". what science does is show that god is different than some theist think it is. we are part of a larger more complex system. that's just; flat; simple; fact.
what traits of the system could make some people think its a god thingie and it not be a god thiningie? what traits of that system would make it look like there is not something more complex but yet there be something more complex?
One thing I learned a long time ago is that there is a difference between
Answering a question
and
responding to a question.
Demanding an answer to a question is for some a means of manipulating the person who is expected to answer the question asked. It's a form of inquisition.
We have two posters in this forum who turn to inquisition/manipulation quite often. It doesn't help their cause one bit.
more than two. I see at least three with this post.
no, actually i look at the universe, it knows me, it cares for me, it cares about me, it knows me personally and individually, it surrounds me with benevolence, it supports me and nourishes me and loves me, and it sings my name in light.
if your daily life and personal experience is being "not known" "not cared about" "hated" then that doesn't have much going for it and sounds rather bleak.
i hate to break it to you, but there are no "negatives of this relationship"
most scientist would say that parts of the universe definitely know and care about you. But there are parts of it that don't like you so much either.
so it doesn't apply to you
and it doesn't apply to me.
but it applies to everyone else.
billions and billions of people, you are saying that the universe hates them, does not know them, does not care about them.
sorry, harry, i don't find that to be rational.
this part I don't get with people.
why does it have to be universal when we just don't know? There are volumes of the universe that care. there are volumes of the universe that don't care. there are volumes that don't like you and there are volumes that do.
At this point, it seems more reasonable to say that most of it doesn't know. But there are certainly valid positions that say it could know.
so when looking at reliability, we have "It looks like it doesn't care" out weighing the fact that "it is valid to say it might." Much like a flat earth was. It looks flat, so that is a mighty important observation because we can point to it and say "look". But there are observations that make "its round" a valid claim.
only anti-god-ers have to deny anything they "feel" a fundy theist will misuse.
And we have guys like you tzap that use personal need to make a deity thingie real.
why does it have to be universal when we just don't know? There are volumes of the universe that care. there are volumes of the universe that don't care. there are volumes that don't like you and there are volumes that do.
At this point, it seems more reasonable to say that most of it doesn't know. But there are certainly valid positions that say it could know.
so when looking at reliability, we have "It looks like it doesn't care" out weighing the fact that "it is valid to say it might." Much like a flat earth was. It looks flat, so that is a mighty important observation because we can point to it and say "look". But there are observations that make "its round" a valid claim.
only anti-god-ers have to deny anything they "feel" a fundy theist will misuse.
And we have guys like you tzap that use personal need to make a deity thingie real.
The term fundy is derogatory. I understand why some feign ignorance to this, but I think you can make your points without lashing out. Besides, what's being labeled as a fundy is really a moderate to conservative liberal (with a/some standard here or there).
I wish I could write better for this one. do you think its more reasonable to check the reliability of claim based on observation or personal emotional need?
apply your logic to voting. does it hold up?
I wasn't addressing the reliability of the claim. That is a separate action. Claims don't have to be believed but I do think identifying them is the first step in thinking for oneself. The next step would be to consider what reasoning the person provided to support their claim. Is it evidence? Is it just a reason? Or is the person making more claims to support that claim?
So here is a claim that I chose to use that comes from another person: Fear is not a state to be in constantly.
Reasoning (no evidence): Because fear is a tool we use during life or death situations.
I will be honest, I never learned the words claim, reasoning, evidence, perspective, etc. in the educational setting. So my goal with my posts is to understand the meaning of the words and the structure of arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Yes if you claim something because claims are definitive, but not necessarily if you believe something.
Example: I believe my neighbor is having an affair but I do not claim/state this a fact because I do not know for certain.
Okay, so you are claiming that claims are equal to facts?
The term fundy is derogatory. I understand why some feign ignorance to this, but I think you can make your points without lashing out. Besides, what's being labeled as a fundy is really a moderate to conservative liberal (with a/some standard here or there).
I get that. Thats not the point of post. but does show part of the problem. more importantly to me is why theist and atheist would side with these types of people? they do not represent the rational middle man.
"something more, not more deities" is, by far, the most valid claim to date. I haven'y seem one compelling argument, past personal emotion, from conservative liberal atheist that shows we shouldn't be focusing on that when we talk to theist.
I wasn't addressing the reliability of the claim. That is a separate action. Claims don't have to be believed but I do think identifying them is the first step in thinking for oneself. The next step would be to consider what reasoning the person provided to support their claim. Is it evidence? Is it just a reason? Or is the person making more claims to support that claim?
So here is a claim that I chose to use that comes from another person: Fear is not a state to be in constantly.
Reasoning (no evidence): Because fear is a tool we use during life or death situations.
I will be honest, I never learned the words claim, reasoning, evidence, perspective, etc. in the educational setting. So my goal with my posts is to understand the meaning of the words and the structure of arguments.
Okay, so you are claiming that claims are equal to facts?
I wasn't actually claiming anything. I was attempting to answer the question you posed and I gave a simple example to demonstrate.
I wasn't addressing the reliability of the claim. That is a separate action. Claims don't have to be believed but I do think identifying them is the first step in thinking for oneself. The next step would be to consider what reasoning the person provided to support their claim. Is it evidence? Is it just a reason? Or is the person making more claims to support that claim?
So here is a claim that I chose to use that comes from another person: Fear is not a state to be in constantly.
Reasoning (no evidence): Because fear is a tool we use during life or death situations.
I will be honest, I never learned the words claim, reasoning, evidence, perspective, etc. in the educational setting. So my goal with my posts is to understand the meaning of the words and the structure of arguments. To me anyway.
Okay, so you are claiming that claims are equal to facts?
I get that. we can study how people and why people make and stand by claims. Thats true enough.
but here, we have atheist and theist telling us what statement of belief about god is more valid and why we should be believing it. I think evaluating the reliability of a claim is far more important than how/why humans hold claims true.
At least for us middle of road folks. Learning how to evaluate claims (a process and indicators) is more important then why humans hold claims true.
I get that. we can study how people and why people make and stand by claims. Thats true enough.
but here, we have atheist and theist telling us what statement of belief about god is more valid and why we should be believing it. I think evaluating the reliability of a claim is far more important than how/why humans hold claims true.
At least for us middle of road folks. Learning how to evaluate claims (a process and indicators) is more important then why humans hold claims true.
I don't know, Arach. If a person doesn't realize that what they are stating are simply claims, ideas that don't have to be accepted or believed, then their reasons for believing those claims are held in higher regard than the validity of the claim, which would allow others to accept it as their own.
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.
