|
Reasoned Faith
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2007, 12:05:19 PM » |
|
Meanwhile, i will suppose as a first hypothesis that god doesn't exist, as i do with everything else: as the starting hypothesis, nothing exists, until we have evidence on the contrary. Yes and then when faced with evidence that a particular something does exist, if you choose to ignore the evidence then you are free to continue believing it does not. Quite a convenient approach. The case is that there's no evidence that god exists. No, sorry, this is the case your presupposition seems to demand you choose. You pretend that you have no preconceived notions about this world but you only fool the dimwitted. If we choose now the hypothesis that says god exists, we should also choose the hypothesis that states there's a dumbo flying all around the galaxy. Nonsense. If we choose the hypothesis that god exists then we attempt to confirm it with evidence and falsify it with counter evidence. BTW, i'm not the creationist here, don't tell me about 'ignoring evidence'  If the shoe fits. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2007, 01:58:48 PM » |
|
You perhaps.
So then if people are incapable of correctly interpreting God's word who's fault is it? In scripture it says that misinterpretation is caused by people who harden their hearts and minds to Gods message. Scripture indicates that people are capable but many are unwilling. Perhaps you are misinterpreting... I beg to differ. I contend that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic.
Care to back that up? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2007, 04:52:53 PM » |
|
Meanwhile, i will suppose as a first hypothesis that god doesn't exist, as i do with everything else: as the starting hypothesis, nothing exists, until we have evidence on the contrary. Yes and then when faced with evidence that a particular something does exist, if you choose to ignore the evidence then you are free to continue believing it does not. Quite a convenient approach. The case is that there's no evidence that god exists. No, sorry, this is the case your presupposition seems to demand you choose. You pretend that you have no preconceived notions about this world but you only fool the dimwitted. Hey, it's you who has stated that "I contend that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic.", not me. You showed no evidence supporting that affirmation. Evidently, you showed no evidence because there's not such an evidence. Otherwise, where's the evidence? I mean, should i suppose, as a first hypothesis, that you have evidence that god indeed exists?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2007, 05:56:12 PM » |
|
Meanwhile, i will suppose as a first hypothesis that god doesn't exist, as i do with everything else: as the starting hypothesis, nothing exists, until we have evidence on the contrary. Yes and then when faced with evidence that a particular something does exist, if you choose to ignore the evidence then you are free to continue believing it does not. Quite a convenient approach. The case is that there's no evidence that god exists. No, sorry, this is the case your presupposition seems to demand you choose. You pretend that you have no preconceived notions about this world but you only fool the dimwitted. Hey, it's you who has stated that "I contend that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic.", not me. You showed no evidence supporting that affirmation. Evidently, you showed no evidence because there's not such an evidence. Otherwise, where's the evidence? Oh, come now Findeton, you are about to discredit yourself further. It was you who said you were not interested in that topic further. Forgive me for taking you at your word. I mean, should i suppose, as a first hypothesis, that you have evidence that god indeed exists? It would be a respectable thing to do. I would generally take you at you word at first as I did above, and then if I were interested I might ask about the evidence. I am quickly learning more about you though. It seems your prejudice as already evaluated the evidence and you have no further use for it. That's fine, you give yourself away and prove you are not the uncommitted person you claim to be. You are a fraud. Good evening. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,065
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2007, 06:09:41 PM » |
|
Yes, but you also consider agnostics atheists too, and you seem to have some problem with truth but I can't put my finger on it just yet. I'm not sure if you were saying this just to make a point about IamMe's belief that killing is always murder (btw, I disagree with him on that point, murder is a clearly defined legal term) or if it reflects your actual view of things, but I'll respond to this anyway. The definition of "athiest" is up to interpretation a little, but generally agnostics call themselves agnostics, not athiests for a reason. This is true in my case. I do not believe that there is no "god". I also do not believe that there is a "god". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2007, 06:25:13 PM » |
|
Yes, but you also consider agnostics atheists too, and you seem to have some problem with truth but I can't put my finger on it just yet. I'm not sure if you were saying this just to make a point about IamMe's belief that killing is always murder (btw, I disagree with him on that point, murder is a clearly defined legal term) or if it reflects your actual view of things, but I'll respond to this anyway. You got it! The definition of "athiest" is up to interpretation a little, but generally agnostics call themselves agnostics, not athiests for a reason. This is true in my case. I do not believe that there is no "god". I also do not believe that there is a "god".
It makes more sense to me tp evaluate ones worldview in order to find out what title fits best. Here is a test I suggest, 1. Where do you say this universe originated from? A theist will say it was made by a creative agent. while an atheist will say it was not (most will claim a material cause), and an agnostic will say they don't know. There are additional relevant questions to confirm the title but you get the idea, I think. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,065
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2007, 06:39:04 PM » |
|
Yes, but you also consider agnostics atheists too, and you seem to have some problem with truth but I can't put my finger on it just yet. I'm not sure if you were saying this just to make a point about IamMe's belief that killing is always murder (btw, I disagree with him on that point, murder is a clearly defined legal term) or if it reflects your actual view of things, but I'll respond to this anyway. You got it! The definition of "athiest" is up to interpretation a little, but generally agnostics call themselves agnostics, not athiests for a reason. This is true in my case. I do not believe that there is no "god". I also do not believe that there is a "god".
It makes more sense to me tp evaluate ones worldview in order to find out what title fits best. Here is a test I suggest, 1. Where do you say this universe originated from? A theist will say it was made by a creative agent. while an atheist will say it was not (most will claim a material cause), and an agnostic will say they don't know. There are additional relevant questions to confirm the title but you get the idea, I think. If I had to guess, I would say the "big bang", but I wasn't there, so I can't tell you for certain. I find the supporting evidence more persuasive for a "big bang" than the idea that "god" made it happen. I'll admit though, something from nothing is a little bit of a conundrum, I'm inclined to believe that there never was "nothing". If you classify that "something" as "god" I can relate, but I definitely don't subscribe to most common views of god. Just keep in mind when classifying people into groups that somewhere, someone is grouping you in together with all the other theists. Regardless of the fact that your beliefs are far different. I'm not really sure the generalizations provide an accurate picture in either case. In fact, I'm fairly convinced they don't. Again, I realize that a bit of this was just you making a point, but it does make for interesting discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2007, 06:50:04 PM » |
|
It makes more sense to me tp evaluate ones worldview in order to find out what title fits best. Here is a test I suggest,
1. Where do you say this universe originated from? A theist will say it was made by a creative agent. while an atheist will say it was not (most will claim a material cause), and an agnostic will say they don't know.
There are additional relevant questions to confirm the title but you get the idea, I think.
If I had to guess, I would say the "big bang", but I wasn't there, so I can't tell you for certain. I find the supporting evidence more persuasive for a "big bang" than the idea that "god" made it happen. I'll admit though, something from nothing is a little bit of a conundrum, I'm inclined to believe that there never was "nothing". If you classify that "something" as "god" I can relate, but I definitely don't subscribe to most common views of god. I find the big bang to be quite persuasive as well. I find it persuasive evidence for a transcending cause as you also seem to. When coupled with fine tuning observed in the physical parameters it seems to point to an intentional event caused by an intelligent and very powerful agent. So you don't shrug and say that you don't know and you don't seem to agree with materialism. Sounds like a deist to me. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 06, 2007, 04:59:39 PM by Reasoned Faith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2007, 01:01:12 AM » |
|
Meanwhile, i will suppose as a first hypothesis that god doesn't exist, as i do with everything else: as the starting hypothesis, nothing exists, until we have evidence on the contrary. Yes and then when faced with evidence that a particular something does exist, if you choose to ignore the evidence then you are free to continue believing it does not. Quite a convenient approach. The case is that there's no evidence that god exists. No, sorry, this is the case your presupposition seems to demand you choose. You pretend that you have no preconceived notions about this world but you only fool the dimwitted. Hey, it's you who has stated that "I contend that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic.", not me. You showed no evidence supporting that affirmation. Evidently, you showed no evidence because there's not such an evidence. Otherwise, where's the evidence? Oh, come now Findeton, you are about to discredit yourself further. It was you who said you were not interested in that topic further. Forgive me for taking you at your word. I mean, should i suppose, as a first hypothesis, that you have evidence that god indeed exists? It would be a respectable thing to do. I would generally take you at you word at first as I did above, and then if I were interested I might ask about the evidence. I am quickly learning more about you though. It seems your prejudice as already evaluated the evidence and you have no further use for it. That's fine, you give yourself away and prove you are not the uncommitted person you claim to be. You are a fraud. Good evening. Resuming it: "of course, there's no evidence that god exists". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,065
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2007, 11:16:07 AM » |
|
It makes more sense to me tp evaluate ones worldview in order to find out what title fits best. Here is a test I suggest,
1. Where do you say this universe originated from? A theist will say it was made by a creative agent. while an atheist will say it was not (most will claim a material cause), and an agnostic will say they don't know.
There are additional relevant questions to confirm the title but you get the idea, I think.
If I had to guess, I would say the "big bang", but I wasn't there, so I can't tell you for certain. I find the supporting evidence more persuasive for a "big bang" than the idea that "god" made it happen. I'll admit though, something from nothing is a little bit of a conundrum, I'm inclined to believe that there never was "nothing". If you classify that "something" as "god" I can relate, but I definitely don't subscribe to most common views of god. I find the big bang to be quite persuasive as well. I find it persuasive evidence for a transcending cause as you also seem to. When coupled with fine tuning observed in the physical parameters it seems to point to an intentional event caused by an intelligent and very powerful agent. So you don't shrug and say that you don't know and you don't seem to agree with materialism. Sounds like a deist to me. TBH, I was more or less unfamiliar with deism. Some of the ideas, I agree see as plausible, some not so much. From what I can determine, I go along with the critical, but not constructive elements of deism. From wiki (my comments in color): Critical elements of Deist thought included:
* Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
Yes
* Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".
With the caveat that many unexplained things happen, but we don't understand them. Something isn't a miracle just because we don't understand how it happened.
* Rejection of the Genesis account of creation and the doctrine of original sin, along with all similar beliefs.
I neither believe in sin, nor take the biblical account of genesis to be literally accurate.
* Rejection of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religious beliefs.
Yes
Constructive elements of Deist thought included:
* God exists and created the universe.
I definitely wouldn't state it this way. Somehow the universe being created seems like a faulty idea. To create the universe would be to bring something from nothing.
* God wants human beings to behave morally.
Definitely not. An entity concerned with regulating the space time continuum and presiding over sub-atomic processes does not care in any fashion, even remotely, if we don't pay our parking tickets, steal candy from little kids or even murder people.
* Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife.
No, the afterlife I believe in is the legacy you leave. The Egyptian pharaohs were successful in their quest for immortality. People still speak their names thousands of years later. The most plausible idea to me is that the energy that is our life dissipates and changes form when we die.
* In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior.
Not at all. I don't consider myself a deist by any standard, but I am closer to a deist than I am a Christian theist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
