A new body every five years.

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#106

Post by Blob » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:32 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You're such a little twit for such an old person.
Now both you and Thinker are insulting me.

I wonder if unpleasantness a requirement of Christianity or just an unfortunate personality trait the pair of you share.
Because reality is that which when you stop believing it, it doesn't go away. I could think "I am not here" but here I stay.
Your point? You haven't explained your inconsistencies.
Sorry I mis-read your question as asking how I know I am in the here and now. However I won't bother replying anymore as you too are being unkind to me.

If it's any consolation, both of you, I will spend all eternity in excrutiating agony for having a different perception on life's big questions, should your beliefs be right. So you needn't bother yourselves trying to put me down anymore.

So long.

(To others: I'm not planning to leave the forums just will not bother with KMart or Thinker anymore)
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

User avatar
Believer
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:44 pm
Christian: No
Location: Oregon
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#107

Post by Believer » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:53 pm

Blob wrote:(To others: I'm not planning to leave the forums just will not bother with KMart or Thinker anymore)
Right... I KNOW Blob is gonna be talking right back to us. You just can't see it Blob, can you? You came here to:
Blob wrote:As such am interested in "researching" what christians are like. (I mean christians as opposed to christianity, if you see what I mean. For the latter I can just read websites and books.)

SOURCE: CLICK HERE
So what "research" have you found (although I can't say you researched Christians)? Why did you want to research Christians? Purpose? You claimed to have:
Blob wrote:But recently I have been more often in the company of religious people and have even found myself dragged to church through social obligation.

SOURCE: CLICK HERE
So why not "research" those people?

Further:
Blob wrote:I'm afraid I've no interest in becoming religious myself...

SOURCE: CLICK HERE
And so the forum rules state:
Admin wrote:... This board is not for those who have already decisively made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to debate and argue against Christianity, ignoring any and all reasons presented. Therefore, those who are Christian or haven't made up their minds are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged.

SOURCE: CLICK HERE

User avatar
Deborah
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#108

Post by Deborah » Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:43 pm

Blob made it clear why he came to this forum.
In a sense he came to find out what Christians are really like, well done the pair of you, because you have showed him exactly the reason the world hates Christians, and it is not Jesus Christ, it is our actions in the way we live and the way we act toward our fellow man. unfortunately the actions of a few colour the whole christian family the same!
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#109

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:03 pm

Blob wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You're such a little twit for such an old person.
Now both you and Thinker are insulting me.

I wonder if unpleasantness a requirement of Christianity or just an unfortunate personality trait the pair of you share.
Because reality is that which when you stop believing it, it doesn't go away. I could think "I am not here" but here I stay.
Your point? You haven't explained your inconsistencies.
Sorry I mis-read your question as asking how I know I am in the here and now. However I won't bother replying anymore as you too are being unkind to me.

If it's any consolation, both of you, I will spend all eternity in excrutiating agony for having a different perception on life's big questions, should your beliefs be right. So you needn't bother yourselves trying to put me down anymore.

So long.

(To others: I'm not planning to leave the forums just will not bother with KMart or Thinker anymore)
LOL

I understand you're frustration, don't worry August will be back to post a reply.

KMart, I'm not sure that the turnstyle joke is appropriate, but thanks for posting it, thats funny.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#110

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:08 pm

Deborah wrote:Blob made it clear why he came to this forum.
In a sense he came to find out what Christians are really like, well done the pair of you, because you have showed him exactly the reason the world hates Christians, and it is not Jesus Christ, it is our actions in the way we live and the way we act toward our fellow man. unfortunately the actions of a few colour the whole christian family the same!
It's quite clear that wisdom and knowledge do not go hand and hand.

Sometimes the messenger distorts the message.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#111

Post by August » Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:34 pm

Hey everyone, I already asked that we knock off the insults. Consider this a final warning. Anyone who violates this will be suspended from the board.

Especially to my fellow Christians, if we are to defend Christianity, we must do so with humbleness and respect, so there is an extra requirement of you to stay with the Christian character. If you feel that you need to insult someone to win the argument, rather don't post.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#112

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:05 pm

Well you are being sarcastic in an area that ticks me off blobbette.
If it's any consolation, both of you, I will spend all eternity in excrutiating agony for having a different perception on life's big questions, should your beliefs be right. So you needn't bother yourselves trying to put me down anymore.
It's not, duh? Why do you think I bother arguing you?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#113

Post by August » Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:59 pm

Hi Blob.

Thanks for the reply, I was a bit surprised to have had to go back a couple of pages to read it. You are right, these posts are getting long, but it's a good discussion, I feel.
you go on to interchange point 3 (the untenability of Christianity) with knowledge of god's non-existence (e.g. you say What you seem to say in quote (3.) above, is that you have knowledge that God does not exist, because of the reasons you quoted) which is not what I intended.

my dismissal of Christianity is based on reasoning about its internal [in]coherency, not empircism and evidence (e.g. the Christian god is said to be all-just and all-merciful yet this renders him incoherent because an all-just being matches punishment to crime and an all-merciful being always totally forgives without punishment). Therefore I am unclear as to why you say of my dismissal of Christianity as tenable "I want to know what value system you are using to compare the sets of evidence." I'm not sure what sets of evidence you mean.
I'm confused now. First you say that you don't intend to claim that you have made a knowledge claim about the existence of God based on empiricism, but then you make such a claim. "Internal incoherency" about "all-just and all-merciful" do make knowledge claims. You need to know what coherence is, and you also need knowledge about what all-just and all-merciful means in the Christian God context. In addition, if you are asserting that God is not all-just if He is all-merciful, and vice versa, you need to be able to judge God against another concept of all-merciful and all-just, defined by someone or something that holds a higher moral authority than God. I want to know what that standard is. I would also like to know how you logically came to understand the concepts of all-just and all-merciful, from an atheist perspective.

Furthermore, if your intention is to keep evidence for God's non-existence seperate from your belief that God does not exist, that is merely an argument from ignorance, and as such, not logically valid.
Similarly I need no premises to lack belief in god. I only need hear your hypothesis and respond as to whether I believe you.

So what is it, precisely, that you wish me to believe?
How can you arrive at a conclusion if there is no premise? Above you mention "internal coherence", "all-just" and all-merciful", and a perceived inconsistency in the Christian faith. Is that not a premise: "Christianity is inconsistent", or is that a conclusion based on the premises of coherence, all-just and all-merciful? My premise for not believing the Pluto story was that I don't believe in monsters. I pointed out that it was possibly ill-defined so as to remove any points of confusion.

I don't wish you to believe anything, I'm trying to understand the underlying logic to your conclusion that there is no Christian God.
But what is meant by these three letters on the screen "g-o-d"? If the term "green monster living" was too vague for you why should I accept this ill-defined word as having a clear real world referent?
If you don't understand the defintion of what God means, how can you then assert that you are an atheist? For you to not believe in God, you have to know what it is that you are not believing in, otherwise on what basis are you disbelieving?
I dismiss your hypothesis as you did my green monster living on Pluto and , like you, require no world-view nor premise to do so.
You are putting words in my mouth here, you never established my premises nor my world-view related to that question.
For me, belief is a qualitative phenomenon, not a quantitative one. I have no idea how to make sense of your proposed percentages - that I believe it 70% of the time perhaps? I don't know. ("0%" and "100%" make sense - but not as numbers, merely because they are agreed synonyms for certainty). You do seem to realise this yourself when you say "But at least in the case of Christianity, that would be self-defeating, now wouldn't it? You cannot be half a Christian." and "Surely there cannot be 30% of a god?". Then why bring such numbers up? - I didn't for this very reason.
The reason I brought it up is because you make an absolute statement, "God does not exist", followed by the insertion of an element of uncertainty, i.e. "I may be wrong". I am trying to find out how much uncertainty you intend in the qualifying statement. If you intend no uncertainty, like when I said you cannot be half a Christian, why do you add the statement of uncertainty? Can you be half an atheist?
I think the problem is that you favour a black and white, quantifiable assessment of beliefs, whereas I favour shades of grey and a qualitative assessment.
I think I already responded to this, can you define the shades of grey in the statements "I don't believe that God exists", and "I may be wrong"? If they cannot be defined, how do you confirm that you hold a shades of grey position? My confusion arises because you make a black and white statement followed by a shades of grey qualification.
The key to the issue of my belief, and acknowledged possibility of being wrong, is as follows:

assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (But the asssertion may still be correct.)
Ok, so here, to be consistent, you are saying there is no evidence for God? (the assertion being that there is a God, and there is no evidence for God.) That would imply that you have looked at all the evidence for God, and ascertained that it is all invalid. It also seems to be contadictory to what you wrote above:"my dismissal of Christianity is based on reasoning about its internal [in]coherency, not empircism and evidence".
As such I chose not to believe unsubstantiated hypothesis and need no grounds to disregard them - if you appoach me empty-handed with a claim of this or that you cannot then demand I scurry around fretting how to prove you wrong. I can have no belief in what you claim, yet what you claim may still be true. It is for you to ensure your claim is coherent and to bring evidence to substantiate your claim if you wish to convince me.
Now I am really confused. You want to see evidence now, yet you don't have to provide any for your position? Why is that?

This also proved the point that I made in my previous post. You claim atheism to be the default position, true by definition, so therefore there is no need to provide proof for atheism. You shift the burden of proof 100% to Christianity, which is pretty convenient if you are atheist. Your position can be stated as absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you want to argue this way though, you still cannot avoid the burden of proof for atheists. You have to show that the assumption as true that God, if He exists, would leave more evidence than what we presently possess, and that the areas of expected evidence have been suffiently examined.

I also mentioned above already that your position seems then to degenerate into an argument from ignorance, i.e. the assumption that something is not true on the basis of lack of evidence to the contrary.

The burden of proof is on both positions, or otherwise I can just as well take the equally negative position that my case for the existence of God is the lack of evidence for His non-existence, and we are no further than when we started.
atheism must still account for the universe, us being here etc.

Why must it?
If not, on what basis do you propose to reject God? You said it was by the power of your reasoning, but if you cannot account for how your reasoning power came to be, what basis do we have to accept it as valid?
Atheism is a curious word, a mere lack of belief for a common and peculiar claim of higher beings called gods. Yet assertions of gods with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I need not account for the universe to dismiss god claims, merely point to the lack of evidence or the internal incoherence of the proposal.
I already addressed this above. If that is your standard, then mine can be the same.
No more than you shifted the burden of proof for your lack of belief in a green monster living on Pluto. I made the monster assertion without evidence, without even clear premises, and you correctly dismissed it without evidence.

The same holds for your god. There is no burden of proof for me to shift - it remains squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of the proposer.

I will no sooner scurry around to disprove the existence of your god than I will to disprove the existence of alien abductions than I will to disprove that I have been reincarnated many times than I will to disprove that thunder storms are gods warring in the sky that I will to disprove that we are living in The Matrix and than you will to disprove the green monster living on Pluto... ad infinitum (for one can suppose endless unsubstantiated hypotheses)

Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Incoherent theories for mysteries can be dismissed without resolving the mystery. An absolutist worldview can be dismissed without adopting an absolutist worldview.
OK, pretty repetitive. I think I have addressed all of these. If not, let me know.

There is a couple of things that you did not address. One was why you hold atheism to a lower standard of proof than God? You also did not answer:
He might exist is not a statement of belief but of the possibility my belief is in error.

But you believe God might exist?
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#114

Post by Fortigurn » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:06 pm

Blob wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:What criteria would you declare as necessary for verification of Bible prophecy?
Precise and detailed predictions, including a date, that cannot possibile be subjectively interpreted.

For example:
The first lunar eclipse of 2006 is a deep penumbral event best visible from Europe and Africa. First and last penumbral contacts occur at 21:22 UT and 02:14 UT (Mar 15), respectively. The whole Moon will lie completely within the penumbral shadow from 23:18 UT to 00:18 UT (Mar 15).
Source

And some further into the future (larger timescales seem more impressive):
Source
I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. You've created a backdoor for yourself with the statement 'that cannot possibly be subjectively interpreted'. Anything and everything can be subjectively interpreted. Furthermore, why the insistence on a date?

How about a more rigorous definition, which isn't so blatant about creating an escape clause for your argument? ;)

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#115

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:09 pm

Atheists can only play by their own rules to win...
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

User avatar
Deborah
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian: No
Location: Australia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#116

Post by Deborah » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:14 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Atheists can only play by their own rules to win...
this reminds me of the old saying
"that is the pot calling the kettle black"
Church tradition tells us that when John, son of Zebadee and brother of James was an old man, his disciples would carry him to church in their arms.
He would simply say, “Little children, love one another”
After a time his disciples wearied at always hearing these same words and asked “Master why do you always say this?
He replied, “it is the Lords command, and if done, it is enough”

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#117

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:35 pm

Deborah wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Atheists can only play by their own rules to win...
this reminds me of the old saying
"that is the pot calling the kettle black"
Are you saying you do pot?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#118

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:38 pm

It's not my fault that atheism rule #1 is: "though shalt not dispute our assumptions that we have no basis for" and rule #2 turns out to be: "though shalt not question our strict rules that we would never be able to apply to ourselves and are designed to exclude any evidence contrary to atheism"
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#119

Post by Jbuza » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:55 pm

Deborah wrote:Blob made it clear why he came to this forum.
In a sense he came to find out what Christians are really like, well done the pair of you, because you have showed him exactly the reason the world hates Christians, and it is not Jesus Christ, it is our actions in the way we live and the way we act toward our fellow man. unfortunately the actions of a few colour the whole christian family the same!
Yes only the great and mighty and perfect can become Christians. Don't be surprised about people; we all know how they can behave.

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#120

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:58 pm

The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

Post Reply