Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 281
  1. #41
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    After review of this thread the following claims have not been supported. These claims are hereby retracted until support is offered. Further use of these claims will result in an infraction and banning from the thread.

    That atheists use "because a book says so" as a justification for evolution. Or for that matter than any atheist here has used "because a book says so" solely as the basis of their argument
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatihah View Post
    Challenge: Prove evolution is true, without referring to what someone says ( from a book, link, or article, etc.).
    Evolution can loosely be defined as change over time. In this case you are referring to biological evolution which can be defined as change over time in a biological organism.

    I bread dogs. Here is the evolution of the dogs I breed.

    Attachment 3717

    Notice that they changed over time.

    If the above does not prove that evolution is true than this thread is not about evolution but about Epistemology.
    abc

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    For Clarity for all

    My take on the OP is that he is trying to turn an atheist critique of religious faith on its head.
    Atheist to Theist: Why do you believe in god?
    Theist: Because our holy book reveals to us this truth?
    Atheist: But how do you know the book is true?
    Theist: Because it is revealed truth from god, says so right in the book.
    Atheist: But you have nothing but this testimony to support you, nothing corroborates it.
    Theist: Well how do you know that evolution is true?
    Atheist: Look at this science book, it says so.
    Theist: Well how do you know that science book is true?
    Atheist: Because it is the truth from noted scientists, says so right in the book.

    Theist: So how is your claim any different than mine?

    Of course the Fatihah seems to miss the forest for the trees by insisting I'm supposed to support evolution when this argument seems to me a logical one challenging a specific critique by trying to show it is hypocritical.

    Of course my attempt is to demonstrate to Fatihah that if one is inclined they can first hand examine the physical evidence that the scientists examined and you don't need to use any books to support your case. He seems to not comprehend this concept however.

    Fatihah:
    The originator of the theory of evolution is a man named Charles Darwin. Are you familiar with him?
    He came up with the hypothesis while studying the wildlife on the Galapagos island. Prior to him writing about his discoveries and their implications, there were no books written on the subject. How is it that all proponents of evolution get their ideas from books, if the originator of the theory had no books to read about it in? If Darwin could find evidence for evolution without using any books, why do you think everyone who supports it is simply using books to support their case?

    Furthermore don't you find there is a difference between a book with information you can verify for yourself, vs a book with information you cant?

    Example: I read a book on cars that says most cars have 4 wheels. I read a book on dragons that says dragons have 3 hearts.
    If I doubt the truth of the first book I can easily go find cars and examine them. If I doubt the truth of the second book I will not be able to find any dragons to test its claims.

    That is the difference between a scientific book and a religious book. A book about science is underlies by information you can use to go test the idea yourself. A book on religion generally has no such underpinning and you must have faith in its varsity.

    Do you understand this?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatihah View Post
    The arguments presented by Atheists and Agnostics are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

    An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

    But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

    It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

    But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

    Therefore, since all atheist and agnostics claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

    The absurdity of atheists and agnostics exposed.

    Challenge: Prove evolution is true, without referring to what someone says ( from a book, link, or article, etc.).
    lol, I don't have time to respond in detail but it appears that you have no idea how science works vs the unfounded claims made by religious people.

    We've spent since last Christmas challenging Christians to prove their claims of their human-deity and come up with nothing; there's a debate with one who believes in other supernatural claims such as psychic abilities - again with no proof; and your own religion of Islam makes claims of flying horses - creatures who would need impossibly massive wings in order to do so. And then there is another super long debate on what it evens means to be 'supernatural' which literally means that all these religious claims are based on something people don't appear to understand or agree what the underlying basis for their religion really is and nor is there any authority to define these claims to sort out real claims from false claims.

    I think you will find that when you challenge a specific point of evolution, you will be met with well reasoned science that you will be compelled to agree with or if you disagree, it will be based on other evidence.

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    lol, I don't have time to respond in detail but it appears that you have no idea how science works vs the unfounded claims made by religious people.

    We've spent since last Christmas challenging Christians to prove their claims of their human-deity and come up with nothing; there's a debate with one who believes in other supernatural claims such as psychic abilities - again with no proof; and your own religion of Islam makes claims of flying horses - creatures who would need impossibly massive wings in order to do so. And then there is another super long debate on what it evens means to be 'supernatural' which literally means that all these religious claims are based on something people don't appear to understand or agree what the underlying basis for their religion really is and nor is there any authority to define these claims to sort out real claims from false claims.

    I think you will find that when you challenge a specific point of evolution, you will be met with well reasoned science that you will be compelled to agree with or if you disagree, it will be based on other evidence.
    And what have you proved about 'no God'? Not much of anything have you, and yet you are claiming it drives everything here.

    Do you agree that there are anomalies in science? That things happen that are statistically improbable? Congratulations, you just acknowledged the 'super natural'. In fact, the definition of miracle: remarkable and bringing very welcome consequences.

    http://christiancadre.blogspot.it/20...-miracles.html

    Tell me, do you know a single medical doctor who would claim that it is reasonable or biologically sound to count of cancer reversing itself? Spontaneously? Is that a genetic thing that can be passed on? A miracle gene ala evolution? It might be reasonable to say, "We don't know what caused that yet," but that is itself a faith statement - not one of science. So are you willing to concede that there are no anomalous events that are beneficial? That would not seem terribly scientific or rational as math presupposes these exist.

    There is also the Cardinal Rule of Physics, something cannot come from nothing. Do you deny the Big Bang? Because this is listed by cosmologists as the exception to this rule. I mean a magically appearing singularity that ... well, nothing exists until it shows up and explodes, creating time itself as well as the four fundamental forms of the universe. That science lead us to it does not mean it is absolutely exceptional, and given that 14 billion years later, not other similar event has occurred, we might accurately classify the event as 'supernatural' - particularly given is violation of Physics.

    How exactly do you claim no proof?

    As for 'signed horses' it might be best to ask a Muslim, "We do believe Muhammad(saws) was carried to a heaven by a creature of some type. It was something Muhammad(saws) had never seen before and never saw again. We do not know what it was except it was sent by God(swt). No where did Muhammad(saws) call it a winged horse."

    1300 years ago would you expect people to record an event in a way that was understandable to many people, or as absolutely literal? Its funny that these types of quibbles exist, because the Koran accurately records ... say the Battle of Badr, and no one seriously challenges that.

    Finally, its best to acknowledge that the vast majority of science is inductive reasoning. Evolution is not, strictly speaking, 'factual'. That is to say that we know it happens with a high degree of certainty, hence is encapsulation as a scientific theory and not a 'fact', but the methods of evolution, our understanding of genetics and epigenetic and the increasing complexity of these is amazing - its an important 'fact' to not that evolution is itself an evolving science and understanding not a simple factual statement. Evolution itself undergoes multiple paradigm shifts (from eons long processes to relatively short for example), that have vastly changed how we view and understand things - all without violating the general concept of evolution.

    What it is even more important to acknowledge is that Evolution does and does not do regarding religion. It DOES do a phenomenal job of disproving LITERAL Creationism. It does absolutely nothing to disprove God, or Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha.

    So, if we are concerned with 'hard evidence', then perhaps we religious people could be treated to this hard evidence that indicates that conclusively that we are all wrong?

  6. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Tell me, do you know a single medical doctor who would claim that it is reasonable or biologically sound to count of cancer reversing itself? Spontaneously? Is that a genetic thing that can be passed on? A miracle gene ala evolution? It might be reasonable to say, "We don't know what caused that yet," but that is itself a faith statement - not one of science. So are you willing to concede that there are no anomalous events that are beneficial? That would not seem terribly scientific or rational as math presupposes these exist.
    Medical cases are a terrible example of miracles. There is a great dealt that we don't know about medicine in general and even more so about specific patients. What we do know is often based on past experience and case studies but each persons situation is unique. Misdiagnosis is not all that uncommon and the diseases once thought incurable have been cured and those that are curable sometimes still kill people anyway. It is such and information deficient situation that you cannot say any given event is truly supernatural unless it defies truly universal experience. (For example, someone surviving in a 0 oxygen environment for 2 days or living without a heart for an extended period of time.)

    There is also the Cardinal Rule of Physics, something cannot come from nothing. Do you deny the Big Bang? Because this is listed by cosmologists as the exception to this rule. I mean a magically appearing singularity that ... well, nothing exists until it shows up and explodes, creating time itself as well as the four fundamental forms of the universe.
    It is not a known exception, it is simply not well understood. There are many competing ideas for how the big bang can happen and few of them involve something from nothing that I am aware of. There are too many limitations on what we can "see" and extrapolate to have great certainty.

    Once people thought morning dew came from nothing, same with mold on bread. When you learn more you understand more. The origin of the cosmos is something we still have a lot of unknowns regarding.

    That science lead us to it does not mean it is absolutely exceptional, and given that 14 billion years later, not other similar event has occurred, we might accurately classify the event as 'supernatural' - particularly given is violation of Physics.
    Outside what we understand is not the same as supernatural. Supernatural is when we invent an explanation that is beyond or superior to the natural order we observe. The unknown could be supernatural, but there is nothing suggesting it must be.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Medical cases are a terrible example of miracles. There is a great dealt that we don't know about medicine in general and even more so about specific patients. What we do know is often based on past experience and case studies but each persons situation is unique. Misdiagnosis is not all that uncommon and the diseases once thought incurable have been cured and those that are curable sometimes still kill people anyway. It is such and information deficient situation that you cannot say any given event is truly supernatural unless it defies truly universal experience. (For example, someone surviving in a 0 oxygen environment for 2 days or living without a heart for an extended period of time.)
    That is not true at all. We know a GREAT DEAL about medicine whites why it takes so long to become a doctor and why its so difficult. We, as the example provided, regularly treat cancer, and no doctor who has been through this rigorous process would advise a patient, "No worries mate, YOU are going to be miraculous cured!"

    As miracles are both unexpected and BENEFICIAL is the definition provided, medical miracles are the PERFECT demonstration of this. Particularly in a religious sense, as its 'medical' miracles that atheists often caste the most aspirations on in the New Testament.

    This would be an example of the inductive block I was mentioning, when confronted with information that challenges you position, rather than acknowledging that its logical, at least, for someone to disagree, we simply came up with an excuse to avoid something by, essentially, appealing to ignorance. I.e. we don't know why it happened ... but its definitely not a miracle!

    Cancer does not normally cure itself, and is so abnormal a reaction as to defy ready explanation. Hence, miraculous.



    It is not a known exception, it is simply not well understood. There are many competing ideas for how the big bang can happen and few of them involve something from nothing that I am aware of. There are too many limitations on what we can "see" and extrapolate to have great certainty.

    Once people thought morning dew came from nothing, same with mold on bread. When you learn more you understand more. The origin of the cosmos is something we still have a lot of unknowns regarding.
    This has nothing to do with the the violation of physics that is the Big Bang - not just something coming from nothing, but everything. By definition, this is a supernatural event. That people once mistook dew from nothing has no bearing on quantum singularity creating an entire universe. It's essentially, an appeal to your faith. But, as I have taken issue with, what it is decided not - is hard evidence.


    Outside what we understand is not the same as supernatural. Supernatural is when we invent an explanation that is beyond or superior to the natural order we observe. The unknown could be supernatural, but there is nothing suggesting it must be.
    This is semantics not hard evidence.

    The biggest difference between religious and atheists here is that religious people believe science will eventually lead unto God. Atheists? To something else.

    It's not that I fault the later, merely that the later is presented as 'science' and 'logic' based on 'hard evidence' when in fact its basically a prediction of the future. Because we have understood things that we did not in the past, we will therefore understand all things in the future that we do not understand. Well, there are events far in past that we still do not fully understand or can explain, like the siege of Antioch in 1098 - "During the battle on 28 June, many of the Crusaders saw an army of celestial warriors on white horses fighting alongside them."

    And many others. History tells us that there are many things we will not understand as well.

    What is curious here is that science caught up to religion on this one. Thousands of years ago, before cosmology had even figured out that the earth was revolving around the Sun, we have a group of primitive people who claim that God created the universe by 'let there be light'. Thousands of years later, we now know both that the Universe was Created and that it came from an apparently magically appearing singularity. Indeed, religion says the universe was created specifically to create life, and the Universe seems to have elements geared precisely toward that end ... including the very first thing created - gravity. Too little (the most statistically possible), and we are just diffuse energy - no life. Too much, (next most probable), and we are just a bunch of black holes - no life. But we got just enough to slow energy enough to crate matter and start the universal processes that would create life. Even within my lifetime, our understanding of life and star and planet formation, the ability of microbes to survive in rocks blasted into orbit, on stars an planet that float through star formation nebulas ... and it does indeed seem like this is the effect if not the intent ... and yet this effect was predicted THOUSANDS of years before we understood how that could even be possible.

    So I agree that we may very well discover more in the future, but I disagree that this means it'll necessarily lead us away from God.

  8. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    And what have you proved about 'no God'? Not much of anything have you, and yet you are claiming it drives everything here.
    It's not my job to prove there is "no God" - the proposition of God isn't even wrong enough to begin that discussion! Indeed, it is theists who should prove their particular deity exists - good luck with that! Theists can't even agree on how to worship their God much less prove he/she exists.

    Do you agree that there are anomalies in science? That things happen that are statistically improbable? Congratulations, you just acknowledged the 'super natural'.
    No. Please look up the definition of supernatural. It doesn't mean very rare.

    In fact, the definition of miracle: remarkable and bringing very welcome consequences.
    You appear not to be very good at definitions. When we are talking about religions, miracles has a very specific connotation - "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle)". Otherwise, you may as well say rolling six die and getting sixes six times is a miracle.


    There is also the Cardinal Rule of Physics, something cannot come from nothing. Do you deny the Big Bang? Because this is listed by cosmologists as the exception to this rule. I mean a magically appearing singularity that ... well, nothing exists until it shows up and explodes, creating time itself as well as the four fundamental forms of the universe. That science lead us to it does not mean it is absolutely exceptional, and given that 14 billion years later, not other similar event has occurred, we might accurately classify the event as 'supernatural' - particularly given is violation of Physics.
    The Big Bang is just one idea out of many regarding the origins of our universe. It's currently one that appears to fit all the facts. There is no violation of physics in that nor the creation of life on this planet.

    As for 'signed horses' it might be best to ask a Muslim, "We do believe Muhammad(saws) was carried to a heaven by a creature of some type. It was something Muhammad(saws) had never seen before and never saw again. We do not know what it was except it was sent by God(swt). No where did Muhammad(saws) call it a winged horse."

    1300 years ago would you expect people to record an event in a way that was understandable to many people, or as absolutely literal? Its funny that these types of quibbles exist, because the Koran accurately records ... say the Battle of Badr, and no one seriously challenges that.
    No one seriously challenges things that have evidence - I assume there is evidence for the Battle of Badr. However, those texts that make non-sensical claims are being challenged. What's wrong with that? Do you really believe everything you read?


    Finally, its best to acknowledge that the vast majority of science is inductive reasoning. Evolution is not, strictly speaking, 'factual'. That is to say that we know it happens with a high degree of certainty, hence is encapsulation as a scientific theory and not a 'fact', but the methods of evolution, our understanding of genetics and epigenetic and the increasing complexity of these is amazing - its an important 'fact' to not that evolution is itself an evolving science and understanding not a simple factual statement. Evolution itself undergoes multiple paradigm shifts (from eons long processes to relatively short for example), that have vastly changed how we view and understand things - all without violating the general concept of evolution.
    Evolution is a Theory, not a fact. It may one day become a Law.

    What it is even more important to acknowledge is that Evolution does and does not do regarding religion. It DOES do a phenomenal job of disproving LITERAL Creationism. It does absolutely nothing to disprove God, or Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha.
    Sure, no-one makes that claim. As I pointed out religious claims aren't even wrong enough to begin discussing how they can be disproved. They haven't reached the level of claim where there is any evidence to dispute. They are largely myths and fabrications. That's why we call it 'religion' and not 'science'.

    So, if we are concerned with 'hard evidence', then perhaps we religious people could be treated to this hard evidence that indicates that conclusively that we are all wrong?
    That is simple: in general only the believers of a religion believes in that religion's claims. Everyone else is skeptical. "religious people" can't even determine anything clearly amongst themselves! As I said, religions aren't even wrong.

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It's not my job to prove there is "no God" - the proposition of God isn't even wrong enough to begin that discussion! Indeed, it is theists who should prove their particular deity exists - good luck with that! Theists can't even agree on how to worship their God much less prove he/she exists.
    Actually, it is. One of the basic rules of logic is that ALL claims require support. In fact, somewhat famous atheist Chris Hitchens once famously opined, "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." So, if you walk around spouting atheism, then there SHOULD be some reason (other than hatred of religion and an unearned sense of superiority) than drove you to conclude that, at the very least, God is unlikely. In a debate forum ... not being able to explain why is ... downright silly.

    Furthermore, as you lecture others about standards, would you care tho explain why atheists cannot even agree on whether or not they are ACTUALLY claiming that there isn God or that he is unlikely? Leading to illogical mere disbelief and ... the worst assault on logic I have ever seen - agnostic atheism.

    Again, I get that atheists don't believe in God, I simply reject the emotive support like you write above in place of the 'hard evidence' you demand and claim drives you - and which you claim its not even your job to lay out the hard evidence tat drives you?

    Well, atheism itself is a logical position. Yours however, is not.


    No. Please look up the definition of supernatural. It doesn't mean very rare.
    I provided the definition of the supernatural event I cited.

    http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...ogical-fallacy

    What you are doing is called the etymological fallacy. It is again, another demonstration of both th black of evidence and the errors in logic that drive your position, not atheism.


    You appear not to be very good at definitions.
    You appear to be able to magically pick up on personal traits through the internet that have already been contradicted by evidence. If someone quotes a dictionary .... it stands to reason that the conclusion they are not very good at it is ... illogical. But we are seeing that pattern here ;-)

    When we are talking about religions, miracles has a very specific connotation - "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle)". Otherwise, you may as well say rolling six die and getting sixes six times is a miracle.
    Again, I suggest you see above and the etymological fallacy. You are also cherry picking definitions, one that have an absolute error in logic in them. If the discussion is about whether or not God exists, and honest people have long acknowledged that there is no definitive proof of God. So requiring a proof for something tangential that proves the existence of God in order to be accepted is an illogical claim. You are demanding deduction in an inductive argument - sheer silliness. There are a number of definitions, and you chose the one that could never be met until we definitively prove there is a God? We call this the cherry picking fallacy, and it is again an error in your logic.

    1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
    2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
    3: Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

    As you can see, YOUR DICTIONARY, lists several definitions of miracles. And, for discussion purposes, I selected the one that was relevant to miracles in the way understood and provable - hence relevant to an inductive debate about the existence of God.

    In sharp contrast, other dictionaries define supernatural as: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." and others? "manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts."

    So I think its pretty clear that you went out of your way to cheery pick a definition that would be next to impossible to meet, indicating that you are not so good at definitions, and, as we see the pattern, prone to major errors in logic. Bit don't take my word for it, take Bo Bennett's - an atheists.

    APPEAL TO DEFINITION*
    (also known as: appeal to the dictionary)

    Definition: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

    Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.

    Logical Form:

    The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.
    Therefore, Y must not be part of X.
    Example #1:

    Ken: Do you think gay marriage should be legalized?
    Paul: Absolutely not! Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman—not between two men or two women!
    Ken: Did you know that in 1828 the dictionary definition of marriage included, “for securing the maintenance and education of children”? Does that mean that all married couples who can’t or choose not to have children aren’t really married?
    Paul: No, it just means they need to buy updated dictionaries.
    Ken: As do you. The current Merriam-Webster dictionary includes as a secondary definition, “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”
    Explanation: The dictionary does not settle controversial issues such as gay marriage—it simply reports the most current accepted definition of the term itself while usually attempting to remain neutral on such controversial issues.

    http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...-to-definition

    Bo Bennett, BTW, is an extraordinarily nice guy. We disagree about the existence of God, but we are generally in agreement when it comes to fallacies.

    The Big Bang is just one idea out of many regarding the origins of our universe.
    No, actually it is - at least in terms of science (you know that thing that supposedly drives your atheism?) Or have you suddenly become a Creationist? Did Mother Wolf create the universe?


    It's currently one that appears to fit all the facts. There is no violation of physics in that nor the creation of life on this planet.
    Its the first law of thermodynamics actually. Physicists the world over list the big bang as an exception to that rule.

    But I tell you what, I want you to use a blow torch, in the vacuum of space, and using just the flame ... create life. (I am not, as the Big Bang did, asking you to create the required fundamental forces of the universe to make that transition from energy to life happen - that has been provided for you.) Let me know when you succeed.

    Again, there is no requirement for atheism to hitch itself to illogical, any more than religious people MUST accept literal Creationism.


    No one seriously challenges things that have evidence - I assume there is evidence for the Battle of Badr. However, those texts that make non-sensical claims are being challenged. What's wrong with that?
    Yes they do, its called conspiracy at worst and science, jurisprudence, history, etc. etc. etc. We REGULARLY reinterpreted things based on changes in understanding and ADDITIONAL evidence.

    So you mock the Muslims (even though I see you skipped the explanation), yet in 1098 at the Siege of Antioch, hundreds of Crusaders saw similar 'winged horses' with celestial warriors atop them that helped them break what had hitherto been a one sided siege (the Christians were failing mightily and could not even completely encircle the city ... making for a very ineffective siege). That is not a scriptural reference, is a recorded event for which we a thousand years later still have no explanation for.

    Do you have any evidence for the mass delusion you will write it off as?

    Do you really believe everything you read?
    You do have a problem with pride don't you. As a trained historian, I generally take as much information as I can get, from as many different points of view as I can get (I generally assume that sources are recorded honestly enough there is compelling reason not too, and even then, if we know WHY they are lying then even the lies tell us something), and allow that information to form the basis of my opinion about the event or claim.

    I realize that atheists, having denied logic to religious people, find that religious people using these techniques as trained in our hallowed academic halls to people regardless of our religious affiliation ... troubling. It is again, as I have mentioned, a serious error in the logic.


    Evolution is a Theory, not a fact. It may one day become a Law.
    That has nothing to do with what I wrote, and no Biology will not magically transform into Physics, and be subjected to equations that posit if x then y ... especially at the GENERAL level. Again with definitions:

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

    There is a reason that scientists classify things as 'theory' and 'laws'.

    Again, when I see atheists demanding 'hard evidence' start to eject common knowledge science, what I see is zealotry.

    Atheism itself is not illogical, far from it. A zealot, regardless of religion or irreligion, will very often violate the rules of logic. A conclusion born out here quite well.

    Sure, no-one makes that claim. As I pointed out religious claims aren't even wrong enough to begin discussing how they can be disproved.
    So you have given us your personal prejudice. Religious people claim there is a God (or at least a large enough body of us that you can speak to the group claiming such), we call this a straw man, and, you guessed it, its ANOTHER fallacy.

    They haven't reached the level of claim where there is any evidence to dispute. They are largely myths and fabrications. That's why we call it 'religion' and not 'science'.
    Well, then you are apparently unfamiliar with the entire field of apologetics, which provides evidence, of varying degrees mind you, in almost all forms. That would include science, philosophy, etc etc etc. It is hautiness, not logic, that would drive someone to deny the existence of thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of volumes.

    That is again, not atheism, it is simply the weak argumentation being presented.


    That is simple: in general only the believers of a religion believes in that religion's claims. Everyone else is skeptical. "religious people" can't even determine anything clearly amongst themselves! As I said, religions aren't even wrong.
    Again, you atheists cannot even determine whether or not you are actually claiming whether or not God doesn't exist. So please can the hypocritical standard that all the billions of religious people must agree with everything and all point on religion. That is silliness defined. For example, ALL monotheistic religions believe that there is one God. ALL Christian faiths believe that there is the Father, the Son, ad the Holy Ghost, but disagree as to whether they are one, trinity, or separate, Godhead. You are displaying a complete dearth of knowledge about religion, and appear to have embraced ignorance as 'hard evidence'. It is again, not just an error in logic, but a rather blatant double standard.

    Additionally, what makes you think that religious people are not skeptical? You have already erroneously denied us logic, now human emotions are beyond us too? Again, not atheism, just an exceptionally weak argument.

    Simply put, the weak argument here is not atheism, its simply ONE atheist doing a very poor job of supporting his position that there is no God, or, at the very least, he is very unlikely. Not a drop of hard evidence to be found here in support of that claim.
    Last edited by gree0232; March 3rd, 2015 at 01:25 AM.

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Actually, it is. One of the basic rules of logic is that ALL claims require support. In fact, somewhat famous atheist Chris Hitchens once famously opined, "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." So, if you walk around spouting atheism, then there SHOULD be some reason (other than hatred of religion and an unearned sense of superiority) than drove you to conclude that, at the very least, God is unlikely. In a debate forum ... not being able to explain why is ... downright silly.
    Sure, but what claim of mine are you asking me to support specifically? I haven't needed to make any statements regarding God's existence yet since there is insufficient evidence for what he is supposedly to be or do. Your appeals below to lots of people's personal beliefs and so-called scholarship is unconvincing.

    Furthermore, as you lecture others about standards, would you care tho explain why atheists cannot even agree on whether or not they are ACTUALLY claiming that there isn God or that he is unlikely? Leading to illogical mere disbelief and ... the worst assault on logic I have ever seen - agnostic atheism.
    Two differences is hardly in the same league as the thousands of religions, which was my point. And the atheist positions are not incompatible positions either - whereas many religions positions are mutually exclusive.

    Again, I suggest you see above and the etymological fallacy. You are also cherry picking definitions, one that have an absolute error in logic in them. If the discussion is about whether or not God exists, and honest people have long acknowledged that there is no definitive proof of God. So requiring a proof for something tangential that proves the existence of God in order to be accepted is an illogical claim. You are demanding deduction in an inductive argument - sheer silliness. There are a number of definitions, and you chose the one that could never be met until we definitively prove there is a God? We call this the cherry picking fallacy, and it is again an error in your logic.*

    1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
    2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
    3: Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law*

    As you can see, YOUR DICTIONARY, lists several definitions of miracles. And, for discussion purposes, I selected the one that was relevant to miracles in the way understood and provable - hence relevant to an inductive debate about the existence of God.
    Strange then that you choose the ONLY definition that doesn't mention God. My point is that the definition you choose is one that people would also use in a non-religious context. If we are discussing religion then the definition of miracle you should be using, since you we are discussing God, should at least refer to God. Otherwise, anything could be a miracle.

    If you choose to select a definition just because it is 'provable' then you chose the wrong one - as in my dice example you are appear to be saying any unusual act is a miracle. That's a very low bar and most certainly does not move you closer to proving the existence of God.

    In sharp contrast, other dictionaries define supernatural as: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." and others? "manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts."*

    So I think its pretty clear that you went out of your way to cheery pick a definition that would be next to impossible to meet, indicating that you are not so good at definitions, and, as we see the pattern, prone to major errors in logic. Bit don't take my word for it, take Bo Bennett's - an atheists.*
    I choose the definition that all religious people would use when they mean miracle; i.e. that a deity performed this rare act. Otherwise, anything could be miracles. I don't think it's unfair to choose a definition that is directly pertinent to the discussion of the existence of God. If you make no distinction between natural rare acts and God caused ones then there is no real need to use the word miracle.


    APPEAL TO DEFINITION*
    (also known as: appeal to the dictionary)
    But that is not what I'm doing - I think it appears that you are. I am holding religious people to the definition that they would use when they mean miracle. I agree that they mean the second definition too but that only distinguishes between normal acts and events from special,rare ones. In the set of these special events we now have to determine what the nature of the cause is: natural or supernatural. In discussing God, we are talking about supernatural events, such as in the Christian religion, walking on water. So that is the definition that miracles should be used.

    It appears that you are appealing to non-definition, or ignoring specific meanings of a word to make your case. I don't know the fallacy name for that but Cherry Picking is probably good enough (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...cherry-picking -*When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.) You are choosing only the definition that supports your ability to prove and ignoring the ones that don't. Whereas, I accept all three definitions and only argue the that you should do the same, especially since we are discussing God.

    But, perhaps I am being too hasty. If you have an argument to make then please make it.

    No, actually it is - at least in terms of science (you know that thing that supposedly drives your atheism?) Or have you suddenly become a Creationist? Did Mother Wolf create the universe?*
    I'm not sure what you are saying no to here. Please clarify.

    Yes they do, its called conspiracy at worst and science, jurisprudence, history, etc. etc. etc. We REGULARLY reinterpreted things based on changes in understanding and ADDITIONAL evidence.
    I agree but there is no evidence for supernatural acts nor evidence that the supernatural world even exists or what it is if it does. Discussion around supernatural things don't even reach the level of evidential discussion. That's why it can be summarily dismissed.

    [Quote]
    So you mock the Muslims (even though I see you skipped the explanation), yet in 1098 at the Siege of Antioch, hundreds of Crusaders saw similar 'winged horses' with celestial warriors atop them that helped them break what had hitherto been a one sided siege (the Christians were failing mightily and could not even completely encircle the city ... making for a very ineffective siege). That is not a scriptural reference, is a recorded event for which we a thousand years later still have no explanation for.
    [Quote]
    Then I disbelieve those events and that they are fictions.

    Do you have any evidence for the mass delusion you will write it off as?
    I'm it writing off unless there is more evidence for it. Are there also references to this from Antioch? Where there any bodies of these horses found? Do you have other writings about this? Your assertions are insufficient to be discussed.


    You do have a problem with pride don't you. As a trained historian, I generally take as much information as I can get, from as many different points of view as I can get (I generally assume that sources are recorded honestly enough there is compelling reason not too, and even then, if we know WHY they are lying then even the lies tell us something), and allow that information to form the basis of my opinion about the event or claim.

    I realize that atheists, having denied logic to religious people, find that religious people using these techniques as trained in our hallowed academic halls to people regardless of our religious affiliation ... troubling. It is again, as I have mentioned, a serious error in the logic.
    Well, recent history shows that powerful religious people have been caught trying to make unsupported claims to supernatural acts and brings and events regularly. It's called fooling the gullible for power or money; or using one's special privileges of power to enforce compliance. I find that evidence of falsehoods a much more compelling reason than any of it being possibly real. It is sufficient to take a stance of disbelief for all religious claims until they can offer further proof.

    You may be credulous of a universe where flying horses and angels and alternative powers and universes exist. I'm not. If you have trained yourself to believe everything you read from certain people because what they say matches your pre-existing beliefs, whilst ignoring similar modern situations that show those readings to be fabrications and inventions then that's fine. I prefer to make decisions based on what I know. You are making decisions based on lack of knowledge.

    I find it troubling you put more stock in something you only have hearsay (and biased at that) and ignore facts in front of your very eyes regarding human gullibility with regards to supernatural claims made by self-anointed priests, several of whom are in prison.

    Again, when I see atheists demanding 'hard evidence' start to eject common knowledge science, what I see is zealotry.
    Well, you can continue to believe without evidence. That's fine - it's called Faith. I don't have your faith traditions so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for proof.

    If merely wishing things were true would make it so then I would see your point. But that's not the world we live in.

    So you have given us your personal prejudice. Religious people claim there is a God (or at least a large enough body of us that you can speak to the group claiming such), we call this a straw man, and, you guessed it, its ANOTHER fallacy.
    And that is fallacy ad populous, appealing to the many people as your argument. People can claim whatever they want, I am not denying that believers can exist! I am saying that their claims are inefficient to even reach the level of being wrong.

    Well, then you are apparently unfamiliar with the entire field of apologetics, which provides evidence, of varying degrees mind you, in almost all forms. That would include science, philosophy, etc etc etc. It is hautiness, not logic, that would drive someone to deny the existence of thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of volumes.
    Well, if by evidence you mean more fabrications based on praying hard or thinking hard then I agree. But it isn't just atheists that deny your religion, it is also people of all the other religions.

    Apologetics is merely believers trying to support their existing beliefs. It is neither objective nor independent nor science. Calling it studying doesn't make it any more true - people study astrology and homeopathy and are just as convinced it is all true. Do you believe in those things? If not, why not? You are using the fallacy of putting credence of truth based only on quantity of study!

    Again, you atheists cannot even determine whether or not you are actually claiming whether or not God doesn't exist. So please can the hypocritical standard that all the billions of religious people must agree with everything and all point on religion.
    It's not hypocritical because I apply the same standard to everything. I don't believe that we have an answer for the beginning of the universe yet. I don't believe in some of the mechanics of evolution.

    That is silliness defined. For example, ALL monotheistic religions believe that there is one God.
    Obviously - it's in the word 'mono'. How about the polytheistic ones? Or the none theistic ones?*

    ALL Christian faiths believe that there is the Father, the Son, ad the Holy Ghost, but disagree as to whether they are one, trinity, or separate, Godhead.
    And Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God. And the Unitarians don't believe that either. Mormons have their own separate revelations and the number of cults and denominations are in the tens of thousands. This clearly shows that not only is no evidence for one claim over another (a big red flag regarding truth value) but there poor standards to make any determination in the first place.

    Certainly no amount of studying is helping anyone's case.

    It's as if one doctor says you have to have your kidney removed for a cure and another says you need a hip replacement. Here you don't even have standards as to the nature of what Christians are worshipping. Little wonder it is a field rife with disagreement and fracturing.

    [Quote]
    You are displaying a complete dearth of knowledge about religion, and appear to have embraced ignorance as 'hard evidence'. It is again, not just an error in logic, but a rather blatant double standard.*
    [Quote]
    I'm not totally clueless but I admit that what little knowledge I have is limited. I rarely get into discussions about religion because they frequently stall on the points around evidence. Arguments tend towards question begging or simply "because God" and many arguments rests on shifting the burden of proof to atheists: prove that God doesn't exist; prove that the supernatural is impossible; prove that reading minds cannot happen or that virgin births can't or that people can raise from the dead or walk on water or that flying horses can't exist (though with that one I think the wings aren't going to be large enough to support *the weight of the horse).

    I definitely try to keep my standards for belief the same for all things so some of the claims you have been making are unfounded.

    Additionally, what makes you think that religious people are not skeptical? You have already erroneously denied us logic, now human emotions are beyond us too? Again, not atheism, just an exceptionally weak argument.
    *
    I haven't denied logic but the kind of "logic" religious people rely on is that if something isn't proven then it can be possibly true. I am having such a discussion and it is the same for most other religious discussions. While that statement is true, what is being hidden is that it is possible it is false - religious people are putting too much stock in things that are not proven to be true.

    Besides, logic doesn't guarantee truth value either - garbage in, garbage out. You can make totally logical arguments based on fabrications and that is what religious arguments are.

    Secondly. I am not denying emotion at all. Ultimately, religions are all about emotions and controlling how we feel about things. It's nearly always about emotion.

    Atheism is about a disbelief in deities. It doesn't deny people have emotions or tend to believe in things they have no evidence for and likely do so for societal or familial reasons.

    Simply put, the weak argument here is not atheism, its simply ONE atheist doing a very poor job of supporting his position that there is no God, or, at the very least, he is very unlikely. Not a drop of hard evidence to be found here in support of that claim.
    I haven't even begun to accept any definition of God to say he doesn't exist yet! I think you are jumping the gun here. My only claim here is that religious claims aren't even wrong yet - there isn't an agreed upon foundation between us to discuss God, never mind his existence or non existence.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; March 3rd, 2015 at 09:00 AM.

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Sure, but what claim of mine are you asking me to support specifically? I haven't needed to make any statements regarding God's existence yet since there is insufficient evidence for what he is supposedly to be or do. Your appeals below to lots of people's personal beliefs and so-called scholarship is unconvincing.
    Well, you just made it. IN addition to your open claim of atheism and general level of disdain toward religion that I guess, in addition to not being logical and bereft of basic human emotions, you apparently also think that we are unable to pick up on derision?

    If you think there is insufficient evidence, then guess what you have to demonstrate? Where we would expect to find evidence, how you checked, and that there was nothing (the null hypothesis) - and this would be ... repeatable!

    Here is simplified for you (which we should not have to do because atheists are SOOOO much smarter than religious people, right?):

    Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that can be used to infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something. For instance, if a doctor does not find any malignant cells in a patient this null result (finding nothing) is evidence of absence of cancer, even though the doctor has not actually detected anything per se. Such inductive reasoning is important to empiricism and science, but has well established limitations. The challenge thus becomes to try to identify when a researcher has received a null result (found nothing) because the thing does not exist (evidence of absence - objectively negative result), and when one simply lacks proper means of detection (absence of evidence - false negative).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...ce_of_evidence

    And before you lazily jump into proving negative statements, you should be aware that you actually can. Again, don;t take my word for it - take a logicians word for it.

    http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...eanegative.pdf

    I will also remind you that you are lecturing people about 'hard evidence' and how it drives YOUR position. Unfortunately, when pressed for evidence in support, you've gone agnostic atheist and suddenly are making no claims ... even as you readily make claims (again, the most ostentatious assault on logic I have ever seen). Would you care, to explain how atheism is evidenced based when it has no evidence? Indeed is not making a claim? Which is the basic requirement of logic? (BTW - YOU specifically don;t have to make the claim of atheism, atheism is by definition the belief that there is no God (deductive) or that God is so unlikely as to essentially not be real (inductive))

    Logic is a standard. Its not burger king, you can't simply have it your way to keep pestering religious people about 'hard evidence' while pointedly and openly dodging the same requirement. My friend, with your openly reply, you are firmly into the the realm of the fallacy of special pleading, and what you pleading an exception from is the basic rules and requirements of logic.

    That is not a religious or atheist thing, that is a weakness in your argumentation. Less Dawkins, more logic please.

    Two differences is hardly in the same league as the thousands of religions, which was my point. And the atheist positions are not incompatible positions either - whereas many religions positions are mutually exclusive.
    Once again, this is the special pleading fallacy. You were provided with basic examples of religious agreement about say, the existence of God. You however, can't even agree on whether you are actually making a claim on God - which is pointedly and directly a far worse source of disagreement than even mutually exclusive religions (who can at least define themselves enough to know that they are mutually disagreeing). It was your standard of judgement and derision, and standards simply don't apply because 'you' are involved. Again, the special pleading fallacy:

    http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...ecial-pleading

    Strange then that you choose the ONLY definition that doesn't mention God. My point is that the definition you choose is one that people would also use in a non-religious context. If we are discussing religion then the definition of miracle you should be using, since you we are discussing God, should at least refer to God. Otherwise, anything could be a miracle.
    Actually, I listed several and provided you with a proof of the fallacy you were doing. If the goal is to prove God, you cannot list a definition that requires someone to first prove God exists - its illogical - the proverbial cart before the horse. Please feel free to use the religious definition of miracle (while noting that we apparently cannot even agree to define it accurately?????? - then note that only you refuse to define things the way they are presented in support of an inductive case).

    Again, anything that might challenge your precious religious beliefs is simply rejected - based not on logic, but on a desire to keep believing that religious people are all stupid. It's again, the fallacy of special pleading.

    If you choose to select a definition just because it is 'provable' then you chose the wrong one - as in my dice example you are appear to be saying any unusual act is a miracle. That's a very low bar and most certainly does not move you closer to proving the existence of God.
    #1 - if it isn't provable, then it rather pointless to introduce it into an inductive case - otherwise I could just make up anything couldn't I?

    #2 - You were provided with several miracles, none of which were six sided dice - all of which met the three definitions of miracles that were provided by you (including the specifically religious one).

    Your position thus far is not based on 'hard evidence' is pretty clearly based on the deliberate avoidance of ... well, everything. Again, that is not atheism, its personal choice of argumentation, and a rather weak one.


    I choose the definition that all religious people would use when they mean miracle; i.e. that a deity performed this rare act. Otherwise, anything could be miracles. I don't think it's unfair to choose a definition that is directly pertinent to the discussion of the existence of God. If you make no distinction between natural rare acts and God caused ones then there is no real need to use the word miracle.
    #1 - YOU are not a standard, and you sure as hell do not get to tell religious people how we should define something (especially if its just to pull an ostrich).

    #2 - In the opening statement you accuse us of not being able to agree on anything, and then you turn around and accuse us ALL of agreeing on the definition of miracle?

    Again, are religious people so stupid and dehumanized in your world that we need YOU to make decisions for us about how we define things? That is not logic, its a great excess of pride - not 'hard evidence' either. Its the cherry picking fallacy rationalized through YOUR filter. It's quite offensive BTW.



    But that is not what I'm doing - I think it appears that you are. I am holding religious people to the definition that they would use when they mean miracle.
    And yet, I am a religious person and provided you with THREE definitions, all of which would have excluded your six dice in a row statement. Furthermore, are you really so erudite toward religion that you would now deny us basic knowledge of math? Do you understand how statistics work? That six of the same dice in a row is unusual, but not so statistically impossible as to warrant anything more than a ... 'meh'. Now what if it was a million dice in a row? A trillion?

    Well I will let Bo explain it to you again (he even uses dice):

    Statistical impossibility. Imagine filling a dump truck with over 1 million fair dice (six-sided, weight evenly-distributed). Now imagine dumping all those dice on a huge Monopoly board. Would it be impossible for all 1 mission dice to turn up as ones? In a sense, YES. We call this a statistical impossibility because it is so improbable, that in all practical terms, it is impossible. Notice that is a subjective definition -- there is no objectively defined point where something is just "very improbable" then becomes statistically impossible. The second law of thermodynamics falls into this category. While we say that it is impossible that all the oxygen molecules in the room you are in right now will spontaneously collect in one corner of the room, causing you to die of hypoxia, it is more precisely statistically impossible, or very, very improbable.
    I agree that they mean the second definition too but that only distinguishes between normal acts and events from special,rare ones. In the set of these special events we now have to determine what the nature of the cause is: natural or supernatural. In discussing God, we are talking about supernatural events, such as in the Christian religion, walking on water. So that is the definition that miracles should be used.

    http://www.relationshipwithreason.co...y/4-impossible

    So an atheist and a deeply religious person grasp this basic concept correctly. Why do you not? Or should I say, why are you excluding logical (mathematical) knowns from your argumentation?

    *When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.) You are choosing only the definition that supports your ability to prove and ignoring the ones that don't. Whereas, I accept all three definitions and only argue the that you should do the same, especially since we are discussing God.
    Seriously, is the guy not presenting evidence in support of no claim that he is making attempting to accuse someone else of the cherry picking fallacy? Without evidence of cherry picking? In defiance of his own cherry picking?

    Generally speaking, once again in those hallowed institutes of academia that teach to al people regardless of their religion, or irreligion (supposedly anyway), that there is a standard argumentation model:

    Thesis: There is or is not a God (Inductive or Deductive) - your 'argument here falls apart because you cannot even form a cogent and supportable thesis statement while accusing us of that ... odd.

    Supporting evidence: Whatever you desire to buttress it, plenty of Apologetics to choose from (yet you see none of it), and atheists ... well .. agh ... no hard evidence from you now is there?

    Rebuttal of common counters: This would be how I predicted the run toward agnostic atheism in the previous post, and too which you obliged in the openly statement of your subsequent post. (Do you, in sharp contrast, even know what the most common Apologetic claims are?)

    Conclusion: God exists or does not - but based on the argumentation here, its a one sided default victory to God. Again, not saying atheism is illogical or unsupportable, only that the argumentation you are using is not ... even argumentation. Its unfortunately quite typical of the New Atheists who mistake derision for intellect.

    But, perhaps I am being too hasty. If you have an argument to make then please make it.
    My thesis is that you lack 'hard evidence' and have exceptionally weak argumentation that in no way supports even the pretense of there being no God.


    I'm not sure what you are saying no to here. Please clarify.
    You have claimed that there are all kinds of other theories about how the universe was started OTHER than the big bang. Please explain - back up YOUR claim. 'Hard evidence'.


    I agree but there is no evidence for supernatural acts nor evidence that the supernatural world even exists or what it is if it does. Discussion around supernatural things don't even reach the level of evidential discussion. That's why it can be summarily dismissed.
    Once again, evidence of absence argument is required, not merely a faith statement. You have been provided with a list of 'miracles' that have been documented. According to you, that should not exist.

    That is a problem for your position, not mine - pleaser refer to thesis statement provided above.


    Then I disbelieve those events and that they are fictions.
    Then you have to actually prove it, not merely dismiss it because it conflicts with your beliefs.

    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

    In short, when confronted with things that challenge your preconceptions, its not intelligence that makes you drive forward to solve it - its character. Well, you have two religions claiming something celestial happened involving something that looks an awful lot like a horse. That you choose to believe they are both fiction is ... a faith choice, not the result of 'hard evidence'. It's not the result of investigation or problem solving in the least. I am guessing you are not either a military expert or a historian, and without even examining the Siege of Antioch, and the evidence around it, you are speciously leapt to the conclusion that it fiction? And were you not just lecturing us about how evidence must drive our opinions?


    I'm it writing off unless there is more evidence for it.
    How would you know? You have not bothered to look.

    Are there also references to this from Antioch?
    Agh, yeah ... how do you think we know about the so called miracle of Antioch? And why are you asking about the bodies of horses? As if Celestial horses would leave behind bodies ... like it did for Mohammed?



    Well, recent history shows that powerful religious people have been caught trying to make unsupported claims to supernatural acts and brings and events regularly.
    So have atheists, including Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Again, does atheism make you magically immune from ethical shortcomings? Because religion certainly does not make this claim about its adherents.


    It's called fooling the gullible for power or money;
    Atheists don't use money? Odd. Funny that money would ONLY corrupt religious people. More special pleading.

    https://atheists.org/donate

    Funny, the largest atheist organization in America raises funds JUST like religious groups, and on 4 April, they have a $2500 a plate 'charity' event in Memphis in which you can advance the cause of atheism missionary style.

    Again, could you please apply your standards of judgement to your side before you think to bash us with them?


    You may be credulous of a universe where flying horses and angels and alternative powers and universes exist. I'm not.
    Personal incredulity is also a fallacy.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

    Unless you have the magical ability to read minds, I would avoid making comments about how other people think and what they believe and simply make an evidenced based argument that supports your conclusion. (If you can get to the point where you acknowledge that you are making a claim anyway).


    If you have trained yourself to believe everything you read from certain people because what they say matches your pre-existing beliefs
    Given that I addressed this and my training as a historian to DELIBERATELY seek as many different points of view as possible, I can only assume that your prejudice of religion is so strong that you cannot see us as anything other than mindless idiots.

    That is personal problem. A serious one.

    I find it troubling you put more stock in something you only have hearsay (and biased at that) and ignore facts in front of your very eyes regarding human gullibility with regards to supernatural claims made by self-anointed priests, several of whom are in prison.
    Again, more personal incredulity.

    What facts have you placed before my eyes? Noting that you still cannot even properly form a thesis statement unto which you SHOULD be placing 'hard evidence'. Facts have been placed before your eyes, and you continue to deny them openly and on the record.

    You are also now poisoning the well. ANOTHER fallacy. Please let me know when Pope Francis is locked up as a charlatan. Justin Welby? Thomas Munson (Mormon! The religion atheists might just hate the most!!!) None are in jail. You know there are atheists in prison too?


    Well, you can continue to believe without evidence. That's fine - it's called Faith.
    On the contrary, I have pointedly directed you to Apologetics, and asked you pointedly for facts and the 'hard evidence' you are waiving in our face - you have none - but you do have the claim ... which you demand we take on blind faith and the total absence of evidence. The claim of evidence is not evidence. Evidence is. As Chris said, "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You are dismissed.

    Furthermore, the case I made was about inductive reasoning, and that, with a solid case in place, the leap of faith to belief in God is perfect in line with the use of inductive logic and reasoning. Yours? Asking us to take atheism, which makes no claim to support, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever? That is ... logically now ... absurdity/ignorance.

    http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...from-ignorance

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducti...w_man_argument

    Again, you have had ample opportunity to drop some 'evidence' in here, but have failed. I see no links, no claims, no evidence of absence argumentation, nothing at all. If you seek to use evidence to change people's minds, then you actually have to use evidence. Pretty simple.

    But, as predicted, when confronted with evidence, extremist irreligionists are most intellectually similar to Creationists, and cannot, for example, even acknowledge that a differing opinion on the religious spectrum is logically possible. That is not atheism, again - its a personal choice.

    If merely wishing things were true would make it so then I would see your point. But that's not the world we live in.
    Now, if you could only point to me making this claim? As I have been pretty clear about logic. Or are you so disassociated from the argument, that you are essentially preaching to me how YOU THINK I view the situation?


    And that is fallacy ad populous, appealing to the many people as your argument. People can claim whatever they want, I am not denying that believers can exist! I am saying that their claims are inefficient to even reach the level of being wrong.
    You are also claiming we are ALL in lock step agreement with the definition of miracle - but only as you see it.

    This is again an argument from personal incredulity. Religious people have no problem defining themselves and forming thesis statements, as your opening line in this post indicates - atheists do. So your opinion is noted, as is your utter failure to support it, and, ala Christ Hitchens, dismissed.


    Well, if by evidence you mean more fabrications based on praying hard or thinking hard then I agree. But it isn't just atheists that deny your religion, it is also people of all the other religions.
    Please point to any of the links I have provided that are 'merely praying hard'. Once again, do you think that is all religious people do? Pray? Do you think, that in addition to not getting logic (which is rich in your case), rejecting math, being incapable of grasping human emotions, that we also think houses magically build themselves? Maybe you should actually read the Bible and see what it says about these things.

    Your position is a complete straw man. Again, another fallacy.

    http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...rawman-fallacy

    The deliberate misrepresentation of religion is quite common in New Atheism.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-e...ng-mispunching

    Apologetics is merely believers trying to support their existing beliefs.
    Agh yeah ... that is EXACTLY what you are demanding we do.

    Please bear in mind, you first denied this existed at all. Now? Why bother examining any of the claims or evidence that you demanded? Interestingly enough, the moderators her have themselves opined about this tactic.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...s-it-an-Ad-Hom

    So unless you have a VERY GOOD reason to reject all Christian argumentation merely because its Christian, you are again committing a logical fallacy. And what a duplicitous setup! Give me your evidence Christian! Wait, you are Christian, so I reject all your evidence! We actually call that circular reasoning.

    Please see my thesis above.

    It's not hypocritical because I apply the same standard to everything. I don't believe that we have an answer for the beginning of the universe yet. I don't believe in some of the mechanics of evolution.
    No, you pretty clearly do not.

    You claim 'hard evidence' drive you, yet present none. And well .. the rest are there for everyone to see.


    Obviously - it's in the word 'mono'. How about the polytheistic ones? Or the none theistic ones?*
    I don;t have to support EVERY RELIGION, that is a non-sequiture. Its irrelevant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

    I have to support the INDUCTIVE case that God is likely or highly likely. YOU have to do the opposite, if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that logical necessity at any rate.

    And Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God.
    What does that have to do with the existence of A God?

    Again, another irrelevancy. Once you get to the point that God is highly likely, you can (and people do) have the debate about which religion most accurately gets this being correct. You however, DENY THEM ALL - without evidence or explanation.

    And the disagreements in atheism? They don't effect atheist argumentation ... somehow? But you state you apply standards equally? So you? Why would you do this AFTER its been pointed out that it is a double standard?


    Certainly no amount of studying is helping anyone's case.
    Actually that is generally a requirement to making a case.

    It's as if one doctor says you have to have your kidney removed for a cure and another says you need a hip replacement. Here you don't even have standards as to the nature of what Christians are worshipping. Little wonder it is a field rife with disagreement and fracturing. Again, are atheists even claiming there is no God?
    Yes, when getting conflicting medical advice, NO ONE is capable of figuring out which advice best addresses the problem they have. No Christian joins a church because he believes that it best describes the spirituality within him. No one has ever been converted into a church. Shockingly, religious people are diverse in opinion and thought ... and to an atheist, this is bad.

    Therefore, despite oodles of disagreement in atheism, there is no God ... that is your evidence? 'Hard scientific evidence'?

    [Quote]
    You are displaying a complete dearth of knowledge about religion, and appear to have embraced ignorance as 'hard evidence'. It is again, not just an error in logic, but a rather blatant double standard.*
    [Quote]

    I'm not totally clueless but I admit that what little knowledge I have is limited. I rarely get into discussions about religion because they frequently stall on the points around evidence.
    That might just be a personal problem - as you have provided no evidence. Indeed, you have also claimed there is none. Yet it's somehow 'hard evidence' that drives you, and no one should disagree with an evidenced position ... that ... erm ... agh ... there is no evidence.

    Circular logic again.


    Arguments tend towards question begging or simply "because God" and many arguments rests on shifting the burden of proof to atheists: prove that God doesn't exist;
    If you accept logic, then you YOU HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF. its not being shifted onto you, it is a requirement of the rules and standards of logic. Because logic is a standard, WE HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF AS WELL. We acknowledge it, which is why we have the ENTIRE FIELD OF APOLOGETICS. (Which you just dismissed jedi style - i.e. with a hand wave).

    http://www.strangenotions.com/who-ha...iscussing-god/

    A:
    Person 1: "God exists"
    Person 2: "I don't believe that is true"

    B:
    Person 1: "God does not exist"

    In both scenarios, person 1 has the burden of proof because they are the one making the claim. Some try to argue that in scenario B, since the person is making a negative claim that they are free from the burden of proof. This is not the case. The person would be obligated to provide evidence in the form of absence or proof of impossibility.
    I definitely try to keep my standards for belief the same for all things so some of the claims you have been making are unfounded.

    https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tools...acies/6x8w6l3S

    Do you see how 'hard evidence' is conflicting with your statements? The standards of logic do not support your claims.


    I haven't denied logic but the kind of "logic" religious people rely on is that if something isn't proven then it can be possibly true. I am having such a discussion and it is the same for most other religious discussions. While that statement is true, what is being hidden is that it is possible it is false - religious people are putting too much stock in things that are not proven to be true.
    Both forms are fallacious, in that if you cannot prove God exists, he does not ... ALSO a fallacy.

    Again, n one is making that claim here. YOU are again strawmanning religion. We HAVE APOLOGETICS, precisely because we acknowledge our LOGICAL burden of proof. Atheists, who in your opening line, are still struggling to figure out whether they are making a claim that would require support ... fundamentally illogical.

    Besides, logic doesn't guarantee truth value either - garbage in, garbage out. You can make totally logical arguments based on fabrications and that is what religious arguments are.
    Agh, so you are making another claim? We are a bunch of liars are we? Prove it. Prove that there is no God and we just made the whole thing up. Please prove that religion is just a bunch of fabrications. Name:  chall4a.jpg
Views: 147
Size:  3.1 KB

    That is not logic or hard evidence, it is naked prejudice.

    Secondly. I am not denying emotion at all. Ultimately, religions are all about emotions and controlling how we feel about things. It's nearly always about emotion.
    Again, this is a personal opinion, but given the dearth of actual evidence you have supplied - and what you have supplied about religion is a starwman - its actually far more likely that your position is the emotional one.

    When confronted with Apologetics?

    Here is a sampling of the most common FORMS of apologetics:

    4.1 Historical and legal evidentialism
    4.2 Defense of miracles
    4.3 Prophetic fulfillment
    4.4 Biblical apologetics
    4.5 Philosophical apologetics
    4.5.1 Presuppositional apologetics
    4.6 Moral apologetics
    4.7 Scientific apologetics
    4.8 Creationist apologetics
    4.9 Experiential apologetics

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

    I don;t see 'emotional apologetics' listed there, nor indeed have I ever encountered it in apologetics. You apparently have? Evidence please. And please, I am openly challenging you to prove that religious argumentation is 'almost all' emotional. Name:  chall4a.jpg
Views: 147
Size:  3.1 KB


    Atheism is about a disbelief in deities.
    So NOW you are making a claim. And you disbelieve deities because ... so far ... because there are a lot of religions out there.

    It doesn't deny people have emotions or tend to believe in things they have no evidence for
    Atheism does not, but you sure do.

    and likely do so for societal or familial reasons
    I don't think 'atheism' makes this claim, I think YOU do - what I do not see is any evidence to back it up. And as a former atheist? Guess what? I can precisely explain why I converted.

    http://www.changinglivesonline.org/i...-is-a-god.html

    There would be why another atheist, a rapacious one at that, converted as well. Society and family had nothing to do with it.

    You seem to take a lot of your atheism on faith brother.

    I haven't even begun to accept any definition of God to say he doesn't exist yet! I think you are jumping the gun here. My only claim here is that religious claims aren't even wrong yet - there isn't an agreed upon foundation between us to discuss God, never mind his existence or non existence.
    That is a personal problem. Not a logical one.

    God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

    So, I think you can see why the Fine-Tuned Universe and the Multiverse are seen so often in debates about God. The simple fact of the matter is that you can pick a definition of God and examine it, and if you have not done so ... while claiming hard evidence drives you conclusions ... then we already know its not. Pretty simple.

    Again, I see a LOT of derision and animosity toward religion, much of it simple straw men, but I see absolutely no compelling reason, much less any evidence, that would drive anyone to conclude that there is no God. (Or that he is unlikely). Indeed, you are both claiming that you claim nothing, and that we are "mak[ing] totally logical arguments based on fabrications and that is what religious arguments are." (We are a bunch of liars - based on said 'hard evidence'.)

    Again, to clarify, atheism is logical and supportable, but the claims here are weak argumentation, and, unfortunately, are all to common in New Atheism and its logical corruption.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  12. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    So I agree that we may very well discover more in the future, but I disagree that this means it'll necessarily lead us away from God.
    I didn't realize this was your central argument. I don't claim to say that all discoveries will necessarily lead us to disprove gods. I strongly suspect this is true, especially in regards to the modern formulations of God in most religious, but I don't know it with certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    That is not true at all. We know a GREAT DEAL about medicine whites why it takes so long to become a doctor and why its so difficult. We, as the example provided, regularly treat cancer, and no doctor who has been through this rigorous process would advise a patient, "No worries mate, YOU are going to be miraculous cured!"
    That is of course because it is uncommon and often medical treatment has a better track record.

    This source reports that as many as 20% of tumors found in mammography go into remission spontaneously without any treatment. These days 20% isn't great odds on breast cancer but none the less it is something that happens. The cause is as yet unknown with any certainty but there are a number of associations and theories as to how it is possible.
    Per-Henrik Zahl; Jan Mśhlen; H. Gilbert Welch (Nov 24, 2008). "The Natural History of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography". Arch. Intern Med. 50 (21). PMID 19029493.

    I agree that in the notion of miraculous as rare and beneficial it still fits. But miracles of nature are well known and expectation is purely a matter of how much you know. Items of complicate certainty from one perspective may well be seen as miraculous from another. A supernatural miracle is another matter. If it strongly contradicts especially consistent and well understood phenomena, then we must more seriously consider the likelyhood that this could be a supernatural agent at work.

    The track record so far for religion is very poor. Through history religion has pointed to events around them and claimed supernatural agency. Yet time and time again science has discovered the entirely natural mechanisms that drive these events. Where we once heard the voice of god in the heavens we now have thunder caused by electrical differentials in the atmosphere. What we have not had is the reverse, where religious explanations have been proven more reliable than natural observation.

    This would be an example of the inductive block I was mentioning, when confronted with information that challenges you position, rather than acknowledging that its logical, at least, for someone to disagree, we simply came up with an excuse to avoid something by, essentially, appealing to ignorance. I.e. we don't know why it happened ... but its definitely not a miracle!
    You misunderstand me (understandably). I only claim that the odds are not good for the supernatural claims. Time and time again they fail, nor do they have a strong foundation beyond supposition and wistfulness.

    Cancer does not normally cure itself, and is so abnormal a reaction as to defy ready explanation. Hence, miraculous.
    Not really. It doesn't do that commonly, but there are many things that are uncommon but known to happen regardless. There are many ways in which cancer can cure itself, it just isn't the sort of thing a betting man should rely upon.

    This has nothing to do with the the violation of physics that is the Big Bang - not just something coming from nothing, but everything. By definition, this is a supernatural event. That people once mistook dew from nothing has no bearing on quantum singularity creating an entire universe. It's essentially, an appeal to your faith. But, as I have taken issue with, what it is decided not - is hard evidence.
    I have no cosmological faith, only a decision that when I don't or can't know much about something I don't make claims about it. If you read up on your big bang science there are event horizons beyond which we cannot "see" and what happens there is essentially unknowable given our current capabilities, possibly regardless of them. Some mathematical models suggest extra dimensional causes for the singularity, others that the "essence" of the universe was in a state of potential energy and the big bang represents a transformation of state. We strongly think there is dark matter and dark energy at play yet we don't really understand what these forces are, only that the observations support their existence.

    What we don't have any reason to anticipate is that a magical being who makes talking snakes and magic fruit and cares deeply about human affairs caused it to happen some six thousand years ago because it was written that way on some ancient scrolls. The understanding that the known cosmos originated in a singularity event doesn't really support theist claims nor do they provide a useful explanation for the event.

    What makes sense to do is not to leap to any conclusions but to keep studying.

    The biggest difference between religious and atheists here is that religious people believe science will eventually lead unto God. Atheists? To something else.
    Personally I think science leads to science. It is simply observation and explanation for the purpose of prediction. It's only presumption is the universe is fundamentally causal.

    It's not that I fault the later, merely that the later is presented as 'science' and 'logic' based on 'hard evidence' when in fact its basically a prediction of the future. Because we have understood things that we did not in the past, we will therefore understand all things in the future that we do not understand. Well, there are events far in past that we still do not fully understand or can explain, like the siege of Antioch in 1098 - "During the battle on 28 June, many of the Crusaders saw an army of celestial warriors on white horses fighting alongside them."
    I would posit the most likely explanation for that as hearsay and legend. Not hard to imagine since it happens quite frequently.

    What is curious here is that science caught up to religion on this one.
    Modern science didn't really exist until sometime in the 1800s. Naturalist have always been around mind you, but its hard to say that Religion had any great insights in cosmology.

    Thousands of years ago, before cosmology had even figured out that the earth was revolving around the Sun, we have a group of primitive people who claim that God created the universe by 'let there be light'.
    A specific religion has that quote, and it didn't happen at the beginning, there was already an earth and waters before there was light according to that passage. The light of the Sun has been associated with religion and mysticism from day 1, and no shocker since its a pretty amazing thing we can't easily understand or interact with yet is clearly very important to us.

    Thousands of years later, we now know both that the Universe was Created and that it came from an apparently magically appearing singularity.
    It is no more magical so far as we know than the Sun itself is. Thing's you don't fully understand are not automatically magical. We also do not know it was created, it may well have simply been transformed. That to me seems far more likely.

    Indeed, religion says the universe was created specifically to create life, and the Universe seems to have elements geared precisely toward that end
    That is a wild presumption. Banana leaves make good dinner plates but there is no reason to suspect they were created with that purpose in mind. Just because the universe can support life doesn't mean it was the intent of any agent. There are a great many things in the universe that the nature of nature is needed to support. The notion that life is its ultimate purpose is just our own sense of self importance at work. It could as easily be life is a byproduct of the desire to make a universe to produce quartz crystals.

    Nor does the bible or many other religions claim the only reason for the universe was to have life. In some religions life was an accident, in others a kind of rebellion. We just happen to like to make ourselves the stars of the show when we can.

    ... including the very first thing created - gravity. Too little (the most statistically possible), and we are just diffuse energy - no life. Too much, (next most probable), and we are just a bunch of black holes - no life. But we got just enough to slow energy enough to crate matter and start the universal processes that would create life. Even within my lifetime, our understanding of life and star and planet formation, the ability of microbes to survive in rocks blasted into orbit, on stars an planet that float through star formation nebulas ... and it does indeed seem like this is the effect if not the intent ... and yet this effect was predicted THOUSANDS of years before we understood how that could even be possible.
    Why would our understanding have any impact what so ever on what is possible or intended? The universe is the way it is, that is undeniable, but it says nothing about motivations or intent. Everything that ever happens is only possible if all the circumstances of everything are identical. If we wanted a universe with more life we could have one presumably. We could have all the planets have life on them, but they don't. So its clearly not as optimized for life as would be possible. Some day our star will wipe out all life in our part of the universe. How is that perfect for life? Either all things are possible and this world is sub-optimal for life or only one thing is possible and that one possibility happens to include living organisms.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I didn't realize this was your central argument. I don't claim to say that all discoveries will necessarily lead us to disprove gods. I strongly suspect this is true, especially in regards to the modern formulations of God in most religious, but I don't know it with certainty.
    Its central to the argument about miracles. However, and I will admit that this is my personal opinion, I do not think God uses 'magic' in most cases. One of the goals of existence as spelled out in God's Plan of Salvation is that we become more like him. I believe its entirely probable that we will find repeatable methods in almost all of creation because God desires us to learn them and be more like him.

    The only real difference in the end is that, as I said, I believe God is the ultimate end state - atheists, to be succinct, believe it will lead to something else.



    That is of course because it is uncommon and often medical treatment has a better track record.
    Precisely so. It is so uncommon as to warrant statistical anomaly status. In some cases, statistical impossibility status. The larger point being that the Bble records Jesus doing such things, and we have no way of verifying these events. We can check other things in the Bible, and what we can check indicates that these are honest men reporting these miracles, and, given that those kinds of anomalous events are still happening today, it is inductively more probable to to assume they are telling the truth than not.

    Its inductive logic, it could be wrong - but it seems the more probable conclusion, especially as there is absolutely no evidence that these men are lying.

    This source reports that as many as 20% of tumors found in mammography go into remission spontaneously without any treatment. These days 20% isn't great odds on breast cancer but none the less it is something that happens. The cause is as yet unknown with any certainty but there are a number of associations and theories as to how it is possible.
    Per-Henrik Zahl; Jan Mśhlen; H. Gilbert Welch (Nov 24, 2008). "The Natural History of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography". Arch. Intern Med. 50 (21). PMID 19029493.
    Bodies do heal themselves. It doesn't address the cases that I presented of late stage cancer suddenly reversing.

    I wil share a personal one. My Father in law died twice. Once from a massive stroke and one from a massive heart attack. In BOTH cases, doctors pronounced him dead, and the family went in to say their goodbye's and ... there he was alive and well. No worse for ware apparently. So either two separate doctors decided to play an incredibly cruel practical joke on the same family twice, or ... there is more to it. And a man spontaneously resurrecting not just once ... but twice ... is statistically anomalous in the extreme.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30048087

    It happens. The key here being that these events are associated with Christ as used as evidence of his divinity. They are far more common around Jesus, and he appears to have the ability to control them - which is a powerful 'evidence' of his divine nature. That is the case of the Bible.

    I agree that in the notion of miraculous as rare and beneficial it still fits. But miracles of nature are well known and expectation is purely a matter of how much you know. Items of complicate certainty from one perspective may well be seen as miraculous from another. A supernatural miracle is another matter. If it strongly contradicts especially consistent and well understood phenomena, then we must more seriously consider the likelyhood that this could be a supernatural agent at work.
    See above.

    If you have leprosy, and a man brushes you and tells you are cured ... and you are ... that is not a mere complication. These are precisely the miracles that Jesus used, and they are free of the potential complications you list.

    The track record so far for religion is very poor. Through history religion has pointed to events around them and claimed supernatural agency. Yet time and time again science has discovered the entirely natural mechanisms that drive these events. Where we once heard the voice of god in the heavens we now have thunder caused by electrical differentials in the atmosphere. What we have not had is the reverse, where religious explanations have been proven more reliable than natural observation.
    Examples? Again, lets examine a 'natural' miracle. Jericho.

    By all means, natural events can knock down walls. No divine being is needed. Earthquakes happen all the time and they knock down walls left and right. Timing here is the miracle though. To walk an Army up to a town with no breaching devices is ... well, you are SOL. So, if at the precise time and place where your Army shows up, an Earth quake happens and knocks down the defensive walls of the town you are besieging?

    Let just say, spontaneous earth quake, is not a method of breaching used by any military force. In fact, if I briefed that to a General, I'd probably get fired ;-)



    You misunderstand me (understandably). I only claim that the odds are not good for the supernatural claims. Time and time again they fail, nor do they have a strong foundation beyond supposition and wistfulness.
    Well, that is an argument that would require statistics, and as we cannot discern the basis of these miracles, then its impossible to support that statement. They could very well be supernatural. They might not be. What drives that conclusion is, to be blunt, a matter of faith.

    Let me posit it thusly.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/sc...et-region&_r=1

    In that article various scientists take a shot at whether or not intelligent life is common or uncommon in the universe. Both sides make compelling cases, but these cases really reflect which pieces of evidence the various scientists think are most important to the end result. Your belief that miracles will one day be explained is simply an inductive argument. Its not illogical. People who disagree with you, are not inherently less logical than you - they simply disagree.


    Not really. It doesn't do that commonly, but there are many things that are uncommon but known to happen regardless. There are many ways in which cancer can cure itself, it just isn't the sort of thing a betting man should rely upon.
    Its the kind of thing that is so uncommon that if your doctor relied upon it as treatment from cancer he would have his license stripped. I doubt any medical board would be terribly impressed with the claim that 'there are many way cancer can cure itself.'

    You are however free to try that with a local medical board and see how it turns out ;-)



    I have no cosmological faith, only a decision that when I don't or can't know much about something I don't make claims about it. If you read up on your big bang science there are event horizons beyond which we cannot "see" and what happens there is essentially unknowable given our current capabilities, possibly regardless of them. Some mathematical models suggest extra dimensional causes for the singularity, others that the "essence" of the universe was in a state of potential energy and the big bang represents a transformation of state. We strongly think there is dark matter and dark energy at play yet we don't really understand what these forces are, only that the observations support their existence.
    Actually, there is an inner core to a black hole that sciences like quantum mechanics are teaching us about. The event horizon of a black hole has, to date, never exploded and created a universe. Whatever happened in the Big Bang CREATED black holes or, at the very least, allowed for them to be created. Before the Big Bang, nothing existed. To date, everything that has gone into a black hole has remained there. Its quite the opposite of the Big Bang.

    Again, I make no claim that there is nothing more to discover, but I do claim that dark matter is probably not the cause of spontaneously curing cancer here on earth.

    What we don't have any reason to anticipate is that a magical being who makes talking snakes and magic fruit and cares deeply about human affairs caused it to happen some six thousand years ago because it was written that way on some ancient scrolls. The understanding that the known cosmos originated in a singularity event doesn't really support theist claims nor do they provide a useful explanation for the event.
    Actually we do. As a historian, I will tell you the story of Jesus is rock solid. the charlatans like GA Wells who have tried to shoot holes in this have ... well, Wells has a Ph.D in German, and his assault on history was so bad he had to retract much of his works or risk losing his academic credentials in German. There are an awful lot of people who were crucified, yet we remember and extoll Jesus for some reason? We record his miracles? His life? His teachings?

    Wat we do not have is any evidence whatsoever to believe that life arose from a magically but naturally occurring and singular event that happened to create gravity first, and the in JUST the right amount, and then take hundreds upon hundreds of improbable steps required to go from energy to matter, to elements, to compounds, to organic compounds, to life ... The chances of it happening are literally statistically impossible. Even once - for life to exist in the universe - its something like 1 x 10 the the 320 power - a 1 with 320 zeros after it. The number stars in the universe is 1 x 10 to the 26 power. So even if every star had ten planets that could support life, the chances of EVEN ONE having life is still way beyond the statistical probability of it happening. (Generally, its considered 1 x 10 to the 150 power, for something to be so improbable as to effectively be impossible.)

    So science is telling us that we have every reason to doubt a purely naturalistic process for our universe.

    There are only two methods of changing this statistical result. One, design. Like engineering, if you come across a perfectly functional 747, its safe bet that it was designed, even if its possible that a volcano popped it out, and in a freak accident the rock actually hardened into smelted metal and then perfectly formed into a functional airplane. engineering makes the 747 MUCH more probable. Two, there are an infinite number of universe and this just happens to be one. Therefore the Big Bang is not a singular incident, but one of many. It changes the math and the odds. There is however no evidence of any universe beyond this one - its a total faith statement.

    And, if there is a God which probability suggests, then its a safe bet he would send someone like Jesus down here to connect with us. My faith and my science agree on this one, though I accept that others see this differently. Its not that atheism is illogical, it is, IMHO, like the naturalistic miracle theory, simply less likely to be true.

    What makes sense to do is not to leap to any conclusions but to keep studying.
    Assumptions are used in the planning process ALL the time. If new evidence comes up that would challenge the assumption, then by all means we should. However, inductive logic and simple practically exist precisely to prevent us from being frozen with fear and acting only when definitive and deductive proof. I would hate to live my life waiting to see if God existed or not.

    In reality, my conversion began when, as a historian, I caught some Jesus Mythers in an overt lie. After reading Wells and some others, lets just say I was not impressed in a professional sense in the least (quite the opposite). When I read the historiographies of Jesus, well, it was rock solid history. That started me down a path of introspection and induction.

    Here is the key though, the final proof of God is not evidence - its the Holy Spirit. It was evidence that took me to the point where it was clear that God was more likely than not. But the 'leap of faith' to assume and act as if God were real opened the door to the Holy Spirit. It's deeply personal, but its also personally undeniable what I was given. I cannot prove it to you, but I swear on all that is holy that God is real.

    So the question you now face is the same as the problem set of the miracles of the Bible - is an honest man lying to you?

    It is in the end, less a question of science than it is of character.



    Personally I think science leads to science. It is simply observation and explanation for the purpose of prediction. It's only presumption is the universe is fundamentally causal.
    Science is clearly not the only field in existence, and science with ethics is ... dangerous.



    I would posit the most likely explanation for that as hearsay and legend. Not hard to imagine since it happens quite frequently.
    From two separate religions? At two separate times? In two separate places? From two people who, at the time, knew little of the other's theology?

    One could dismiss spontaneously healing cancer with the same hand wave - that does not make it so.



    Modern science didn't really exist until sometime in the 1800s. Naturalist have always been around mind you, but its hard to say that Religion had any great insights in cosmology.
    Most of the early cosmologists, like Di Vinci, were religious. And please note, 4,000 years ago, a bunch of sheep herders predicted the the universe WAS created at a time when man believed the universe was eternal and unchanging. Science proved them correct, and there is no reason to doubt that more will not follow.

    Nor is there a need to disparage it merely because it emerged from a religious source.



    A specific religion has that quote, and it didn't happen at the beginning, there was already an earth and waters before there was light according to that passage. The light of the Sun has been associated with religion and mysticism from day 1, and no shocker since its a pretty amazing thing we can't easily understand or interact with yet is clearly very important to us.
    Its Chapter One.



    It is no more magical so far as we know than the Sun itself is. Thing's you don't fully understand are not automatically magical. We also do not know it was created, it may well have simply been transformed. That to me seems far more likely.
    We do know that it was created, that is precisely what the Big Bang postulates. Again, if you demand science as an explanation and then reject the prevailing science because it conflicts with your religious views? You may want to examine why you think it is that science is the thing that buggers religious people. So far - it confirms my faith, not the opposite.



    That is a wild presumption. Banana leaves make good dinner plates but there is no reason to suspect they were created with that purpose in mind. Just because the universe can support life doesn't mean it was the intent of any agent. There are a great many things in the universe that the nature of nature is needed to support. The notion that life is its ultimate purpose is just our own sense of self importance at work. It could as easily be life is a byproduct of the desire to make a universe to produce quartz crystals.
    Statistics disagrees, please see above.

    Nor does the bible or many other religions claim the only reason for the universe was to have life. In some religions life was an accident, in others a kind of rebellion. We just happen to like to make ourselves the stars of the show when we can.
    Yes, it does. The entire universe was created so that we might exist separated from God, to exist in a physical sense. That is precisely what my religion states. Or do you think we are just a random collection of DNA with no personality, no free will, no desire explore, and having been created by corruption (on accident), that we will return to it ... all for no point or purpose whatsoever?



    Why would our understanding have any impact what so ever on what is possible or intended? The universe is the way it is, that is undeniable, but it says nothing about motivations or intent. Everything that ever happens is only possible if all the circumstances of everything are identical. If we wanted a universe with more life we could have one presumably. We could have all the planets have life on them, but they don't. So its clearly not as optimized for life as would be possible. Some day our star will wipe out all life in our part of the universe. How is that perfect for life? Either all things are possible and this world is sub-optimal for life or only one thing is possible and that one possibility happens to include living organisms.
    Again, statistics and reality disagree with you. If you encountered a 747, you would not just say, "that is the way it is!" You would not the seats, the engines, the wings, and conclude that the PURPOSE of the 747 waste ferry people long distances through the air.

    You can very often tell what is intended by something by seeing how its made. But if you come across something statistically impossible and simply shrug your shoulders? That is a choice, not correct by default.

    Again, it is not that I don't see the 'logic' of the opposing position, its the statement that religions are ... illogical, that I take issue with.

    In reality, I am a firm believer in the Hegelian Dialectic, and that means thesis requires antithesis. So, nan intellectual sense we need atheists (logical ones), and atheists ... you need religious people (logical ones).
    Last edited by gree0232; March 3rd, 2015 at 02:07 PM.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  14. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
  15. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    If you think there is insufficient evidence, then guess what you have to demonstrate? Where we would expect to find evidence, how you checked, and that there was nothing (the null hypothesis) - and this would be ... repeatable!
    It's already demonstrated. Using your own 'argument' ad populus, I turn that back on you that other religions, people most likely to believe in such things, find Christianity not true.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; March 3rd, 2015 at 09:00 PM.

  16. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It's already demonstrated. Using your own 'argument' ad populus, I turn that back on you that other religions, people most likely to believe in such things, find Christianity not true.
    That is not an argument, its a statement of your belief.

    If you can determine its not true, then you can DEMONSTRATE how to reach the conclusion, not merely dump the conclusion out totally unsupported.

    I don't think you grasp how logical argumentation works. Get that a lot with New Atheists.

    What did Master Hitchens state? That which is claimed without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

    NO ONE SEES ANY EVIDENCE HERE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR STATEMENT (That most people 'see' what you claim? Actually most people are religious - so clearly that claim is wide of the mark).

    You also have two challenges brother:

    I am openly challenging you to prove that religious argumentation is 'almost all' emotional.Name:  chall4a.jpg
Views: 134
Size:  3.1 KB

    Please prove that religion is just a bunch of fabrications. (Specifically Christianity). Name:  chall4a.jpg
Views: 134
Size:  3.1 KB
    Last edited by gree0232; March 4th, 2015 at 12:09 AM.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  17. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Statistical Impossibility
    Iím surprised you used this phrase multiple times. A statistical impossibility would be 0 in X aka the chance of a thing is none at all. Yet you used it to mean some kind of extreme probability, which by definition is not an impossibility. Used in this way it is an oxymoron.

    Probability itself is a description of uncertainty. In situations where we cannot predict an outcome, we instead assess the possible outcomes, past situations where such outcomes have happened, and other factors to take a stab at some probability and then use this to make some kind of assessment for action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    What we do not have is any evidence whatsoever to believe that life arose from a magically but naturally occurring and singular event that happened to create gravity first, and the in JUST the right amount, and then take hundreds upon hundreds of improbable steps required to go from energy to matter, to elements, to compounds, to organic compounds, to life ... The chances of it happening are literally statistically impossible.
    Look, if we live in a causal ordered universe as it appears we do, then everything that did happen must happen. There is no ďchanceĒ involved. Start a universe a given way and it will unfold in a given way. That doesnít mean some human like mind is behind it with the goal of making a painting of the mona-lisa when all is said and done.

    You are making the logical error of putting the cart before the horse. You presume life is an objective goal, not a byproduct. Its like finding a rounded rock in a river and presuming the river was planned so that this rock could be rounded by it in exactly the way it was. Imagine making scrambled eggs? What are the odds you can predict, 1 minute into scrambling the exact molecular arrangement of every atom in the eggs? Now actually do it, guess what, you will find out exactly when it happens. Does your lack of ability to predict among all the possibilities mean that a given possibility is impossible once it happens? No, it just means you donít have the information needed to figure out what will happen.

    Probability is a game of prediction. What could happen? Reflecting on the present is not a game. We know the probability of the present is 1:1. It is what it is and cannot be another way. There are no odds I am writing this post, I am writing it. There are no odds for life, there is life. The ods of it are 1:1. Life on other planets, that we donít know so we can only create odds based on uncertainties we do know. What we know for certain is it is at least possible.

    The logical flaw of these probability arguments is they are imagining different universes and claiming they are possible or even equally likely yet they have no basis for those suppositions. We only know the one universe and it has life and we have no good reason to suspect any other types of universes in place of it.

    These probability arguments simply are not science, they are a kind of philosophy and one that misses some very plain facts and tricks a great many people due to the way our minds tend to function on a day to day basis. We are hard-wired to make predictions, it is how we survive, but predictions applied to something that already happened are conceptually irrational. We tend to look at past events and ask, could I have predicted that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    If you encountered a 747, you would not just say, "that is the way it is!" You would not the seats, the engines, the wings, and conclude that the PURPOSE of the 747 waste ferry people long distances through the air.
    Sure, though you are essentially cheating because you already know the answer and this device has a very specific purpose as a manufactured tool. But nature is not a manufactured tool, and if it has some specific purpose it is not really clear. The one thing we can say with certainty about life is it exists to exist. The mechanisms of life are such that they maintain itself as best it can in changing circumstances.

    Imagine instead of a Jet you found a piece of abstract sculpture. It was made with a purpose by the artist but chances are you would not be able to deduce what that purpose was. Now lets say you find CorkScrew but have no knowledge of corks. Despite it being a created tool you would have no idea what the heck it is for. Now lets say you are from a planet where there are no squirrels. What are the squirrels for and what did humans make them for?

    If you reason that a complicated universe resulting in minds like ours requires a designer, then that designer requires a complicated and powerful mind which in turn would require a yet more complicated and powerful designer. That line of reasoning leads you to an onion of successive creators. If you think that you simply need a supreme origin, then the universe itself can stand in as that origin. Our natural universe can itself be the supreme power in the universe and you can be an integral part of said universe. Iím not claiming this is the truth, but it seems a more cohesive and plausible idea than the various human religious deities do. The only downside is it is more alien to us and less useful in making us feel safe.

    ---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

    Accounts of miracles in the bible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    We can check other things in the Bible, and what we can check indicates that these are honest men reporting these miracles, and, given that those kinds of anomalous events are still happening today, it is inductively more probable to to assume they are telling the truth than not.
    I have no reason to believe they are honest men or even that they are first hand accounts and these men even existed (in regards to the Gospels). Authorship of some parts such as Paul's letters is pretty well supported and known, but he Gospels not so much. Men lie, and they do it fairly often, and when the claims are contrary to common experience there is no good reason to assume them accurate, especially when we know little to nothing about who exactly is making these claims.

    We have a great many accounts of religious leaders lying wholesale to their believers. And because of the way we keep records these days we can prove it to a small degree of doubt. Why should I think religious scions of the past are any more reliable than those of the present?

    Anomalous events happen all the time. People do win the lottery despite the very long odds that any one person will win. Unusual does not mean magical. Spontaneous remission is well known and there are multiple ideas as to how it could happen without knowledge of certainty on how it does. If we did understand how then we may well have a possible cure for that type of cancer at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    Actually we do. As a historian, I will tell you the story of Jesus is rock solid.
    We don’t have much more than some second hand accounts of his life from people dedicated to worshiping him as a god. That is not what I would call grounded historical data. There are many claims by many people of miraculous messengers from the gods and the gods themselves. Yet when we try to examine such things closely we just find a lot of imagination or some huckster leading a cult.

    ---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

    People Pronounced Dead
    Again, while this seems like a crazy thing, being pronounced dead and then resuscitating, it has happened a lot over the years. It was such a problem in the past that many states and nations have had to pass laws requiring physicians to do pronouncements and in the 1980s they started making guidelines for it. You might think its easy to see if someone is dead, but many conditions can simulate the appearance of death including no brain activity, heart rate, or breath and yet it is quite possible for the patient to recover, even on their own. Why people think doctors are always correct mystifies me. They are as human as the rest of us, they simply have to learn a lot more to have basic proficiencies in their profession.

    Such events are not common enough that they are expected, but the are common enough that if you collect media reports of it you will find more than one for any month you care to look.People make errors, even doctors, and others less trained even more so. Every year we in fact get better at being able to resuscitate people who in earlier years we could not and what would be death in the past is not certain death now.

    I could not find good statistics on this, but what I could find is articles discussing the problem and many individual anecdotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    If you have leprosy, and a man brushes you and tells you are cured ... and you are ... that is not a mere complication. These are precisely the miracles that Jesus used, and they are free of the potential complications you list.
    It could well be exactly that (coincidence). Or it could be they are not really cured. Or it could be such attestments are a lie. There are faith healers all over the worlds and almost invariably when you get up close and personal and investigate thoroughly they turn out to be charlatans or those healed are not really healed or were never truly ill to begin with. The only miracles that manage to stand tend to be those that are not well examined.

    Every day so many more people are prayed over and don’t recover than those who are prayed over and do. If you pray for nearly everyone and some of them recover that is not a miracle, it is normality. People recover without any clear divine intervention all the time. This strongly suggests the prayers are not really doing anything beyond making people feel good. There is some medical benefit to feeling good and confident so it may be a good practice but there is no real evidence it is actually curing anyone with divine magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    By all means, natural events can knock down walls. No divine being is needed. Earthquakes happen all the time and they knock down walls left and right. Timing here is the miracle though. To walk an Army up to a town with no breaching devices is ... well, you are SOL. So, if at the precise time and place where your Army shows up, an Earthquake happens and knocks down the defensive walls of the town you are besieging?
    It is also easy to take a city that had an earthquake and claim an army marched up to it and made the earthquake happen after the fact. That is how legends get started, you take a kernel of truth and elaborate on it to make the story more dramatic and meaningful. Storytellers naturally embellish stories, and when doing so they could well be creating memories of an event that never happened. (You can find some great films online about jury witnesses and how easily they can swear under oath that they remember events that were in fact planted in their minds by suggestion.)

    ---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

    Questions of the creation of the universe
    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    Actually, there is an inner core to a black hole that sciences like quantum mechanics are teaching us about. The event horizon of a black hole has, to date, never exploded and created a universe. Whatever happened in the Big Bang CREATED black holes or, at the very least, allowed for them to be created. Before the Big Bang, nothing existed. To date, everything that has gone into a black hole has remained there. Its quite the opposite of the Big Bang.
    A: It may be that Hawking radiation is emitted by black holes, we don’t know with any certainty.

    B: We don’t know much of anything about what is inside the event horizon. In theory there is a singularity of some kind in there but we have no way of observing or testing that.

    C: You wouldn't know if a black hole created a universe or not since you can’t get any information beyond the event horizon. I can’t think of a compelling reason why it would, but we can’t really know. Some have suggested (using mathematical models) our universe is the interior of a 4 dimensional black hole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    Most of the early cosmologists, like Di Vinci, were religious. And please note, 4,000 years ago, a bunch of sheep herders predicted the the universe WAS created at a time when man believed the universe was eternal and unchanging. Science proved them correct, and there is no reason to doubt that more will not follow.
    A: Most humans are religious. That doesn't inform a conclusion about their correctness.

    B: Guessing that something was created is not a grand leap. We watch things get created all the time, both in our lives and in nature. Most religion is taking what we experience in our lives and stretching it to a grand scale. We make gardens, God makes worlds.

    C: The proposition of whether the universe was created is a 50/50 proposition. It is or it isn't. Besides which the jury is still out in science. Some say it is, some say its not. What we see definitely came from a big bang, but how that got started and if there is something beyond what we can see remains a question.

    ---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

    Personal Testimony
    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    I cannot prove it to you, but I swear on all that is holy that God is real.
    As would many Jews, Hindi, Muslims, Pegans, Tribe members and so forth. Growing up independent from any one dogma my perspective of how they are all similar informs my views more than anything else. How is it the different believers in different gods all have complete personal conviction in the truth of their claims, and when pressed ultimately profess personal revelation?

    My conclusion is that is the way most humans are. We find a way to believe what we need to believe to be happy and secure so we can maintain ourselves and our species. The mind produces what beliefs are required or at least are functional to the task. One key need is a trust in something more powerful than yourself because clearly our power has many limits. This belief gives great comfort and inspiration enabling us to be more confident and motivated.

    What I learn from this is not that I need to adopt one of these beliefs, but that I should stick with the one that works best for me. My meaning is what I make it and my confidence comes from faith in myself and that the universe I inhabit is at worst indifferent to my personal desires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    So the question you now face is the same as the problem set of the miracles of the Bible - is an honest man lying to you?
    It is not a dilemma because you don’t need to lie to have faith and belief and being true about your belief does not make that belief real. I find optical illusions are illustrative. You can look at an image and swear the gods honest truth is one figure is larger than another, and your brain is telling you exactly that. But if I get out a ruler and measure the figures, they are the same size. Your brain gives you the information you need, not always the information that is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    From two separate religions? At two separate times? In two separate places? From two people who, at the time, knew little of the other's theology?
    What about all the accounts from both sides (if they indeed exist) that didn't include magical ghost armies? Its possible they didn't see them, but its also possible the accounts were mistaken, fabricated, or suggested. What we don’t have is any hard evidence of spiritual armies running around, what we do have is tons of such stories from humans all over the world that have no such support. We know people make things up or get things wrong with great certainty. What we don’t know is that there is any kind of real magic or spirit world.

    ---------- Post added at 09:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------

    Bible Study
    Quote Originally Posted by Gree
    Yes, it does. The entire universe was created so that we might exist separated from God, to exist in a physical sense. That is precisely what my religion states. Or do you think we are just a random collection of DNA with no personality, no free will, no desire explore, and having been created by corruption (on accident), that we will return to it ... all for no point or purpose whatsoever?
    Where exactly does the bible say that god created the universe so that people could exist separate from god? I’ve read the bible, many parts of it many times, I don’t recall anything to that effect. What the bible says directly is that god created man and the world to glorify himself. “Check out this cool world I made, I am da God or what!!???”

    I do not think we are random, nor do I think we have some purpose in the sense you understand it. We are not marching to some glorious conclusion like in a hollywood play. That is a human narrative, a human understanding of our lives. The universe is not a passion play. It is not designed with a first second and third act. It simply is what it is and we are part of it. From our human perspective we have a narrative of birth, life and death and that has immense meaning to us. The idea there must be a goal is a human one and religions try to impose our perspective on all of the universe.

    I refuse this overreach. I think it is the height of ego to think that my existence is the reason the rest of existence is here. I see all of existence as part of a whole and no part of it can be separated as the means or the ends.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  19. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Statistical Impossibility
    Iím surprised you used this phrase multiple times. A statistical impossibility would be 0 in X aka the chance of a thing is none at all. Yet you used it to mean some kind of extreme probability, which by definition is not an impossibility. Used in this way it is an oxymoron.
    You have fundamentally misunderstood. STATISTICAL impossibility means something IS STATISTICALLY POSSIBLE, like all the oxygen molecules suddenly coalescing in the corner of a room leaving you to die of asphyxiation. A volcano COULD erupt and somehow smelt metal and have it land, perfectly forming a 747. A You could throw a rock into orbit using just your arm, where it just happens to catch the right wind, into the slipstream, and then on up from freak wind storms placing the rock firmly in orbit. All of these things are, strictly speaking, possible and definably so as in terms of statistics. The problem is that the chances of them happening are so remote, and so unprovable as to essentially be dismissed as impossible.

    Ergo when you find a perfectly function 747, statistics and probability tell you that its FAR more likely the result of an engineering an manufacturing process - as opposed to a volcanic event. Because the later is so extreme and improbable that that it is essentially improbable.

    This was provided in the definition and supported with a citation. Its a common term in statistics. Dismissing it is an oxymoron is merely an appeal to personal incredulity.

    Why would anyone consider someone with a 1 in 10 x 10 to the 320th power to be worth of consideration as a possible answer? Particularly when there are better solution available?

    When you see people dismiss far more probable solution in favor of extreme, claims at the edge of absurdity, you have discovered a major error in logic.

    That error in logic is no covered simply because you incredulously find the concept oxymoronic.

    Either 747's being made by volcanic events is dismissible or it is not. If it isn't? Then you have fundamentally failed to understand how statistics and probability works.

    Where exactly does the bible say that god created the universe so that people could exist separate from god?
    God's plan of salvation.

    I have already quoted relevant scripture. God's Plan of Salvation is not exactly hidden either? Why do we have souls? Why are our souls eternal? Why are our bodies not?

    Again, this is an appeal to incredulity rather than scripture. If you think God's Plan of Salvation does not exist, then you must come up with an evidence of absence argument. I would not bet on that.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=God%27s+Plan+of+Salvation+
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  20. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    STATISTICAL impossibility means something IS STATISTICALLY POSSIBLE,
    LOL. On top of not understanding what mutually exclusive means you apparently don't know the law of the excluded middle either!

    Thanks for the laugh this morning! I withdraw my earlier statements you were challenging, I don't think I could bear another debate where you have trouble with words and logic.

  21. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    LOL. On top of not understanding what mutually exclusive means you apparently don't know the law of the excluded middle either!

    Thanks for the laugh this morning! I withdraw my earlier statements you were challenging, I don't think I could bear another debate where you have trouble with words and logic.
    Apparently, the resident militant atheist needs another lecture from Bo Bennett (also an atheist, just one who uses logic and reasoning ability).

    "Statistical impossibility. Imagine filling a dump truck with over 1 million fair dice (six-sided, weight evenly-distributed). Now imagine dumping all those dice on a huge Monopoly board. Would it be impossible for all 1 mission dice to turn up as ones? In a sense, YES. We call this a statistical impossibility because it is so improbable, that in all practical terms, it is impossible. Notice that is a subjective definition -- there is no objectively defined point where something is just "very improbable" then becomes statistically impossible. The second law of thermodynamics falls into this category. While we say that it is impossible that all the oxygen molecules in the room you are in right now will spontaneously collect in one corner of the room, causing you to die of hypoxia, it is more precisely statistically impossible, or very, very improbable."

    http://www.relationshipwithreason.co...y/4-impossible

    But by all means there JJ< if you think its worth considering as an option that a perfectly function 747 can be spat our and created by a volcanic eruption you are free to argue that - and rational people, who understand how probability works, are free to dismiss you as absurd.

    Its not like statistical impossibility is a difficult concept reasonably, emotionally for militant atheists? Apparently.

    "A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1X10^-50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument."

    www.conservapedia.com/Statistical_impossibility

    "[I]f the probability is anything other than zero, then mathematically speaking it IS possible.So a 747 COULD be CREATED by a volcano!

    It is possible that a statistician would give you a probability at which you can consider an event to be PRACTICALLY impossible This would be the point of STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY; but that would only be a convention--a probability considered small enough that you can ignore it and treat it as if it were zero. The probability wouldn't really be zero, so it still might happen." So that 747 STILL might be spat our of a volcano father than a Boeing Assembly Line?

    http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/71226.html

    We also call this an argument from absurdity, because we know the probability of the volcano. So when something has probability of .0 {add 320 more zeros}1 chance of happening, its safe to eliminate it from contention ... UNLESS there is a compelling reason to consider it ... like you have photographic evidence of the volcanic eruption actually creating the 747.

    I do love it when logic boy fails at logic while insulting the intelligence and logical ability of others. He doesn't believe in God, but gosh darn it naturally created 747's just MIGHT exist in his universe ... even though God is more probable. Logic that is not.

    But yes JJ, I am sure you could not stomach another highly emotionalized debate in which you were reduced to issuing challenges to support straw men positions. THAT might actually lead you to question militant beliefs regarding religion ... and we just can't have that. Not with someone screaming LOGIC, and then not getting why .0 {add 320 zeros}1 is effectively zero for all intents and purposes - seem inductive LOGIC is not JJ's strong suit.

    BTW JJ - don't you have some challenges to meet in this thread?
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  22. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Absurdity of Atheists and Agnostics

    @gree:
    I'm not trying to interject into the debate between you and Sig. I was merely giving him a heads up that you seem to not understand words very well. So I'll excuse myself from the rest of this, he will do more than an adequate job explaining it than I will!

    Also, if you want to rage about atheism or myself, you can start a new thread about it. I would love to debate some of your misconceptions. But to interject irrelevant insults into an otherwise clear debate issue doesn't help resolve them.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; March 11th, 2015 at 08:57 AM.

 

 
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Absurdity of Religion
    By Booger in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 12th, 2013, 04:09 AM
  2. Christians Marrying Agnostics or Atheists
    By Scarlett44 in forum Religion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: June 11th, 2012, 04:11 PM
  3. Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says
    By ladyphoenix in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 16th, 2010, 01:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •