Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 15:05:21 GMT -5
So does the agnostic merely insist on evidence So does the Christian merely insist on evidence The agnostic does not. The agnostic accepts forms of knowledge not based on evidence. Christians say that they do have the evidence. Let's first agree on what is meant by evidence.Webster's defines the word thus: something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof : means of making proof : medium of proofThe xian, however, does not offer proof, or evidence suggesting proof, since faith works best without it. Atheists simply do not accept that evidence. Because it isn't evidence. This occurs in science all the time where evidence is accepted by some and rejected by others In science there is a rigorous examination of evidence offered to support a hypothesis. In religion, the conclusion comes first, not the hypothesis, and "evidence" is manufactured to support it. Dawkins, a man whose intellect I have the highest regard for, and who is a self declared professional atheist, firmly states that he rejects the existence of God He's an antitheist, not an atheist. I wish you bloody atheists would get together and make up your minds! Why? It is like the schisms that occured in early Christinaity. No, it's not. Belief requires agreement. Disbelief does not. this is a prime example of atheist arrogance - the very bigotry that is encountered time after time. You, however, are the bigot, not me. You're the one asking me to assent something for which there is no evidence. You're the intolerant one. If someone disagrees with the atheist they are 'deluded fools, 'clueless', 'idiods' etc. Nonsense. The burden to provide evidence of "god" is that of the intolerant, irrational believer, not mine. If you regard your superstition as incontrovertible truth, fine, but don't bother trying to convince me your belief is rational.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 15:41:57 GMT -5
So does the agnostic merely insist on evidence So does the Christian merely insist on evidence The agnostic does not. The agnostic accepts forms of knowledge not based on evidence. This is so pedantic that it is becoming absurd Let's first agree on what is meant by evidence.Webster's defines the word thus: Let's first agree on what is meant by evidence.something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof : means of making proof : medium of proofEvidence is certainly necessary to proof, but evidence does not of necessity furnish proof Indeed the number of cases wher evidence does not furnish proof far exceeds those where it does furniish proof. I would go further and state that scientific evidence has far more often led to 'proofs' that have turned out to be false than otherwise. The xian, however, does not offer proof, or evidence suggesting proof No they do not offer proof. The evidence they have is not sufficient for proof. Because it isn't evidence. You have not said what it is that is not evidence. I find that quite daft In science there is a rigorous examination of evidence offered to support a hypothesis Yes I agree. By its nature there cannot be a rigorous examination of the evidence that supports the existence of God Just as in science there cannot be a rigorous examination of the proposition that 'matter and energy have always been there' (as some scientists maintain). Science can only be concerned with the knowable in principle. In religion, the conclusion comes first, not the hypothesis, and "evidence" is manufactured to support it. This is nonsense. Christianity comes from examination of evidence - evidence that you reject. Even Dawkins says that the hypothesis of a God is equivalent in all respects to any other scientific hypothesis, observation - observational evidence - hypothesis to explain the observation He's an antitheist, not an atheist. So you say. Dawkins does not. He calls himself an atheist. I will settle for that and reject your new concept of antitheist. You, however, are the bigot, not me. You're the one asking me to assent something for which there is no evidence. You're the intolerant one. You should really pay attention and not ascribe to me things I have not asserted. You have emblazoned your beliefs in neon lights across this thread; I have not. If you regard your superstition as incontrovertible truth, fine, but don't bother trying to convince me your belief is rational. I am afraid you are exposing yourself. At no time have I said that I believe in any religion. I am arguing abstractedly, something some atheists find difficult to graps and respond with with emotionalism
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 22, 2010 16:24:21 GMT -5
I wish you bloody atheists would get together and make up your minds! It is like the schisms that occured in early Christinaity. Atheists don't belong to a church. There are no commandments, covenants, sacraments, nor bizarre ancient rituals like eating the body and drinking the blood. Schisms, as you term it, are not a problem; everybody is free to come to their own conclusions. Just out of curiosity, joe, do you believe in intelligent design?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 16:38:30 GMT -5
Evidence is certainly necessary to proof, but evidence does not of necessity furnish proof Agreed. the number of cases wher evidence does not furnish proof far exceeds those where it does furniish proof. I would go further and state that scientific evidence has far more often led to 'proofs' that have turned out to be false than otherwise. Yes. You have not said what it is that is not evidence. I find that quite daft. Xians, in particular, offer their bible, and passages within it, as evidence. The bible, however, is not an empirical document. Yes I agree. By its nature there cannot be a rigorous examination of the evidence that supports the existence of God. Just as in science there cannot be a rigorous examination of the proposition that 'matter and energy have always been there' (as some scientists maintain). Quantum physics now suggests the non-existence of nothingness, that for every given unit of time and space, a quantum of something is always there. If true, there need be no creation of this universe or the creation of other universes. Creation theories at that point become irrelevant. This is nonsense. Christianity comes from examination of evidence - evidence that you reject. What evidence? Is there even any evidence that Jesus existed? Even Dawkins says that the hypothesis of a God is equivalent in all respects to any other scientific hypothesis, observation - observational evidence - hypothesis to explain the observation The hypothesis itself is based on flawed assumptions, i.e. that only one universe exists, that something must have created it and that space and time are finite. So you say. Dawkins does not. He calls himself an atheist. I will settle for that and reject your new concept of antitheist. One can be both an atheist and antitheist, I suppose. I have read how that can be. Dawkins does not embrace belief, so he qualifies as an atheist (a disbeliever), but he also embraces antibelief, which goes beyond atheism. If Dawkins refuses to identify himself as an antitheist, I have no respect for him, for clearly he is. You should really pay attention and not ascribe to me things I have not asserted. You have emblazoned your beliefs in neon lights across this thread; I have not. I've been called a bigot, which is laughable. The subject of belief was missing from this thread until you brought it up. I am arguing abstractedly, something some atheists find difficult to graps and respond with with emotionalism The abstract sure is fun, isn't it? Cosmology is an abstract field of endeavor, but it produces nothing useful. As a matter of fact, I could argue the tangible harm caused by those desperately pursuing cosmological truth, which the theists and antitheists seem to be doing.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 22, 2010 16:56:17 GMT -5
"What evidence? Is there even any evidence that Jesus existed?"
Its quite probable that Yeshua did exist. A man with radical ideas for his time who managed to fall foul of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. He was a 'dangerous individual' they chose to remove.
But the son of god? No.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 23, 2010 0:21:52 GMT -5
I wish you bloody atheists would get together and make up your minds! It is like the schisms that occured in early Christinaity. Atheists don't belong to a church. There are no commandments, covenants, sacraments, nor bizarre ancient rituals like eating the body and drinking the blood. Schisms, as you term it, are not a problem; everybody is free to come to their own conclusions. Just out of curiosity, joe, do you believe in intelligent design? Ah but it seems that the 'atheist' camp is riven with schism and factionalism, with dgees of atheism and now antiatheism. Can you define intelligent Design? I will not give my personal opinion because that is not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 23, 2010 0:51:29 GMT -5
Xians, in particular, offer their bible, and passages within it, as evidence. The bible, however, is not an empirical document. Perhaps some Christians in your experience do that. I have met a number of Christians and none have offered the Bible as 'proof' of God - except Jehova's Witnesses but I am unsure if they are Christians. I think it is quite silly myself to regard a man-writtten book as proof of the existence of God Quantum physics now suggests the non-existence of nothingness, that for every given unit of time and space, a quantum of something is always there. If true, there need be no creation of this universe or the creation of other universes. Creation theories at that point become irrelevant. Rather begs the question 'always there' doesn't it? How can we possibly know that it has always been there? I would sugest that some things are just unknowable and that includes the existence/non-existence of God. In fact I have never met any Christian that purports to 'know' that God exists in any scientific sense What evidence? Is there even any evidence that Jesus existed? The self-same evidence that leads some scientists to believe that matter and energy have always been there. God is an attempt to explain the Great Mystery that we all experience, the brick wall where science ceases to have any real scientific meaning, the area beyond physics; metaphysics The hypothesis itself is based on flawed assumptions, i.e. that only one universe exists, that something must have created it and that space and time are finite. I do not see that as a flawed hypothesis. It is just another hypthesis perhaps, just as multiverses is another hypothesis. We simply cannot know (at this stage anyway) which of the hypotheses (if any) is a true representation of the universe One can be both an atheist and antitheist, I suppose. I have read how that can be. Dawkins does not embrace belief, so he qualifies as an atheist (a disbeliever), but he also embraces antibelief, which goes beyond atheism If Dawkins refuses to identify himself as an antitheist, I have no respect for him, for clearly he is.. With respect I really do want to get involved in factional squabbles of atheism I've been called a bigot, which is laughable. The subject of belief was missing from this thread until you brought it up. I think that belief is implicit when we talk of God, whether his existence is believed or disbelived. Odd that you think 'belief' somehow downgrades a discussion on God. The abstract sure is fun, isn't it? Cosmology is an abstract field of endeavor, but it produces nothing useful. As a matter of fact, I could argue the tangible harm caused by those desperately pursuing cosmological truth, which the theists and antitheists seem to be doing. Abstractions often produce benefits. There was once a mathematician called Boole who invented an abstract mathematics on logic. No bloody use ity was tucked away and forgotten about. Then formal logic became of extreme importance when computers were conceptualised, and his work was dug out of the drawer to form a plank of modern digital logic. Isn't it Cosmologists that offer us the concept of multiverses that you mentioned earlier
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 23, 2010 0:58:09 GMT -5
"What evidence? Is there even any evidence that Jesus existed?" Its quite probable that Yeshua did exist. A man with radical ideas for his time who managed to fall foul of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. He was a 'dangerous individual' they chose to remove. But the son of god? No. I take it that you mean that there is no evidence (that you find acceptable) that he was the son of God? And that you do not mean he was not the son of God? For you can rationally reject any evidence that he was the son of God, but to state that he was not the son of God is irrational as there is also no compelling evidence that he was not. Unless of course, you can produce evidence that God does not exist
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 23, 2010 2:12:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 23, 2010 4:18:08 GMT -5
"What evidence? Is there even any evidence that Jesus existed?" Its quite probable that Yeshua did exist. A man with radical ideas for his time who managed to fall foul of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. He was a 'dangerous individual' they chose to remove. But the son of god? No. I take it that you mean that there is no evidence (that you find acceptable) that he was the son of God? And that you do not mean he was not the son of God? For you can rationally reject any evidence that he was the son of God, but to state that he was not the son of God is irrational as there is also no compelling evidence that he was not. Unless of course, you can produce evidence that God does not exist There is no evidence he was the son of god, period. If I say you are a fish finger are you one? Of course not. If you are so sure Yeshua was the son of god what evidence are you putting forward to substantiate your claim? You simply must read up and learn how the hypothetico-deductive method works, joe. I hate to see you making yourself look green around the gills with this proving a negative nonsense. Remember.... Ho: God does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 23, 2010 4:22:16 GMT -5
Atheists don't belong to a church. There are no commandments, covenants, sacraments, nor bizarre ancient rituals like eating the body and drinking the blood. Schisms, as you term it, are not a problem; everybody is free to come to their own conclusions. Just out of curiosity, joe, do you believe in intelligent design? Ah but it seems that the 'atheist' camp is riven with schism and factionalism, with dgees of atheism and now antiatheism. Can you define intelligent Design? I will not give my personal opinion because that is not relevant. There are no rules in atheism, not core creed.There is no need for one. Surely that's obvious? Schism/factionalism? They have religious connotations and you seem unable to think outside your box. I don't define intelligent design, the devout do. As you are one of the devout I would have thought you were clued-up on it, perhaps not - depending which faction/side of the schism you are on. I did not ask for your opinion, I asked if you believe.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 23, 2010 5:21:49 GMT -5
There are no rules in atheism, not core creed.There is no need for one. Surely that's obvious? Try telling that to Joseph with his rules for atheism; try telling it to Dawkins with his degrees of atheism Not so obvious Schism/factionalism? They have religious connotations and you seem unable to think outside your box. I was thinking well before the bloody box was invented by some management-speak geek thank you. Be careful, you will go down in my (currently quite high) estimation if you continue to use such geek-speak cliches. Schism and factionalism have connotations outside religion too - in fact they are defined without any reference to religion I don't define intelligent design, the devout do. As you are one of the devout I would have thought you were clued-up on it, perhaps not - depending which faction/side of the schism you are on. You are simply expressing your prejudice here I did not ask for your opinion, I asked if you believe. None of your business really, is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 10:53:52 GMT -5
The agnostic does not. The agnostic accepts forms of knowledge not based on evidence.
That is wholly untrue, Joseph, as you know perfectly well.
You have gone from simple irrationality to downright falsehood.
The agnostic will ONLY accept something as constituting knowledge IF (and ONLY if) it is either logically necessary (such as that 2 + 2 = 4) OR if it is based on evidence.
Both the believers AND atheists make claims to knowledge that satisfy NEITHER of those criteria.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 23, 2010 13:45:28 GMT -5
There are no rules in atheism, not core creed.There is no need for one. Surely that's obvious? Try telling that to Joseph with his rules for atheism; try telling it to Dawkins with his degrees of atheism Not so obvious I was thinking well before the bloody box was invented by some management-speak geek thank you. Be careful, you will go down in my (currently quite high) estimation if you continue to use such geek-speak cliches. Schism and factionalism have connotations outside religion too - in fact they are defined without any reference to religion You are simply expressing your prejudice here I did not ask for your opinion, I asked if you believe. None of your business really, is it? Tell Joseph what? There are no rules, he just likes to pigeon-hole and Dawkins takes atheism to a near religious extreme. That's probably why you all get on so well, you talk the same lingo. Geek speak! Ok, try abandoning the paradigm in which you are clearly stuck. Schism and factionalism occur within organisations, I don't belong to any, except the AA in case the car plays up. No, I am not expressing a prejudice at all. ID is... ...the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Now you know where I stand and there is no possibility of ID in Ho. No its none of my business, but I can hazard a guess.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 25, 2010 1:40:01 GMT -5
"What evidence? Is there even any evidence that Jesus existed?" Its quite probable that Yeshua did exist. A man with radical ideas for his time who managed to fall foul of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. He was a 'dangerous individual' they chose to remove. But the son of god? No. there is evidence that jesus existed..there is NO evidence he was the son of god on the other hand there is no evidence he was NOT the son of god...or even evidence of god if people believe they believe...its called faith ...why is up to them as individuals..it does no harm to believe in a god or many gods..the harm comes with all the petty rules and regulations that ocur when their faith is used by others as a method of control..tradition...excuse etc thou shalt not kill is a pretty good maxim...thou shall kill when i say so is not.....
|
|