Losing my religion

[mbig]

If you wish, we can focus only upon your beliefs rather than a particular sect to avoid this problem. However, if we do not discuss a particular sect's beliefs and tenants whose beliefs are we to debate about? Will you volunteer to put your beliefs on the line for this discussion?

Put my faith or beliefs on the line?
What line would that be since I am my own person my beliefs are my own and nobody tells me what to believe .or not to believe.

He was asking you to use your own beliefs as to be able to discuss something Tangible/specific so the discussion could proceed with less generalities.
You used that response as a strawman to Bluster because you couldn't play in the arena of specifics you were asked to.

Evidence in physics is indeed differant from evedidence in history but not that much.
History is mostly what we think has happened , physics is mostly theory and conjector on what might be or what might have happened.

Not quite. Your transparently invoking theoretical Physics instead of established Physics to try and make it less solid.

Red herring? Well you have organized religion and you have athiest both do not like each other both are getting pretty wealthy off T.V., movies, speeches, lectures and books yes or no??

Except for Richard Dawkins I don't know a single person making money off Atheism.
While there are scores of Religous demagogues making fortunes from Religion.
Short list: TV ministries, Mega-churches, and many invoking godless atheism.
Infinitely more being made invoking/cursing atheism than from it.

You ask me to explain and present all this stuff about faith.
Alas I can not for no two faiths are alike you overlook individualism sir.

Again, that's precisely why he asked you to use Your faith... so you couldn't disingenuously skate into debate never-never land, invoking many.

Now if you put the same questions to athiest they would all agree on the same belief which is we don't believe.a conformist policy , I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it just is.

Atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of belief.

You start with nothing but space a void and presto you have a big bang explosion and all the galaxys and planets aleing?????

Why is this more difficult than inventing a "presto" god?
and btw, the universe is a Mess not 'aligned' at all.
Mis-shapen, galaxies colliding, dead stars, black holes, etc.

Perhaps you'd like the logic of athiest.
1The evolution of man came from an accidental explosion that couldn't happen......
theory speculation,opinion,supposition, contemplation. in other words guesswork

We don't what happened and why.. yet.
Atheists can say that instead of invoking 'god' for what they don't understand.
You know.... like the baffling Sun, Rain, Lighting, Moon, etc Gods your predecessors offered as immutable proof there must be a higher power.

 

[presluc]

He was asking you to use your own beliefs as to be able to discuss something Tangible/specific so the discussion could proceed with less generalities.
You used that response as a strawman to Bluster because you couldn't play in the arena of specifics you were asked to.


Not quite. Your transparently invoking theoretical Physics instead of established Physics to try and make it less solid.

Except for Richard Dawkins I don't know a single person making money off Atheism.
While there are scores of Religous demagogues making fortunes from Religion.
Short list: TV ministries, Mega-churches, and many invoking godless atheism.
Infinitely more being made invoking/cursing atheism than from it.


Again, that's precisely why he asked you to use Your faith... so you couldn't disingenuously skate into debate never-never land, invoking many.

Atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of belief.


Why is this more difficult than inventing a "presto" god?
and btw, the universe is a Mess not 'aligned' at all.
Mis-shapen, galaxies colliding, dead stars, black holes, etc.


We don't what happened and why.. yet.
Atheists can say that instead of invoking 'god' for what they don't understand.
You know.... like the baffling Sun, Rain, Lighting, Moon, etc Gods your predecessors offered as immutable proof there must be a higher power.

Well, well, what have we here someone to explain a post directed at me.
I must say your efforts are too kind, but unnessary.

Let me get this straight posters on this thread say they are atheist and nobody says nothing I say I have faith in God but have no problem with athiest believing what they choose ask a couple of questions and now I'm supposed to put my beliefs on the line??
Ithought I did I have faith in God that is my belief everything else I consider personal, is that a problem.?
I thought athiest didn't like spiritual people getting preachy was I wrong or have athiest changed?

So now you guys are saying you can make an explosion without matter or energy???

So this guys the only one making money off athiesm?
Don't get to the book store that much or whatch discovery science channel that much.

So let me get this straight I'm supposed to use my faith to avoid skateing into debate never never land involving many?
Umm, and here I thought this was a debate thread, cause everytime I've opened a religious threads there's always a couple of nice athiest coming by to say there is no God.

So athiest do not believe in nothing not even absence?

It's my point is athiest and faith believers wether they like it or not are equal.
Neither has iron proof to proove the other wrong, that is fact not fiction.

There is and will always be "the unknown factor" even athiest must follow this law, just as people that have faith in God, the differance is we go about it differantly

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

@presulc

Agreed, both sides have faith. Atheists are on the winning side of the argument because they aren't trying to prove anything, forcing us to start talking (which gets us in trouble lol)

I don't understand atheism, it just seems like a non-philosophy dedicated to destroying other philosophies with their non-proofs. That being said, they all think I'm moronic for believing in a 3k year old book written by nomads!

 

[scourge99]

Agreed, both sides have faith.

depending on how one defines that word I may or may not agree.

Personally I find that there are so many definitions for "faith" that I prefer to say what I mean directly rather than using such an ambiguous term.

Atheists are on the winning side of the argument because they aren't trying to prove anything, forcing us to start talking (which gets us in trouble lol)

Perhaps that is because atheists only share 1 thing in common: a disbelief in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't understand atheism

There is nothing more to understand about atheism than a disbelief in god(s). Much like there is nothing more to understand about non-astrologers, or a-unicornists.

it just seems like a non-philosophy dedicated to destroying other philosophies with their non-proofs.

You are correct that there is no atheist dogma, doctrine, or creeds to dispute.

they all think I'm moronic for believing in a 3k year old book written by nomads!

No. Not necessarilly.

Some have never questioned there beliefs in what a 2000 year old book says.
Some are indoctrinated. Don't know better.
Some don't care.
Some have their own heretic beliefs.
And some are morons, yes.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

@scourge99

Yup, debating atheism is pointless, its not like I can disprove a non-belief.

Atheism is the more logical position to take, I will cede that point. Something about the way my mind works allows me to see beyond pure physical proof into the realm of philosophical and metaphysical proof, so I stray away from pure physical proof based logic. Most would call what I have faith, but in my mind it is a series of proofs that led me to my semi-faith-based conclusion.

Most people don't have that flaw, hence most people don't care about "faith" (even though they would "lie" and say they believed, this is more pavlovian than anything) and for the same reason don't care about non-faith.

Christians lose these debates because faith is required to see our world-view, no amount of debating could ever imbue scourge99 with "faith", so all I or any christian can do is present our world view without the extraneous religious BS that turns people away.

 

[Hawkins]

Christians lose these debates

No, I think that the atheists lose more debates than they can imagine, but they fail to admit and realise it. :mrgreen: Their tactics usually are 1) prolong the debate to deceive themselves to believe they have won the argument but actually they lost it in the beginning. :2wave: 2) to switch to intellectual dishonest whenever they perceive that they are going to lose the argument.

Christians are usually more honest and honorable in a debate.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

No, I think that the atheists lose more debates than they can imagine, but they fail to admit and realise it. :mrgreen: Their tactics usually are 1) prolong the debate to deceive themselves to believe they have won the argument but actually they lost it in the beginning. :2wave: 2) to switch to intellectual dishonest whenever they perceive that they are going to lose the argument.

Christians are usually more honest and honorable in a debate.

I was typing a P.C. response to this, but ultimately I would have to agree. Though, from the perspective of a third party the christian would likely be on the losing end solely because the burden of proof (which is impossible to provide) lies on us.

The "message of the cross" is unquestionablly foolish, the bible even says this (1 Corinthians 1). I keep this in mind as to many times have I heard babbling christians trying to explain christianity using the language of christians ... it is pointless chatter to those who question even the existence of God. We CAN'T win the argument, but we can "learn to speak as the Greeks" when presenting these ideas to the figurative Greeks, as in Paul's day most will mock; some will listen.

(btw, not meant as a response directed at you, just random thoughts)

 

[Hawkins]

We CAN'T win the argument,

I don't know whether you draw this conclusion from. As a matter of fact, we CAN win the argument.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

I don't know whether you draw this conclusion from. As a matter of fact, we CAN win the argument.

I guess that depends on how you define win, so in some sense I do agree with you.

But, in the eyes of the world (and specifically atheists), our argument is unwinnable simply because we can't physically provide proof that what the bible says is true.

I do on the other hand believe you can philosophically prove the bibles veracity, but conversation rarely gets past "should I believe in santa clause too?".

 

[Hawkins]

I was typing a P.C. response to this, but ultimately I would have to agree. Though, from the perspective of a third party the christian would likely be on the losing end solely because the burden of proof (which is impossible to provide) lies on us.

It's just a misconception. The burden of proof is not on the Christians' side.

It is clearly stated that it's the Christians' faith to believe in God. And it is the unbelievers who are in demand of proof, not the Christians. So if only you are in demand, how come it is others' responsibility to provide you with what you need. Moreover, it is each person's own responsibility to seek out the truth for its his own life in the end. No one is supposed to be more caring than you yourself about your own life, generally speaking from a third party's perspective.

 

[Hawkins]

But, in the eyes of the world (and specifically atheists), our argument is unwinnable simply because we can't physically provide proof that what the bible says is true.

No matter how you define "win", we don't need to provide any evidence in order to win. Your question here is answered in my another post just above.

I do on the other hand believe you can philosophically prove the bibles veracity, but conversation rarely gets past "should I believe in santa clause too?".

That remains your own opinion, I can easily distinguish santa clause from God and easily demonstrate the difference to even the atheists.

In a nutshell, a skeptic is reasonably valid and distinguishable from the flying spaghetti when it attracts 1/3 human beings, including the great minds such as Isaac Newton. We can't dig into others' mind to know how they reach the conclusion that "God exists". But we do know that santa clause attracts no great minds, unlike the existence of God. That's the difference.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

odd double post, deleted

 

[scourge99]

In a nutshell, a skeptic is reasonably valid and distinguishable from the flying spaghetti when it attracts 1/3 human beings, including the great minds such as Isaac Newton. We can't dig into others' mind to know how they reach the conclusion that "God exists". But we do know that santa clause attracts no great minds, unlike the existence of God. That's the difference.

Thank you for publicly demonstrating the following fallacies for your belief in God
1) Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "attracts 1/3 human beings"
2) Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia " great minds such as Isaac Newton"

 

[scourge99]

No, I think that the atheists lose more debates than they can imagine, but they fail to admit and realise it. :mrgreen: Their tactics usually are 1) prolong the debate to deceive themselves to believe they have won the argument but actually they lost it in the beginning. :2wave: 2) to switch to intellectual dishonest whenever they perceive that they are going to lose the argument.

Unless you claim to be a mindreader or omniscient then you only discredit yourself by claiming to know the thoughts and motivations of others.

 

[hallam]

Thank you for publicly demonstrating the following fallacies for your belief in God
1) Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "attracts 1/3 human beings"
2) Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia " great minds such as Isaac Newton"

The Ad populum argument has got to be the most misused atheist counter-argument. I no way did he say that the 1/3 proves anything. He only said that the two, God and FSM, can be distinguished based on adherence. A citing an example of the antithesis of the atheistic archetype doesn't say that that proves anything either. Sometimes an example is just an example. Ignorance of what these fallacies actually mean is bliss it seems.

 

[presluc]

@presulc

Agreed, both sides have faith. Atheists are on the winning side of the argument because they aren't trying to prove anything, forcing us to start talking (which gets us in trouble lol)

I don't understand atheism, it just seems like a non-philosophy dedicated to destroying other philosophies with their non-proofs. That being said, they all think I'm moronic for believing in a 3k year old book written by nomads!

How do you see athiest on the winning side?
Do they not try to prove the big bang theory, evolution from organic material??
As for myself I do not try to prove there is a God , Ihave faith that there is that's enough for me.
How many theorys on creationism exist in te athiest relm?

 

[presluc]

It's just a misconception. The burden of proof is not on the Christians' side.

It is clearly stated that it's the Christians' faith to believe in God. And it is the unbelievers who are in demand of proof, not the Christians. So if only you are in demand, how come it is others' responsibility to provide you with what you need. Moreover, it is each person's own responsibility to seek out the truth for its his own life in the end. No one is supposed to be more caring than you yourself about your own life, generally speaking from a third party's perspective.

It's not only that but if an athiest ask for proof of God.
And one who as faith in God ask for proof of some of those theorys athiest have. WELL?

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

How do you see athiest on the winning side?
Do they not try to prove the big bang theory, evolution from organic material??
As for myself I do not try to prove there is a God , Ihave faith that there is that's enough for me.
How many theorys on creationism exist in te athiest relm?

Ultimately I think atheists are on the losing side, but for now, until God reveals himself fully to man atheism will win the argument because ultimately our answer boils down to "I have faith that the bible is not a lie", where the atheist says "you can't prove God exists".

Our position is not supported with physical tests and proofs.

(I would argue however that our position is fully philosophically supported)