Atheism - The Final Frontier

reply to post by Leahn

Irrelevant. That's not the point and you know it. You're moving the goalpost. The point was that the claim that establishing evidence was a necessary step before discussing might start about a subject. This is incorrect, and none of what you said contradicts it. It is just a poor attempt to move the goalpost and change the topic of the discussion.

Where I have moved the goalpost, when that was my first reply to your new argument?

The point still stands - you are comparing scientific hypotheses (fasifiable, required to explain some observed and yet unexplained phenomenon - are not redundant by the law of parsimony) to God or creationism hypothesis, which is not scientific (is not required to explain the observed - redundant by Occams Razor, is unfalsifiable). Thats not irrelevant, thats a very important distinction required for hypothesis to be scientific, and required for logical thought, which science is.

Noone here is saying you cannot propose the unproven, thats a strawman. We are saying its not logical to propose new hypothesis when its not needed, and when its unfalsifiable.

Originally posted by Leahn
The argument that has convinced me is the Unmoved Mover argument originally by Aristotle, which has progressively turned into the Cosmological Argument.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

I'm curious... do you not find the unmoved-mover argument to fall victim to fallacy? To me it's readily apparent. It seems as if you would recognize it also.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Even if I did oversimplify my other point stands. I'll be glad to believe in a "creator" when independently verifiable proof establishes its existence.

So you seal your own fate by asking for objective evidence. The Bible trumps your request from the start. God dosn't want you to believe in him unless it is by faith in his word. Objective evidence ? There will be none.
You will come to know him by your faith in Jesus Christ. Or never.

SnF

Originally posted by randyvs
So you seal your own fate by asking for objective evidence. The Bible trumps your request from the start.

How does the bible trump such a reasonable request?

God dosn't want you to believe in him unless it is by faith in his word.

That's an unrealistic requirement to ask of a creature capable of critical thinking and rational thought.

Objective evidence ? There will be none.
You will come to know him by your faith in Jesus Christ. Or never.

Faith is not a way to know anything about deities. Credulity is not a pathway to discovering truth and a deity that rewards credulity is suspicious.

Certainly, if someone asked you to believe in unicorns it would not be unreasonable of you to ask for some proof beyond the claimant's word. Why suspend that requirement when it comes to deities?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well the Bible is clear. God has his reasons I'm sure of. You need only employ that critical mind of yours to see why. God is, what he is, most of all he is. If your willing to let things get in the way of that. You may as well be blind. For we live by faith and by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Or we die just like God said we would in Genesis. God is nothing for believers to question. Non believers do with waton abandon. They don't
know enough not to. Despite any frivelous bickerments. Atheism thrives on the complication of simplicity.
Yet it never escapes it's self imposed illegitimacy.

Originally posted by randyvs
Well the Bible is clear. God has his reasons I'm sure of. You need only employ that critical mind of yours to see why.

Why did he give signs to many in the OT so that they would know but now it's against his will to be bothered for a little proof.

I'm sure your answer is that he has his reasons. If it works for you then fine but don't honestly it doesn't do it for me.

The answer is in the lack of knowldge of how the human mind works, fill in the blanks of that and you will know the answer about god.

reply to post by daskakik


I never expect the fallacy of the request for proof to cause any ones eyes to open. I suppose it could serve as an alarm you might hear faintly, in your slumber.

I'm just really tired of atheism playing with a toy that dosn't belong to them. It isn't that hard to smack 'em and take the ball away.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Well the Bible is clear.

But why should we believe the bible?

Atheism thrives on the complication of simplicity.

I'm not even sure what that means. Atheism only exists because those that claim the existence of deities cannot provide evidence for their claims.

BTW, Hi Randy! Long time no-talk-to. Hope you've been well, sir

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

But why should we believe the bible?

People who don't have faith shouldn't. In essence everything is exactly how it should be. If God lived in a house
or walked up to you and slapped you in the face leaving a nice red hand print there ? Would you crack open your Bible to see why you got slapped?

I don't think you would. I think you would most likely petition for war on God. I think you would try to convince others of his cruelty. God is putting an end to this rebellion the universe has never seen before on his terms.
Not by anyone elses. God will prevail. By a friggen landslide of evidence in his time. Not by one of his creations.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by daskakik

 

I'm just really tired of atheism playing with a toy that dosn't belong to them. It isn't that hard to smack 'em and take the ball away.

edit on 28-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You can keep your toy, I don't like playing with toys that are DEMONSTRABLY broken

Originally posted by randyvs
People who don't have faith shouldn't.

The characters in the bible didn't need faith. They had direct contact with god. In such a situation there's little reason to doubt. People today don't have that contact or access to god and therefore must rely on faith.

The problem is that it's unreasonable to take a book's claim at face value that it's true. We have no way to verify it, and we have much reason to doubt it because many of its other claims have been proven false.

I'll be glad to believe in a deity when sufficient evidence comes along. Whether I'll worship it is a different story.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer







Oh how rude of me Drummer. Yes indeed, salutations to one of my favorite atheists. .

Always a pleasure.

I'll be glad to believe in a deity when sufficient evidence comes along. Whether I'll worship it is a different story.

Well there must be some difference that Christ has made then. Belief is all that's required from what I know.







X
you pick some odd times to make your entrance. Never without the clattering of a stack of pans being knocked over as you enter.
It's not my toy either. It's not like I'm taking my ball and going home.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

But why should we believe the bible?

People who don't have faith shouldn't.

Then why do people with faith feel the need to hop on threads and post scripture or anything related to god?

You can keep your imaginary toy just stop trying to convince me that it's real and that I'm too crazy/naive/dumb/asleep to see it.

reply to post by daskakik


Stop being there for me to say that.
I really couldn't care less what you do or don't believe. Or however you strain the wording to cause yourself less anguish. These are the grounds for debate. Choose your forums read what I say. You know how it works. Stay out if it hurts your ears.


Could it be the thread you're in ?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by daskakik

 

Stop being there for me to say that.

I really couldn't care less what you do or don't believe. Or however you strain the wording to cause yourself less anguish. These are the grounds for debate. Choose your forums read what I say. You know how it works. Stay out if it hurts your ears.

edit on 28-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Then why debate if you don't care. I think you lie.

Scripture is not debate. Most people who post it are not debating they are trying to show the world the truth and just as you have shown here, it isn't something they hold open to debate so stop trying to play that angle. It is dishonest.

reply to post by daskakik


For Pete sakes man where have I posted scripture ? Only on rare occasions do I ever. Theres no angle being employed here. I'm simply showing there is legitimacy to believing in God. I'm right in your face when it comes to your ridicule of my belief. Nothing you believe or disbelieve makes one grain of sense more then what I do.
It's always my opposition that screams bloody murder when they feel ridiculed though. See you're not use to people from my side of the fence who can throw. So it scares the willy little nillys out of you when you run into someone who hits with prejidice. Stop crying, I been pretty light on you.



Click on...you tube link under neath vid to watch

reply to post by randyvs


Your were responding to a post that said:

Then why do people with faith feel the need to hop on threads and post scripture or anything related to god?

What else could you be talking about? It isn't just scripture it is anything posted with certainty but nothing to back it up. When asked for proof they fall back on the "you'll see soon enough" cliche.

Now there is nothing wrong with believing this but, most if not all atheists already know that is what you believe. You sure are not going to change what anyone else believes, with posts like that, so what is the point of posting? It sure isn't debate because like I said in my last post, most are not really open to debate.

In this very thread you threw out "god has his reasons" when asked about proof of his existance. That isn't debate that is "because I say so" in second person.

Originally posted by daskakik
When asked for proof they fall back on the "you'll see soon enough" cliche.

most people talking about religion uses this whether for or against religion, so why are you talking about it?

reply to post by Doublemint


I'm talking about it because the person that I was responding to said that "these are grounds for debate" (ATS I would assume) and I was pointing out that the phrase in cuestion is not a form of debate but rather a way to avoid debate, a kind of "and that's that" statement. When people say they are here to debate but use these types of responses they are saying one thing but doing the other.