|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2003 : 02:43:15 [Permalink]
|
Im' sorry I forgot to tell all you "Skeptics" PLEASE be sure to chant your MANTRAS every day"Natural Selection";mindless matter is the origin of ALL my THOUGHT's;Chance is King;I have no REASON for reason;DNA is "just another molecule.    |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
 |
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 09:17:53 [Permalink]
|
I understand it now.
DA thinks, therefore he is dangerous. |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 10:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
walt fristoe: quote:
The argument from evil:
1. If God exists, He is all-good, so he wants to prevent evil.
2. If God exists, He is all-wise, so He knows how to prevent evil.
3. If God exists, He is all-powerful, so He is able to prevent evil.
4. Therefor, either there is no evil, or God does not exist.
5. There is evil.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
The argument as an inference to the best explanation:
This argument can be answered from a "theological" perspective,to the best of my knowledge the philosophic answers are found wanting.However,from a purely philosophic veiw we can question the gratuitus assumptions built into the argument; - 1.If there is indeed no God,what's the "beef" things just are that way;bad things happen to good people.
- 2.Also who defines what is "good" or "evil" from a non-theistic universe?
- 3.From the above 2 points we can see that "the objection" is only relevant if There is indeed a God to which then the question is "Why does God allow this type of situation?"
Perhaps you can see it DA, but I sure don't. Could you explain to me why "the objection is only relevant if there is indeed a God"?
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 11:06:48 [Permalink]
|
| "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." Dan Barker Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 11:25:28 [Permalink]
|
| It looks like DA took Martin Luther literally when he said, "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason." |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 15:56:25 [Permalink]
|
| DA, you have it wrong again. Skeptics don't do the chanting, it's the Xians that do..... it's called "worshiping your deity." |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
| Edited by - chainsaw on 03/09/2003 08:33:09 |
|
|
|
alessandrozema@libero.it
New Member
Italy
1 Post |
Posted - 05/31/2003 : 10:44:41 [Permalink]
|
Dear Friends,
if you are interested in looking at Christianity from a historic and scientific point of view, I can make my modest contribution.
Go to my Web space:
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/pace_a_te/Christianity/
then click on "A Way"(of course neglect the Good News, destined to non Christians)which is a short paper I have just written.
There you will find references to historic and scientific evidence that support the facts of 2000 years ago. There are photos, videos, scientific documents. Yes, I really mean it. It is hard to believe but you will be surprised...
I hope I can be of any help
Alessandro
P.S.
I beg your pardon for my English. I am Italian and so please forgive me if I made some language mistakes
|
| Edited by - alessandrozema@libero.it on 05/31/2003 16:50:24 |
|
|
|
rickm
Skeptic Friend
Canada
109 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2003 : 17:36:40 [Permalink]
|
This from the Holyfire web site, as linked by Alessandro
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/
The Question of the authenticity of the miracle
quote:
The biggest arguments against a fraud, however, are not the testimonies of the shifting patriarchs. The biggest challenges confronting the critics are the thousands of independent testimonies by pilgrims whose candles were lit spontaneously in front of their eyes without any possible explanation. According to our investigations, it has never been possible to film any of the candles or oil lamps igniting by themselves."
Why has it never been possible to film the spontaneous lighting of candles? I would really like to see this.
In my oppinion the story starts to become fishy when the lights are all turned off before this "miracle" takes place.
The pictures and videos of the fire not burning hands as they quickly pass them above the flame are quite spectacular.
I mention only this small part of your paper because I found it amusing. I am quite sure that the rest is equally amusing though.
If you haven't already read the threads found in the Religion/creationism folders you should. A lot of what your paper discusses has been brought up already. After reading these threads if you wish to add, you could perhaps start a new thread in the religion folder. |
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
-- Woody Allen, Without Feathers, 1975 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 07:31:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by walt fristoe
The argument from evil:
1. If God exists, He is all-good, so he wants to prevent evil.
2. If God exists, He is all-wise, so He knows how to prevent evil.
3. If God exists, He is all-powerful, so He is able to prevent evil.
4. Therefor, either there is no evil, or God does not exist.
5. There is evil.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
The argument as an inference to the best explanation:
1. Among the phenomena of the universe are both goods and evils.
2. Naturalistic explanations of the universe, if available, need no special accounts of good phenomena or of evil phenomena, but explain all things causally.
3. Theistic explanations of the universe, if available, need to be supplemented by special accounts of particular evils. Demonistic explanations, if available, need to be supplemented by special accounts of particular goods.
4. The more good there is in the universe, the less probable demonistic special accounts become; the more evil there is in the universe, the less probable theistic special accounts become.
5. At best, then, demonistic and theistic explanations are more complex and hence somewhat less probable than naturalistic ones; at worst, they are far less probable.
6. Therefore, naturalistic explanations, if available, provide the best way to account for the universe.
Not necessarily so.
The diety can also be said to want it's creation to solve it's own problems with minimal input from it.
My diety helps with spiritual growth and self improvement. It does not directly interfere.
My theological construct of diety urges me to learn from mistakes and become a better person because of it. I recognize there is no proof either way of the existance or non-existance of a diety.
The givens for my theological construct of diety are as follows
1) The diety is a loving and nurturing force which aids in personal growth. Personal responsibility for ones actions is stressed and respect for nature is stressed.
2) The diety urges the created to make the world a better place.
3) Without evil, one has no frame of reference to contrast good. Evil exists as a balance to good.
4) Evil is to be minimized, it is not possible to completely destroy it.
5) Some acts are neither good nor evil. This is called nature. Respect it and don't put yourself in it's way.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 12:29:43 [Permalink]
|
I have just read through this entire thread, and have realized that there is not a single salient point in support of the existance of god. Since that was what this thread is about, I have looked and looked for anything that supports the existance for a god, but no luck so far. Heck, I would be willing to look at support for any god, not just the christian one. Heck, how about Vishnu, or All father ...
Children are not born believing in god, the must be indoctrinated. Athiesm is the default. The burden of proof for the existance of any supernatural entity falls to those who suppose the existance of such entitys'. Now, if there is any solid evidence for the existance of god, I would like to hear it clearly stated and supported.
For something that is supposed to be all powerful, touch all aspects of reality, and perform radical miracles (though shop was closed on that several thousands of years ago. I would really like to see the pacific parted. That would be very convincing.) , you think there would be some shred of proof for such a beings existance.
I humbly await a burning bush to prove otherwise.... |
|
|
|
rickm
Skeptic Friend
Canada
109 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 15:18:48 [Permalink]
|
Darwin Storm said:
quote:
Children are not born believing in god, they must be indoctrinated. Atheism is the default.
In my opinion atheism is not the default, reason being, that most children create an imaginary friend, having a child myself I have noticed that she uses this "invisible friend" to share or handoff responsibility for things she does wrong or when she misbehaves. I find this similar to adults who use god or Jesus for the exact same purpose. In every culture there is some sort of religion, this leads me to believe that certain people would be prone to making up a "god" to help explain what they do not understand or what they fear. I think it just depends on how a person's brain is wired, whether or not they have a tendency to "believe" or not.
|
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
-- Woody Allen, Without Feathers, 1975 |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 19:42:54 [Permalink]
|
I will readily concede that children are prone fantasy. However, most children readily grow out of such beliefs as they get older. Children are told of Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, which they readily accept because they are told they exist, and children are sponges for information, even false information. However, children just as readily move beyond such beliefs once they are told they are false. The existance of god is also taught to children. However, children are continouly reinforced in their belief, because god is an imaginary friend that is acceptable to even adults. Eventually, most grow up still believing in god, even though their is no evidence for the existance for such a being.
|
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2003 : 20:07:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Im' sorry I forgot to tell all you "Skeptics" PLEASE be sure to chant your MANTRAS every day"Natural Selection";mindless matter is the origin of ALL my THOUGHT's;Chance is King;I have no REASON for reason;DNA is "just another molecule.
What drivel is this?
1.) I take it that you choose to not accept the vast amount of information supporting evolutionary theory? Just curious, what is your exact positition on this? Young earth creationist? Old earth creationist?
2.)You, I, and everyone else is composed of matter. As far as we know, individual atoms have no consciousness, but the same atoms that make up a human also exist in multitudes of inorganic form. The atoms don't change just because they exist in forms that are termed living or not. As for the mind, it is linked to the brain, the same way a program for a computer is linked to the hardware. It exists in physical reality.
3.)Chance is king? WFT? Last I checked, their are phsyical constants and processes by which the universe operates, and which gives it form and function.
4.) A Reason for reason? Logic is like mathematics, human inventions. We may count objects, but the idea of math is still an abstraction of reality. Likewise, logic is also a human invention. For example, there are rules of logic that only hold true is binary in nature. There is fuzzy logic as well, that follows other assumptions. Still, we make basic assumptions for things to work. In fact, I have met a few people get through life operating without logic.
5.) Yes, DNA is just another molecule, though it is a large and complex one, but so what. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2003 : 03:50:40 [Permalink]
|
Alessandro, in your paper, you began with an assumption that the existence of a supernatural being is of primary concern, and all else must have that question at it's root. You took Kierkegaard's leap. In reality, neither science nor history need to be concerned with the supernatural.
quote:
Athiesm is the default.
Sorry, Darwin, but Atheism is a disbelief in a god. That would require a child being born with this knowledge. I would tend to be more drawn to the idea that children are born with a blank slate, but learn some things very quickly, like imaginary friends.
As for arguing the point with DA, you can hang that idea up. It appears that all of our Christian friends abandoned us as soon as the Iraqi War started to flare up. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2003 : 07:32:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Alessandro, in your paper, you began with an assumption that the existence of a supernatural being is of primary concern, and all else must have that question at it's root. You took Kierkegaard's leap. In reality, neither science nor history need to be concerned with the supernatural.
quote:
Athiesm is the default.
Sorry, Darwin, but Atheism is a disbelief in a god. That would require a child being born with this knowledge. I would tend to be more drawn to the idea that children are born with a blank slate, but learn some things very quickly, like imaginary friends.
As for arguing the point with DA, you can hang that idea up. It appears that all of our Christian friends abandoned us as soon as the Iraqi War started to flare up.
Disbelief in God is an affirmative statement. It is asserting the non-existance of a supreme being. (Which is not provable.) Atheism is the absence of a God belief in ones personal philosophy. Many atheists contend that if a theist could provide solid falsifiable proof, they would abandon their atheism. (It never will happen due to the impossibility of proving the physical existance or non-existance of a theological construct.)
Darwin Storm is correct that theism is indoctorinated. However, he is mixing the frames of reference of philosophy and science. Philisophical constructs, such as theism and relativism, fulfill psychological needs. Atheists do not have psychological needs for the theistic mysticism and ceremony. Theists have been indoctorinated into a religion and have this psychological need for theistic mysticism and ceremony. Athiests who were brought up theistic have analyzed their psychological needs and found theistic mysticism and ceremony to be unnecessary or incongruent to their personal philosophy and have discarded it.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
