Originally posted by Regret
Atheism is irrational because believing does not hinder the individual in any manner
Yeah, you lost me at hello. It does so little to hinder the expansion of the mind that the religious have sought holy wars and inquisitions to prevent said expansion...why? Because those persecuted didn't think the same way the self-proclaimed religious authorities did at the time. That's why it takes 500 years to admit that the sun is the middle of the solar system
Originally posted by Regret
Which is not proof to someone who does not believe in God, regardless of my beliefs to the contrary.
But the truth behind the *proof* that you have - is absolute in its nature none the less. Regardless of whether or not an individual agrees with you. If one gives you a rock - and you don't accept it as being one, does that make what they've given you any less of a rock? Of course not. There is no real gray area. An individual can either choose to - or choose not to agree with the truth they've been presented with.
Originally posted by RegretJust because we don't believe in a made up wizard in the sky doesn't mean there is inadequate rationale in us. I don't understand how people like you can say you believe in fiction, then debate it as fact as if people should know this myth and preach it to everyone they can.
As to my view of the illogical nature of atheism, I believe such to be the case. I believe there to be inadequate rationale for disbelief in God. Obviously an atheist will not agree.
It boils down to those of you opposing my stance saying, "We are right, you are wrong."
Fact, from my stance you are irrational in the belief that atheism is logical and rational.
Fact, neither side can be considered wholly logical and rational due to lack of tangible and objective evidence for or against deity existing.
Fact, atheists believe they hold the upper hand because theists believe in science oftentimes, and science is silent on the subject of deity. Science does not state there is no God. Get off your high horses and quit acting like somewhere science does, arrogant individuals may make such claims, but science itself, the facts, are silent on the subject.
I do not expect atheists to do anything as far as believing or not. Decisions on belief are personal matters that do not require me to expect anything. I merely expect respect in turn, which does not seem to exist in the posts made. Atheists do not hold the upper hand in any manner as to their position being logical and rational, it only seems so to themselves. It is only a matter of disbelief or belief, there is no absolute found in science on the subject.
usagi_yojimbo, your comments are as asinine and pig headed as the atheist type posts. Regardless of your statements, nature does not constitute a situation where one is forced to accept or reject God. You are as polarized and fallacious as theirs are.
Now, I am an educated individual. My best friends that are highly educated, include a number of atheists in fields spanning computer science and physics to the arts. Our discussions and study has led us to agreement that there is nothing in science to unequivocally deny the existence of God. We have decided that currently there is nothing in science that necessitates or suggests a need for a stance on the subject. I doubt that on this forum I will find nearly as large a number of highly trained and studied individuals on the subject, regardless, your opinion is valid, it merely holds no merit to me when you state something as science, if a friend of mine has already stated the scientific fact on the matter to me. Alliance holds validity for me because he has presented enough information in agreement with scientists I know that he is probably credible. The rest of you seem to be either adolescents or at the greatest working towards a bachelors degree with general course information supporting your claims. Now, I state this only so you can end the attempts at proving to me "scientifically" that such and such is the logical stance.
Now, given that there is no objective scientific stance, such is the only logical and scientific basis for belief or disbelief. Thus, belief or disbelief is wholly subjective and unscientific in nature with logic existing from the perspective of the subject that is illogical from the position of an opposing perspective. Atheism and Theism are logical relative to the stance, not in some objective universal manner, given current information.
Originally posted by Regret
....usagi_yojimbo, your comments are as asinine and pig headed as the atheist type posts. Regardless of your statements, nature does not constitute a situation where one is forced to accept or reject God. You are as polarized and fallacious as theirs are.
I understand what you are saying Regret, but when one gets into stating an individual's subjectivity - and how truth is dependant upon such subjectivity, they are preaching a non-Christian doctrine. The bible teaches us that Christ's truth is self evident - and it isn't justified(or proven) by the subjective opinions of the individual. Either you accept what he(Christ) tells you as truth, or you don't accept it. It's that simple.
I have no desire to argue with you, as my original intention was to present you with correct interpretation of scripture, and what truth(and/or proof) really means from a Christian perspective. If you took offense to the way in which this information was presented to you, then I do indeed apologize. But remember - the minor pain receiving such truth may cause one now, pales in comparison to the pain caused upon one not ever receiving it.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimboI believe that the entirety of existence proclaims God's existence. Regardless, If one is speaking to someone that does not believe as oneself does, one must discuss the subject with respect for their position. Paul evidenced the Biblical truth of this when speaking of the Unknown God with the Athenians in Acts. Christ himself limited his own teaching directly from scripture outside the discussions with those who had obvious knowledge of the text, including the Pharisees, Sadducees and his appointed disciples.
I understand what you are saying Regret, but when one gets into stating an individual's subjectivity - and how truth is dependant upon such subjectivity, they are preaching a non-Christian doctrine. The bible teaches us that Christ's truth is self evident - and it isn't justified(or proven) by the subjective opinions of the individual. Either you accept what he(Christ) tells you as truth, or you don't accept it. It's that simple.I have no desire to argue with you, as my original intention was to present you with correct interpretation of scripture, and what truth(and/or proof) really means from a Christian perspective. If you took offense to the way in which this information was presented to you, then I do indeed apologize. But remember - the minor pain receiving such truth may cause one now, pales in comparison to the pain caused upon one not ever receiving it.
Originally posted by Regret
It boils down to those of you opposing my stance saying, "We are right, you are wrong."
Ummm... no it's not. But it is you saying "well, everybody should be on my side because there is no harm in being on my side, so it is illogical not to be" - which frankly seems somewhat absurd.
Fact, from my stance you are irrational in the belief that atheism is logical and rational.
Police Officer - Sir, we caught the bag snatcher. He admitted to it and has been charged.
Police Chief - What about the ring leader?
Police Officer - Ring leader?
Police Chief - Yes. I mean obviously there is someone behind all this.
Police Officer - *Sigh* Not this again sir. There is no proof there is some ring leader behind every petty theft.
Police Chief - Ahhh! But it is illogical to believe believe there is no ring leader simply because there is no evidence one exists. Even now he could be out there planning another petty crime...
What could be more rational or logical? An Atheist is presented with the claim there is a God "who done it" - there is no evidence of this, and there is more evidenced theories that in no way require a God. Science, philosophy etc. It would be, for them, illogical to attempt to maintain a belief that they don't believe in. Unless you can tell us how one believes in something they don't believe in.
Fact, neither side can be considered wholly logical and rational due to lack of tangible and objective evidence for or against deity existing.
Hmmm. A lot of scientists would disagree. And there seems to be far more evidence against (that is the history and science that does not support the Bible) then for (which is essentially none, other then personal faith, which is not proof.)
Fact, atheists believe they hold the upper hand because theists believe in science oftentimes, and science is silent on the subject of deity. Science does not state there is no God. Get off your high horses and quit acting like somewhere science does, arrogant individuals may make such claims, but science itself, the facts, are silent on the subject.
Ah, but there are plenty of scientists who believe what they work on seems to indicate there is no God. I suggest you read Richard Dawkin's new book - "The God Delusion" in order to see a collection of the theories and arguments against a deity put together by a highly recognised scientist. He is unashamedly Atheist and many reviewers have noted he is breaking new ground - that is the last walls of "political correctness" between science and religion. Up till now science has avoided open confrontation between religious claims and scientific ones. Certain in the community claim science has reached the point where it is sufficiently strong, established and evidenced enough to express opinion on religious claims (especially with increasing pushing from ID theorists wanting creationism taught in shcools.
This would be the point were you claim "consensus doesn't equal proof though."
I do not expect atheists to do anything as far as believing or not. Decisions on belief are personal matters that do not require me to expect anything. I merely expect respect in turn, which does not seem to exist in the posts made. Atheists do not hold the upper hand in any manner as to their position being logical and rational, it only seems so to themselves. It is only a matter of disbelief or belief, there is no absolute found in science on the subject.
Odd - a few posts ago your were saying: "Atheism is illogical because believing does not hinder..." - you seemed to be strongly implying that the source of Atheist illogic-ism was due to the fact they didn't believe regardless because their is nothing wrong with believing. Now you are saying it has to do with the scientific attitude. Does the Bible conform to scientific and historical standards? No. Not without be twisted through hoops of allegory, metaphor and the like. And even then...
Now, I am an educated individual. My best friends that are highly educated, include a number of atheists in fields spanning computer science and physics to the arts.
Good for you.
Our discussions and study has led us to agreement that there is nothing in science to unequivocally deny the existence of God. We have decided that currently there is nothing in science that necessitates or suggests a need for a stance on the subject. I doubt that on this forum I will find nearly as large a number of highly trained and studied individuals on the subject, regardless, your opinion is valid, it merely holds no merit to me when you state something as science, if a friend of mine has already stated the scientific fact on the matter to me. Alliance holds validity for me because he has presented enough information in agreement with scientists I know that he is probably credible. The rest of you seem to be either adolescents or at the greatest working towards a bachelors degree with general course information supporting your claims. Now, I state this only so you can end the attempts at proving to me "scientifically" that such and such is the logical stance.
Funny - various fields can coincide. Science doesn't actually have to come out and say "there is no God" because various theories work against the claims of one. Where does God derive? The Bible. That is the doorway to the Christian faith. Just as the Koran is the doorway to Islam. Now, both holy books make some big claims - tell me, in an unbiased fashion - how many of these claims are supported by historical and scientific findings? Removing the element of faith how convincing is the Bible or Koran?
Now, given that there is no objective scientific stance, such is the only logical and scientific basis for belief or disbelief. Thus, belief or disbelief is wholly subjective and unscientific in nature with logic existing from the perspective of the subject that is illogical from the position of an opposing perspective. Atheism and Theism are logical relative to the stance, not in some objective universal manner, given current information.
Despite your rather illogical view my experience with Atheists tends to be they have been presented with religious claims (or come from religious families) and during their studies found massive holes in religious theory and claim. Now holes alone aren't disproving a theory - unless something arises that can explain it better. And there is - many Atheists are Atheists because the Bible/Koran/etc is an imperfect theory created by men and lacks evidence to support itself, where as science does no claim there is a God, claims processes and the like that require a God, other no proof their is a God, and put up evidence that conflicts with holy text claims. The logical thing is then to critically assess both claims. You can say "there is real proof for or against God" but the fact remains for many Atheists, a group that is constantly growing, there is more reason not to believe in a God then for one.
Originally posted by RegretI haven't seen this level of academic pretension since my posts. Bravo.
Fact, from my stance you are irrational in the belief that atheism is logical and rational.Fact, neither side can be considered wholly logical and rational due to lack of tangible and objective evidence for or against deity existing.
Fact, atheists believe they hold the upper hand because theists believe in science oftentimes, and science is silent on the subject of deity. Science does not state there is no God. Get off your high horses and quit acting like somewhere science does, arrogant individuals may make such claims, but science itself, the facts, are silent on the subject.
I do not expect atheists to do anything as far as believing or not. Decisions on belief are personal matters that do not require me to expect anything. I merely expect respect in turn, which does not seem to exist in the posts made. Atheists do not hold the upper hand in any manner as to their position being logical and rational, it only seems so to themselves. It is only a matter of disbelief or belief, there is no absolute found in science on the subject.
usagi_yojimbo, your comments are as asinine and pig headed as the atheist type posts. Regardless of your statements, nature does not constitute a situation where one is forced to accept or reject God. You are as polarized and fallacious as theirs are.
Now, I am an educated individual. My best friends that are highly educated, include a number of atheists in fields spanning computer science and physics to the arts. Our discussions and study has led us to agreement that there is nothing in science to unequivocally deny the existence of God. We have decided that currently there is nothing in science that necessitates or suggests a need for a stance on the subject. I doubt that on this forum I will find nearly as large a number of highly trained and studied individuals on the subject, regardless, your opinion is valid, it merely holds no merit to me when you state something as science, if a friend of mine has already stated the scientific fact on the matter to me. Alliance holds validity for me because he has presented enough information in agreement with scientists I know that he is probably credible. The rest of you seem to be either adolescents or at the greatest working towards a bachelors degree with general course information supporting your claims. Now, I state this only so you can end the attempts at proving to me "scientifically" that such and such is the logical stance.
For something to be rational by definition it must be predicated by reasoning. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the reasoning for a belief in god beyond the logical fallacy of an argument of personal credulity?
Anecdotal evidence is again a logical fallacy. "My friend told me..." is not an argument.
There is scientific information that contradicts The Bible. For example surface tension cannot support the weight of the average adult male. Water cannot be transmuted into alcohol.
Additionally even allowing for a purely allegorical interpretation of The Bible there are many logical inferences one can make about any god. For example one can logically infer that an omnipotent, omniscient, precognitive, infallible deity and free will can not coincide.