Reading through some posts, I've found multiple instances where parties are arguing over what seems to me, at least, to be semantics and silliness.
Example:
One of the more popular threads recently is here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38448
In it, when arguing over what is a belief and fact, I saw someone say (paraphrased) 'prove to me electrons exists'. I found that to be side stepping the issue (what do electrons have to do with a dead dude coming back to life?). The point I gleamed from that statement was, basically, you can't prove anything without a shadow of a doubt exists in reality (as the term 'reality' was batted around this thread as well). It made me wonder:
I know the christian tendency is to fall backs are akin is 'well, you can't show me XYZ doesn't exist' or 'what is real' and the like, all the while christians contort definitions, ignore accepted definitions, create new definitions, all to bolster their 'view'.
But at some point, a mentally fit individual needs to stop with all the philosophical and verbal gymnastics and say 'Let's agree on this point and move forward from here.', don't they?
For discussion:
At what point do we stop with the minutia of arguing, draw a line in the sand, and say: 'Outside the philosophical ideals of what is or isn't 'real', can you show me [insert any christian belief here] existed from this point forward?'
Or, because it's based on a belief whose only facts are 1) people believe in it and 2) the bible is a book written about it, are we doomed to flounder within this linguistic quagmire and never get anywhere productively?
Assumptions or specifics
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #2One personal way that I can think of a "miracle" is simply an actual fact that cannot be explained with CURRENT knowledge. From that point of view it is not difficult to accept that there are many things that happen that cannot be fully understood / explained. Maybe in the future.
The facts cannot be denied: who can explain the beauty of the planet and the life on it from an atheist point of view? It's a miracle. And that miracle was created by God.
The facts are there: it would only be enough that you look outside at the varieties that exist of fish, birds, butterflies, flowers, trees, species and races, the formation of the baby, its birth and growth, to name just a few. They are miracles to which all have become accustomed ... and without an Intelligent Designer they have no explanation. That they are miracles does not mean that they do not happen.
The facts cannot be denied: who can explain the beauty of the planet and the life on it from an atheist point of view? It's a miracle. And that miracle was created by God.
The facts are there: it would only be enough that you look outside at the varieties that exist of fish, birds, butterflies, flowers, trees, species and races, the formation of the baby, its birth and growth, to name just a few. They are miracles to which all have become accustomed ... and without an Intelligent Designer they have no explanation. That they are miracles does not mean that they do not happen.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #3I can't fuss with that.Eloi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:37 pm One personal way that I can think of a "miracle" is simply an actual fact that cannot be explained with CURRENT knowledge. From that point of view it is not difficult to accept that there are many things that happen that cannot be fully understood / explained. Maybe in the future.
Now you're only problem is to show you speak truth.The facts cannot be denied: who can explain the beauty of the planet and the life on it from an atheist point of view? It's a miracle. And that miracle was created by God.
Show us all...
(Promised not to ask about step 1)
2. God created something.
3. That something's a miracle.
Ain't it just pitiful that you'll never be able to show you speak truth regarding this "intelligent designer"?The facts are there: it would only be enough that you look outside at the varieties that exist of fish, birds, butterflies, flowers, trees, species and races, the formation of the baby, its birth and growth, to name just a few. They are miracles to which all have become accustomed ... and without an Intelligent Designer they have no explanation. That they are miracles does not mean that they do not happen.
Does it give your god a sad for him to know you can't show you speak truth about him?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1140 times
- Been thanked: 733 times
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #4It's important when you're debating to be honest. Usually, but not always, the thresholds of what different people consider reasonable or unreasonable are similar.
You're either open to being wrong or you're trying to win, regardless of whether you're wrong or not.
If your aim isn't to be honest and potentially learn something, then you won't. Simple as that.
You're either open to being wrong or you're trying to win, regardless of whether you're wrong or not.
If your aim isn't to be honest and potentially learn something, then you won't. Simple as that.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #5Those things are only miracles to the incredulous. They are simply in the category of "things we don't know yet".
Yep. It happens all the time. So far not one thing has ever been explained in terms of gods or the supernatural. No miracles involved.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is usually something that is taught. Bodily mutilations that some African tribes regard as beautiful may be ugly to those from other cultures. There are no miracles here at all.
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) that argument for miracles scores zero. They all have an explanation that does not involve any magical being. They are not miracles. They are merely the wonders of nature and time. We can see nature working all around us all the time. God? Nuh!Eloi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:37 pm The facts are there: it would only be enough that you look outside at the varieties that exist of fish, birds, butterflies, flowers, trees, species and races, the formation of the baby, its birth and growth, to name just a few. They are miracles to which all have become accustomed ... and without an Intelligent Designer they have no explanation. That they are miracles does not mean that they do not happen.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 3552 times
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #6One of the reasons that religious apologists are science -skeptic and atheists rely on scientific information is this 'how do we know what we know?' argument. So much is designed to make us (general populace) doubt everything we think we know such as reality, the material, the way things work, the way we are and the way everything is as well, of course, as the need to doubt all the history we think we know.
We know why. If we can be made to doubt everything we think we are sure of, the 'Gap for God' is made that much bigger. It isn't, of course, because, even if we couldn't be sure of anything, that wouldn't make a god (never mind the god of a particular religion) the right answer to anything.
But believers don't see it that way. Faith - based thinking assumes a god as a given surety unless it can be convincingly disproved. And if the findings of science can be made to look like a matter of 'human opinion' (haven't we heard that one before?) then God remains (for them) the default theory.
Logically, that is unsound; but then, at need, logic is mere human opinion, too.
We know why. If we can be made to doubt everything we think we are sure of, the 'Gap for God' is made that much bigger. It isn't, of course, because, even if we couldn't be sure of anything, that wouldn't make a god (never mind the god of a particular religion) the right answer to anything.
But believers don't see it that way. Faith - based thinking assumes a god as a given surety unless it can be convincingly disproved. And if the findings of science can be made to look like a matter of 'human opinion' (haven't we heard that one before?) then God remains (for them) the default theory.
Logically, that is unsound; but then, at need, logic is mere human opinion, too.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #7[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #6]
Perhaps I'm 'reading too much' into your responses above? Anything's possible, after all.
I think if these people were to ask the professionals, they could explain, to a large degree, the 'how'. Though, to be fair, there is a limit. And that's when they anti-science people jump. Which I find interesting as, at least for the believers in religion, rely on faith. Faith on, many times, what someone told someone that told someone that told them. They tend to demand to know 'how' something came to be, all the while accepting - by faith - that their creator just 'was' or 'is'.One of the reasons that religious apologists are science -skeptic and atheists rely on scientific information is this 'how do we know what we know?' argument.
Not sure I'd agree with this in total. I don't think, as it's eluded to here, that things are 'designed to make us (general populace) doubt everything we think we know' in as much as it's specialized to a degree we (general populace) don't fully understand as it's out of scope for the (general populace). Saying something is 'designed' seems to infer intent, which I don't think is the case by in large when it comes to scientific study (though other areas of life surely could qualify).So much is designed to make us (general populace) doubt everything we think we know such as reality, the material, the way things work, the way we are and the way everything is as well, of course, as the need to doubt all the history we think we know.
Again, this sounds (forgive me) rather 'conspiracy-like'. There's not a whole lot, when it comes to religion, that we are forcibly (again, as it seems inferred here) to doubt. It comes naturally by asking probing questions and thinking logically.If we can be made to doubt everything we think we are sure of, the 'Gap for God' is made that much bigger.
Perhaps I'm 'reading too much' into your responses above? Anything's possible, after all.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 3552 times
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #8Probably the fault is with my responses. A fault of mine is to know what I mean and assuming everyone else does. Your first point is spot on. Science has (even when scientists were convinced theists) found out and explained how stuff worked. When they couldn't, they would often say 'God'. Now the gaps have closed and they (and We) can say 'so far no reason to suppose a god'. The stuff we can't answer - let's wait and not pop God in there as a placeholder.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:51 am [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #6]
I think if these people were to ask the professionals, they could explain, to a large degree, the 'how'. Though, to be fair, there is a limit. And that's when they anti-science people jump. Which I find interesting as, at least for the believers in religion, rely on faith. Faith on, many times, what someone told someone that told someone that told them. They tend to demand to know 'how' something came to be, all the while accepting - by faith - that their creator just 'was' or 'is'.One of the reasons that religious apologists are science -skeptic and atheists rely on scientific information is this 'how do we know what we know?' argument.
Not sure I'd agree with this in total. I don't think, as it's eluded to here, that things are 'designed to make us (general populace) doubt everything we think we know' in as much as it's specialized to a degree we (general populace) don't fully understand as it's out of scope for the (general populace). Saying something is 'designed' seems to infer intent, which I don't think is the case by in large when it comes to scientific study (though other areas of life surely could qualify).So much is designed to make us (general populace) doubt everything we think we know such as reality, the material, the way things work, the way we are and the way everything is as well, of course, as the need to doubt all the history we think we know.
Again, this sounds (forgive me) rather 'conspiracy-like'. There's not a whole lot, when it comes to religion, that we are forcibly (again, as it seems inferred here) to doubt. It comes naturally by asking probing questions and thinking logically.If we can be made to doubt everything we think we are sure of, the 'Gap for God' is made that much bigger.
Perhaps I'm 'reading too much' into your responses above? Anything's possible, after all.
But theists often insist we do just that. Take the NDE stuff a few years ago. The Believers were clamouring that the explanation should be a real heaven. They would not wait for the research and see.
I mean by 'so much is designed' I meant the religious apologetics. Just take Comic origins. God believers have such difficulty in saying 'we don't know'. They think that science not being able to explain a way the Cosmos came to be (and prove it) means that a god is the default answer.
That leads onto what I said about 'gaps for god'. I can also say 'evidence for God'. Like DNA 'codes' and I/C. They were supposed to be evidence that a god must be involved. But correctly, even if DNA looked like written software or evolution didn't seem possible without some directive to grow a new organic feature, that didn't mean that a god had to be the answer, only that there was no other explanation known - if one takes an miracle of divine will as an 'explanation'.
So that's a form of gap for God even if 'we don't know' is not being said but 'we can't explain'. Which is really the same thing. Except one is 'we don't know what' and other is 'we don't know how'. Correctly the explanation should be waited on. But Theist apologists do tend to demand that God be accepted as the default explanation simply because science hasn't come up with one.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Assumptions or specifics
Post #9[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #8]
And thanks for elaborating more!
No worries - I'm right there with ya! I do it more times than I care to admit.A fault of mine is to know what I mean and assuming everyone else does.
And thanks for elaborating more!
Have a great, potentially godless, day!