Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 54, 55, 56  Next

Reply to topic
Guest
First Post
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:00 am  The faith of atheism Reply with quote

I keep hearing quite often people say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.

If You are an atheist, is that true, and why or why not??

If you are a theist, is that true, and why or why not?

Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 141: Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:43 am
Reply

Like this post
Moderator Warning

TheOneAndOnly wrote:
Are you always this ignorant?
Please refrain from making personal attacks on other debaters.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 142: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:00 am
Reply

Like this post
micatala wrote:
Moderator Intervention

TheOneAndOnly wrote:

Are you always this ignorant?


Rather than label another poster as ignorant, which is a violation of the rules, simply point out where the lack of knowledge lies.


Noted and corrected.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 143: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:06 am
Reply

Like this post
TheOneAndOnly wrote:
Biker wrote:
Cephus wrote:
Jester wrote:
Isn't this basically what I've written above?
An ancient document is non-conclusive evidence. Having noted the document, we go looking into the matter further.


Which is all well and good, but still pointless until you actually FIND something further. An ancient document is an unsupported claim. It might give you a starting place to look, but no one ought to accept a proposition on the basis of an unsupported claim.

Come on back and let us know when you've actually found objective evidence for God.


Here's some. He (God) dwells in me by faith by his Spirit, thereby spiritually birthing me making me spiritually alive, thereby being able to communicate and relate the Him. And this is all very well documented in the modern manuscript called the Bible which is objectively historical.


He asked for objective evidence. By definition, faith is subjective. Strike one.
The bible is not a modern manuscript. Strike two.
The bible is hardly objectively historical. While it obviously contains alleged truths about events in history, this has little to do with proving the existence of God. The majority (if not all) of the scriptures concerning God are subjective.
For the sake of argument, I will not dispute the fact that a man named Jesus Christ likely existed, did many of the non-supernatural actions and events that are claimed, and died by execution. Beyond there, you need to show much other evidence to prove the claims. There have been more than enough alternative threories shown to give significant doubt to the resurrection claims, or any of his supernatural claims. As such, while his claim of being the son of God is not disproven, it is a farcry from proven. It is "objectively" in limbo, and as such, useless in an argument. Strike three.

The nonsense you provide as "objective" evidence shows how weak and ridiculous your argument is.


Quote:
You know about faith. It's the same thing a-theists exhibit when they believe in neo-Darwinism myth tales.

Biker


Are you always this ignorant?


Quote:
By definition, faith is subjective.

Tell that to my wife and she will objectively point by point shred your opinion.
I was a Biker in Biker Gangs. I was a bad man doing bad things. My wife and I were not living together. I, on the street was confronted on the street by an x-drug dealer whom I knew. Not knowing he had become a christian. He had this smile and peace about him that was both measurable and observable. I said, must be some good s--t you got this time baby! Yeah but it ain't chemical. I was given some good news. As the result of taking that good news and slapping a little faith with it.
I got: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corin 5:17) Subjective part!
Immediate!
I still wanted to ride HD's hard and fast, I just didn't want to do bad stuff on them any more. Objective part!
This was noticeable in the natural realm by lots of people. Bikers-confused and dazed. Family-confused and dazed and weary. Neighbors-curious. Friends-weird. Wife-reserved judgement for a long time while wanting to observe for long periods to be sure.
She, came around after much observation. Objective part!
It's called a new nature. Therapy don't do it. Education don't do it. Drugs don't do it. Intervention don't do it. Self help don't do it. Trying don't do it. HD's help!
Old was gone!
New had come!
Strike One!

Quote:
The Bible is not a modern manuscript

My NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Amplified, NLT, TEV, Message, Interlinear, Weymouth New Testament, NCV, etc, is.
Strike Two!

Quote:
The Bible is hardly objectively historical.

Hmmm, this seems to be a claim. Hardly? You seem not sure? Mind supporting that.
Strike Three.

Quote:
...you need to show much other evidence that are claimed...

Which claims of mine do you mean?

Quote:
...did many of the non-supernatural actions and events that are claimed...

You believe the non-supernatural events are objectively historical, but you deny the supernatural events are. Why? You are making a subjective distinction for some reason but I am unclear as to why.

Would you agree that nothing banging (a Big One) into a universe, is a miracle by definition?
Mind you I am not claiming nothing banged or nothing didn't bang. I am actually in favor of a bang, but would probably designate it as something else.
I am just trying to determine at this point if we do in fact have a bonefied miracle of the first order, in this nothing bang? Especially in view of your seeming outright rejection of the possibility of miracles of any sort.
I'll call this a foul ball until I get your response.

Quote:
There have been more than enough alternative theories shown to give significant doubt to the resurrection claims

Well, I for one am not doubting in an objective historical account just because of some "alternative theories shown". You see this modern culture that has been run through the John Dewey influenced mind cloud called the educational system churning out neo-Darwinism group think robots, and are actually influenced by "SPECULATION".
Those of us that actually think for themselves take speculation with a grain of salt until demonstrated differently. You should see what those bozo's ( rank and file Darwinists) taught me along the lines of the Darwinism swill when I was in the Dewey system of secular humanism. It was a gas. We had these great big long charts of monkeys morphing into men and these dates assigned along the journey. It was all very entertaining.
Except, when I got old enough, and wasn't impressed with how smart the teachers were and have this emotional tie to those who nurtured our formative learning experience, and began to form real questions. I said, self, there seems to be big holes in this info, why? This really don't all add up. Why? Mind you I don't hate teachers, I'm married to one for 38 years, and she still is forming those 5th and 6th grade minds right now as I write.
But come on, just because of a little noise were throwing out the inerrant historical record of a few miracles. I've got a news flash for you, Darwinism is chock full of miracles.
Strike Four!

Biker

Goto top, bottom
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 144: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:25 am
Reply

Like this post
Biker wrote:
TheOneAndOnly wrote:
Biker wrote:
Cephus wrote:
Jester wrote:
Isn't this basically what I've written above?
An ancient document is non-conclusive evidence. Having noted the document, we go looking into the matter further.


Which is all well and good, but still pointless until you actually FIND something further. An ancient document is an unsupported claim. It might give you a starting place to look, but no one ought to accept a proposition on the basis of an unsupported claim.

Come on back and let us know when you've actually found objective evidence for God.


Here's some. He (God) dwells in me by faith by his Spirit, thereby spiritually birthing me making me spiritually alive, thereby being able to communicate and relate the Him. And this is all very well documented in the modern manuscript called the Bible which is objectively historical.


He asked for objective evidence. By definition, faith is subjective. Strike one.
The bible is not a modern manuscript. Strike two.
The bible is hardly objectively historical. While it obviously contains alleged truths about events in history, this has little to do with proving the existence of God. The majority (if not all) of the scriptures concerning God are subjective.
For the sake of argument, I will not dispute the fact that a man named Jesus Christ likely existed, did many of the non-supernatural actions and events that are claimed, and died by execution. Beyond there, you need to show much other evidence to prove the claims. There have been more than enough alternative threories shown to give significant doubt to the resurrection claims, or any of his supernatural claims. As such, while his claim of being the son of God is not disproven, it is a farcry from proven. It is "objectively" in limbo, and as such, useless in an argument. Strike three.

The nonsense you provide as "objective" evidence shows how weak and ridiculous your argument is.


Quote:
You know about faith. It's the same thing a-theists exhibit when they believe in neo-Darwinism myth tales.

Biker


Are you always this ignorant?


Quote:
By definition, faith is subjective.

Tell that to my wife and she will objectively point by point shred your opinion.
I was a Biker in Biker Gangs. I was a bad man doing bad things. My wife and I were not living together. I, on the street was confronted on the street by an x-drug dealer whom I knew. Not knowing he had become a christian. He had this smile and peace about him that was both measurable and observable. I said, must be some good s--t you got this time baby! Yeah but it ain't chemical. I was given some good news. As the result of taking that good news and slapping a little faith with it.
I got: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corin 5:17) Subjective part!
Immediate!
I still wanted to ride HD's hard and fast, I just didn't want to do bad stuff on them any more. Objective part!
This was noticeable in the natural realm by lots of people. Bikers-confused and dazed. Family-confused and dazed and weary. Neighbors-curious. Friends-weird. Wife-reserved judgement for a long time while wanting to observe for long periods to be sure.
She, came around after much observation. Objective part!
It's called a new nature. Therapy don't do it. Education don't do it. Drugs don't do it. Intervention don't do it. Self help don't do it. Trying don't do it. HD's help!
Old was gone!
New had come!
Strike One!


First of all, faith is still objective, and you admitted it. the effects of a changed state of mind are objective. Faith itself is subjective.

And stop pretending faith is the only thing that can change people like that. That's an insult to a great many people.

Quote:

Quote:
The Bible is not a modern manuscript

My NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Amplified, NLT, TEV, Message, Interlinear, Weymouth New Testament, NCV, etc, is.
Strike Two!


Those are all translations of a 2000 year old book I.E not modern. Shakespeare does not become modern because somebody writes his plays into modern english.

Quote:

Would you agree that nothing banging (a Big One) into a universe, is a miracle by definition?
Mind you I am not claiming nothing banged or nothing didn't bang. I am actually in favor of a bang, but would probably designate it as something else.
I am just trying to determine at this point if we do in fact have a bonefied miracle of the first order, in this nothing bang? Especially in view of your seeming outright rejection of the possibility of miracles of any sort.
I'll call this a foul ball until I get your response.


You are not even trying. This has been explained to you a dozen times. Do you continue to misrepresent the big bang out of intellectual dishonesty? or ignorance? If for some other reason, please explain why , despite having had it explained more than once, you continue to make straw men over and over.

The big bang was not from nothing, it was from a singularity.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 145: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:37 am
Reply

Like this post
From Page 15 Post 143:

Quote:

By definition, faith is subjective.

Biker wrote:

Tell that to my wife and she will objectively point by point shred your opinion.

Too bad she's not here then, huh?

Biker wrote:

I got: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corin 5:17) Subjective part!

I agree it is subjective, how does this refute the claim that faith is subjective?

Biker wrote:

I still wanted to ride HD's hard and fast, I just didn't want to do bad stuff on them any more. Objective part!

Does Biker contend his not wanting to do this stuff anymore resulted in nobody wanting to do it?

Biker wrote:

She, came around after much observation. Objective part!

If you wish to debate through your wife, please present her so we can confirm your statement.

Biker wrote:

She, came around after much observation. Objective part!
It's called a new nature. Therapy don't do it. Education don't do it. Drugs don't do it. Intervention don't do it. Self help don't do it. Trying don't do it. HD's help!

What about those who never wanted to do the things you mention above, and never fall into your list here?

Quote:

The Bible is not a modern manuscript

My NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Amplified, NLT, TEV, Message, Interlinear, Weymouth New Testament, NCV, etc, is.
[/quote]
Two thousand or fifteen hundred years is sufficiently subjective here to consider it as new I suppose.

Quote:

The Bible is hardly objectively historical.
[quote="Biker"]
Hmmm, this seems to be a claim. Hardly? You seem not sure? Mind supporting that.

The many inconsistencies, contradictions, and downright errors would indicate it is not a reliable document regarding its claims about what did or did not happen.

Biker wrote:

You believe the non-supernatural events are objectively historical, but you deny the supernatural events are. Why? You are making a subjective distinction for some reason but I am unclear as to why.

While I didn't make the original claim, I can certainly understand why some would reject claims without any way to confirm such.

Biker wrote:

Would you agree that nothing banging (a Big One) into a universe, is a miracle by definition?

While I don't overtly claim the Big Bang is how it all came about, I would consider it a product of nature, and not a miracle, in that when you bang stuff together stuff happens.

Biker wrote:

Mind you I am not claiming nothing banged or nothing didn't bang. I am actually in favor of a bang, but would probably designate it as something else.

Agreed, except I would expect to be able to confirm any claim I make in such regards. To me, "God did it" fails on unprovability.

Biker wrote:

I am just trying to determine at this point if we do in fact have a bonefied miracle of the first order, in this nothing bang? Especially in view of your seeming outright rejection of the possibility of miracles of any sort.

Somewhat agreed. If I were to make overt claims about the Big Bang, I should be expected to support them.

Biker wrote:

I'll call this a foul ball until I get your response.

Let's call it a fielder's choice until someone actually claims the Big Bang occurred.

No sense chasing strawmen around.

Biker wrote:

Well, I for one am not doubting in an objective historical account just because of some "alternative theories shown".

Me either. I reject resurrection claims on their own merits. Since no one can offer verifiable evidence such miraculous events occur/ed, I consider them the myth the Bible seems to be.

Biker wrote:

You see this modern culture that has been run through the John Dewey influenced mind cloud called the educational system churning out neo-Darwinism group think robots, and are actually influenced by "SPECULATION".

Then surely Biker, or his wife, can offer some kind of evidence beyond "speculation" for resurrection claims.

Biker wrote:

Those of us that actually think for themselves...

I OBJECT TO YOUR INSULTING THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH.

Is it part of Biker's religious training to insult other's simply because they don't take him at his word?

Biker wrote:

Those of us that actually think for themselves take speculation with a grain of salt until demonstrated differently.

Exactly. This goes for "nature" claims as well as "God" claims.

Biker wrote:

You should see what those bozo's ( rank and file Darwinists)

INSULTS ARE NOT IN PLACE HERE. WHY CAN'T YOU DEBATE WITHOUT INSULTING THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH?

Biker wrote:

We had these great big long charts of monkeys morphing into men and these dates assigned along the journey. It was all very entertaining.

Yeah, man poofing out of thin air or dust seems so much more plausible Smile

Biker wrote:

I said, self, there seems to be big holes in this info, why? This really don't all add up.

Inability to do math?

Our rejection of evidence says nothing about the validity of such. This is why it is so important to be able to verify claims.

What God claims can be verified?

Biker wrote:

Why? Mind you I don't hate teachers, I'm married to one for 38 years, and she still is forming those 5th and 6th grade minds right now as I write.

I say with complete sincerity that I 'preciate your wife teaching children (hopefully my favored "beliefs"). I have much respect for our civil servants.

Biker wrote:

But come on, just because of a little noise were throwing out the inerrant historical record of a few miracles. I've got a news flash for you, Darwinism is chock full of miracles.

How many times do you have to be reminded of the errors within the Bible before you finally admit to them? Your failure to change your mind here indicates to me you will not accept anything that goes against your sacred beliefs.

Does Biker still contend rabbits chew their cud?

Does Biker contend holding up a striped stick will get animals to produce offspring of a given pattern?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 146: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:38 am
Reply

Like this post
Biker wrote:
And this is all very well documented in the modern manuscript called the Bible which is objectively historical.
TheOneAndOnly wrote:
The bible is not a modern manuscript.


Biker wrote:
My NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Amplified, NLT, TEV, Message, Interlinear, Weymouth New Testament, NCV, etc, is.


Perhaps you are having difficulty with the term manuscript. A manuscript is a recording of information that has been manually created by someone or some people, such as a hand-written letter, as opposed to being printed or reproduced some other way. The word manuscript is derived from the Latin manu scriptum, literally "written by hand."

This is a manuscript. It was copied by hand (latin manu).


This is a printed Bible. It is not a manuscript. It was made by a printing press. Your Bibles probably look more like this one than the one above. It is not a manuscript.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 147: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:47 am
Reply

Like this post
Biker wrote:
I've got a news flash for you, Darwinism is chock full of miracles.
Evolution, posits no miracles. Modern biologists do not appeal to supernatural intervention to explain life and its diversity. They do admit incompleteness in their knowledge of the process, but unlike theists, they do not plug the holes in their knowledge with speculations of divine intervention.

Biker wrote:
Strike Four!
As I understand the game, baseball does not have a fourth strike. On the other hand, bowling can have a fourth strike. Are you admitting that we've been doing well? Wink

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 148: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:29 pm
Reply

Like this post
Biker wrote:
Quote:
By definition, faith is subjective.

Tell that to my wife and she will objectively point by point shred your opinion.
I was a Biker in Biker Gangs. I was a bad man doing bad things. My wife and I were not living together. I, on the street was confronted on the street by an x-drug dealer whom I knew. Not knowing he had become a christian. He had this smile and peace about him that was both measurable and observable. I said, must be some good s--t you got this time baby! Yeah but it ain't chemical. I was given some good news. As the result of taking that good news and slapping a little faith with it.
I got: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corin 5:17) Subjective part!
Immediate!
I still wanted to ride HD's hard and fast, I just didn't want to do bad stuff on them any more. Objective part!
This was noticeable in the natural realm by lots of people. Bikers-confused and dazed. Family-confused and dazed and weary. Neighbors-curious. Friends-weird. Wife-reserved judgement for a long time while wanting to observe for long periods to be sure.
She, came around after much observation. Objective part!
It's called a new nature. Therapy don't do it. Education don't do it. Drugs don't do it. Intervention don't do it. Self help don't do it. Trying don't do it. HD's help!
Old was gone!
New had come!
Strike One!


And this differs from an atheist actually realizing his mistakes, evaluating where they are taking him, taking responsibility and control of his own life (vs handing off everything to a God), and actually doing it? Tell me how?

Both are subjective. Neither has exclusivity on actually being responsible for ones life. There is no evidence that, religion or not, the same methods cannot work or fail in the same manner.

And it does not show objective evidence for the existence of God.

Until you can show otherwise, /strike.

Quote:
Quote:
The Bible is not a modern manuscript

My NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Amplified, NLT, TEV, Message, Interlinear, Weymouth New Testament, NCV, etc, is.
Strike Two!


Based upon ancient bronze age scriptures. Please...

/Strike

Quote:
Quote:
The Bible is hardly objectively historical.

Hmmm, this seems to be a claim. Hardly? You seem not sure? Mind supporting that.
Strike Three.


It means that while there are chunks of objective history in the bible (I have never denied this BTW), its is chock full of subjectiveness. This is akin to society several hundred years from now finding a Spider-man comic in the ruins of New York. From the details given in that comic book, they can determine that is is likely New York once existed after investigating the ruins.
Now, would they also be correct in believing that Spider-man is also real?

The bible is full of authors who attribute this and that to God, without ever providing proof, or telling if they are being symbolic, mythological, or real. The first two were commonly used in literature at the time.

/Strike.

Quote:
Quote:
...you need to show much other evidence that are claimed...

Which claims of mine do you mean?


That God exists.

Quote:
Quote:
...did many of the non-supernatural actions and events that are claimed...

You believe the non-supernatural events are objectively historical, but you deny the supernatural events are. Why? You are making a subjective distinction for some reason but I am unclear as to why.


Yes. His non-supernatural actions can be repeated, they can be explained. The supernatural ones cannot. Therefore, there is no good reason to take them on faith. Common sense and reason would advise otherwise, until observed, documented, and investigated properly.

Quote:
Would you agree that nothing banging (a Big One) into a universe, is a miracle by definition?


No. Because it is extremely likely that your definition i incorrect.

Quote:
Mind you I am not claiming nothing banged or nothing didn't bang. I am actually in favor of a bang, but would probably designate it as something else.
I am just trying to determine at this point if we do in fact have a bonefied miracle of the first order, in this nothing bang? Especially in view of your seeming outright rejection of the possibility of miracles of any sort.
I'll call this a foul ball until I get your response.


Uh...The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Darwinism/Evolution. /Foul ball.

Quote:
Quote:
There have been more than enough alternative theories shown to give significant doubt to the resurrection claims

Well, I for one am not doubting in an objective historical account just because of some "alternative theories shown". You see this modern culture that has been run through the John Dewey influenced mind cloud called the educational system churning out neo-Darwinism group think robots, and are actually influenced by "SPECULATION".
Those of us that actually think for themselves take speculation with a grain of salt until demonstrated differently. You should see what those bozo's ( rank and file Darwinists) taught me along the lines of the Darwinism swill when I was in the Dewey system of secular humanism. It was a gas. We had these great big long charts of monkeys morphing into men and these dates assigned along the journey. It was all very entertaining.


And what do your politics have to do with showing objective evidence of the existence of God? I'm not interested in your life story.

Quote:
Except, when I got old enough, and wasn't impressed with how smart the teachers were and have this emotional tie to those who nurtured our formative learning experience, and began to form real questions. I said, self, there seems to be big holes in this info, why? This really don't all add up. Why? Mind you I don't hate teachers, I'm married to one for 38 years, and she still is forming those 5th and 6th grade minds right now as I write.
But come on, just because of a little noise were throwing out the inerrant historical record of a few miracles. I've got a news flash for you, Darwinism is chock full of miracles.
Strike Four!

Biker


What holes are you referring to specifically? Just throwing out random this and thats doesn't cut it.

What miracles is Darwinism full of specifically?

Uh...when do we get to fifth down? Rolling Eyes

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 149: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:06 pm
Reply
Re: The faith of atheism

Like this post
Biker wrote:
Cephus,
I believe this is an oversimplification.


As opposed to your complete mischaracterization and condescention towards atheists in your post??

Biker wrote:
The atheists on this board don't fit that description, obviously.
Here's why.
First a correction on your portrayal of Theism. We (theists) basically believe: an infinite, personal God created the universe and miraculously intervenes in it from time to time. God is both transcendant over the universe and immanent in it. We know this because when one responds to this God in the clearly prescribed manner, one is awakened, being born spiritually by the operation of faith.


Emphasis added. This is not a fact it is a belief. Presenting it as something "known" is disingenuous.

Biker wrote:
This is not only probable but highly likely because I am party to it as are Billions and Billions of others. And the process is all very well documented for any novice to read all about it.


I would perhaps accept this as persuasive evidence if more than a handful of people could agree on the characteristics of god(s), how they intervene in human affairs, what religion/sect/church/group represents god accurately, whose holy book is correct, etc. etc. Billions and billions of others do not agree with you about god and religion.

Now, as opposed to a-theism.
Biker wrote:
Most, not all, atheists, believe: in nothingness banging (a big one) for no reason, or no known reason?
A single incredibly complex cell going poof, out of the primordial cocktail, for no reason, or no known reason?


Not true. However, I do think I have seen more evidence for scientific theories such as the Big Bang than I have for creationism.

Biker wrote:
And some where down the Billions and Billions of years, flying red monkeys morphed into men?


If this is what you believe the theory of evolution is, I think you may benefit from learning more about the subject in detail.

Quote:
Then we have these evolutionary time journeys of this happened here and that happened there and this took this Billion and that took that Billion. All dated by a process called C-14? But science can't absolutely support C-14, methodologically nor conclusion wise.
Mind you that all of the above is not supported Empirically and Observationally.
First, this position believes in big fat miracles.


Carbon dating theory is not a subject I've read up on incredibly recently. However, science does use rationality and empirical testing to come up with its methodologies and theories. Religion uses tradition, old books, and subjective experiences. I think it's obvious which one lends itself to believe in supernatural miracles.

Biker wrote:
Second it is by faith.
Since a-theists don't require empirical/observational methodology for their position on origins of universe and life, and believe.


This is a flat out mischaracterization and lie.


Quote:
And to top it off, use the fuzzy faith belief system as proof against the inerrant Bible.


If you can prove the Bible to be inerrant I will concede this point.

Quote:
Why do a-theists require empirical/observational methodology from theists for their position on a God outside space/time that is related to on a faith basis.


Because without empirical/observational methodology, god cannot be proven to exist.

Biker wrote:
In addition, a-theists are not as you characterize in your quote above as these neutrals just sitting around being non-theists. I really wish that were true.


Some of us are, some of us aren't. I really wish that theists were sitting around instead of trying to convert me. But alas, not everyone in a particular category is going to be "neutral" in the way you describe here.


Biker wrote:
No they come out and attack theism with these incredible faith statements unsupported and wild stories of monkeys morphing into men and things crawling out of billions of years old mud puddles. And we can't see God therefore he doesn't exist nonsense. Well you can't see flying red monkeys in my ancestry either.
Maybe yours, not mine.

Biker


And you finish up with some great straw man arguments here.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 150: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:45 pm
Reply

Like this post
FinalEnigma wrote:
First of all, faith is still objective, and you admitted it. the effects of a changed state of mind are objective. Faith itself is subjective.


Personal faith is subjective, after all, people can and do believe a lot of complete nonsense and so long as they keep it to themselves and don't harm anyone with it, I doubt most of us really care. But as soon as you come to a debate forum like this and put your personal, subjective faith up as something valid, it becomes subject to objective evaluation. That's the point that many theists don't like, when "I feel" is no longer a convincing argument.

Quote:
You are not even trying. This has been explained to you a dozen times. Do you continue to misrepresent the big bang out of intellectual dishonesty? or ignorance? If for some other reason, please explain why , despite having had it explained more than once, you continue to make straw men over and over.


If I had to pick, I'd say dishonesty. You cannot be ignorant when you've been corrected as many times as he has. You also have to remember that you're talking to people for whom reality is entirely overriden by theology. When the Bible and the facts come into conflict, they'll always say the facts are wrong.

It's like debating a brick wall.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 54, 55, 56  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version