Theists don't ask questions

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Theists don't ask questions

Post #1

Post by Blastcat »

Hi

I ask a lot of questions.. and SOMETIMES ( but not always ) get answers.

One of the reasons that I do ask a lot of questions, is that I don't actually learn anything new by proselytizing atheism. I do that a bit, of course, I think it's important that people get to know an atheist and what he thinks about the "big questions" and so on, but I am ALSO here to learn what OTHER people think.

So, the questions.

It just occurred to me that I RARELY get any questions from the theists.
Isn't that odd?

____________

Question for debate:


  • Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?

____________


:)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6961
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 257 times
Contact:

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #181

Post by William »

[Replying to post 172 by TheBeardedDude]

Okay I have some time so will continue answering your post Beaded Dude.

"In the case of ideas and thoughts, we all know that they exist right? Even that until we make them into things, they don't exist in this universe as solid measurable objects. "
1) no one ever claimed (at least I didn't) that only solid objects exist in the universe
2) no one ever claimed (at least I didn't) that only solid objects are measurable

We can MEASURE things that exist that are not composed of matter. Like heat, or light, or sound, etc. Also, THOUGHTS. We can observe thoughts and even manipulate thoughts (big electromagnets have been shown to generate hallucinations in people).
The point wasn't focused upon anyone claiming anything.

"Thus fallacy to expect evidence of existence for something which everyone knows exists, even that we cannot see these as solid objects, until we make them so."
It isn't a fallacy. It is a misunderstanding on your part. Please stop throwing out the word "fallacy" because you don't like what I said.
It is not that I don't like what you said. Please refrain from using that as an argument, or at least provide evidence that this is the case. Otherwise it isn't even addressing what I wrote as argument but diverging away from what I wrote as argument.

"You do me a disservice not to acknowledge that I have already explained WHY it is bad,"
You explained why you don't like it, but that does not make it objectively bad.
So one can commit a fallacy without being challenged on it because is isn't 'objectively bad'?
Explain why it is not 'objectively bad.' What does that even mean in relation to committing a fallacy, and continuing to argue in favor of doing so even when it is pointed out to you logically WHY it is a fallacy?

As far as I am concerned, it is not a personal subjective feeling of being offended. It is a matter of being honest. I don't like dishonesty. I don't even have to wait until someone is being dishonest toward me before I choose to point it out. If they are being dishonest with someone else, it is a valid and virtuous thing to do.

In this case, the dishonesty is you refusing to acknowledge I am correct. I tend to give people the benefit of doubt while they integrate concepts which might be new to them, and will always try to clarify when asked.

However, if their replies continue to reflect that they are not actual even interested in examining what I have said, I am fine with then assuming they are perhaps just being dishonest and cagey.
Misunderstanding what I am saying does not make it bad.
Q: If indeed you really think I have misunderstood you, would you not try to explain things another way in order to help the process, rather than just claim I am 'misunderstanding you'?

As if that is even a true argument! (you do not even back up the statement with any evidence that this is the case.)

"So in relation to that analogy, 'we' are the jury and all the evidence is not in so we are not even in the chamber where we can discuss the guilt or non-guilt of the idea of the being in question. (GOD)

Your analogy simple presumes the evidence is all in but the Judge has not asked the jury to deliberate and come up with a verdict. The jury still sits in the court, still being supplied with the evidence.

In the simplest terms, what is occurring here is that there are two courts.

One is bogus and the other is legitimate.

Due to the philosophical nature of the subject under investigation, The legitimate court is The Court of Philosophical Questions, not The Court of Scientific Questions.

In reality, because all the evidence is not even in, the proceedings are not even at the court stage re the investigations.

Thus atheists using the argument of science as a means to jump the gun and get to the finish line ahead of proceedings, is - while amusing - nonetheless, bogus."

I don't understand how you took my example and perverted it to this degree. There aren't "two courts." And in the end, you concluded an argument from ignorance.
Again you have made a statement without backing it up with any example.

Q: How are we to get on the same page if you are not willing to argue properly?

I took your court-room analogy and placed my understanding of what is going on, into that, NOT to pervert your analogy but as a further attempt to help you understand where I am coming from.

Q: Why do you think that where you are coming from is so truthful that anything else which disagrees with it is 'perverting' your idea of truth'?

Q: Why would anyone wish to argue in such defensive manner?

Q: What about your opinion is that precious that you would accuse another of 'perverting' your opinion?

Q: Are you trying to push me away?

Q: Is it a reflex barrier put up to fob the other off by subtle use of personal slight?

Really! What IS that about??

"You either misunderstand 'my god' or are ignorant about Her. My idea of GOD is not on trial. My idea of GOD is still very much under investigation. "
Either your god exists and can be shown to exist, or it doesn't and is indistinguishable from fiction.
"Please clarify what you mean by the above. Thanks. "
Seriously?
Yes. You appear to be ignorant about my idea of GOD. I think you are perhaps arguing against one type of idea of GOD and projecting that onto me and my idea of GOD.
That's why I asked for clarification.
This is why I re-explained my analogies. Please take the time to read through them to understand them instead of trying to disagree with them from the beginning under the assumption that I must be wrong and you must be correct.
And I replied to your analogies with ones of my own, which I took care to keep to the theme your analogies were using.

This was directly to show you that we see things differently in relation to GOD.

You see GOD as a question of science in which science should be able to varify through physical evidence.
I see ideas of GOD as a question of philosophy.

I projected my understanding into the analogy to show this as being the case.

I have given good solid reasons for this being the case, but you still are avoiding actually addressing these let alone arguing against them. You appear not to even want to go there at all and prefer to stand behind your own opinions and beliefs on the matter.

That is of course entirely your prerogative, but;

Q: Wherein that is the need or justification for you to accuse me of 'perverting' what you said?

All I did was - oh well, I explained that already, so no need to repeat myself.

The point is, why would anyone play that game? If you don't want to go there, then say so, or just ignore me, but please don't use the opportunity to slight me as some kind of perverter of your opinion.

Q: Best keep those types of opinion to yourself don'tcha think?

"You are being dishonest. I have pointed out where this is occurring in your argument. "
I am done with you now. I do not engage with people who call me dishonest when I have been nothing but forthcoming.
I apologize for not phrasing that better.
What I mean is that, having interacted with you these few posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are not being honest, either with me, and more importantly, with yourself.

I stand by my words and had every right to say them. I consistently pointed out where the differences in our opinions were and I have spent a lot of time doing so which should at least should go some way to showing I am being sincere in that - I made the effort.

You are done with me, and that is your choice. I still have others who demand 'burden of proof' to challenge and not all react the way you have done with me.

I understand that new concepts are difficult for people to integrate into their beliefs, certainly if it challenges those beliefs and would even predict that as theists come to understand what I am saying about this and catch on, it will become a part of their argument when demands of 'burden of proof' are made by non theists.
It would be good to see it spread.

GOD is not a question of science. The subject of GOD is a question of philosophy.

Burden of proof? No. Burden of truth? Sure, why not. Truth is a subject philosophy is able to discuss and debate.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #182

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: Truth is a subject philosophy is able to discuss and debate.
Actually it's not. That was the fallacy that philosophers have always believed, but turns out that this is provably false.

This is why Stephen Hawking, and others, have recognized that pure philosophy is dead. Only science can reveal truth.

How do we know this?

Well, it became apparent several different ways. The first observation was the observation made by Edwin Hubble that our universe is not static.

In "pure philosophy" (i.e. philosophy based on nothing more than pure thought), we can imagine an eternal universe that had no beginning and will never end. And there is absolutely nothing in pure philosophy that can reveal to us the fallacy of this thinking.

Only by actually observing the universe were we able to arrive at the truth that the universe had to have started some 13 billion years ago and is currently expanding, and is not static.

Pure Philosophy would have never led us to the truth.

So philosophy cannot lead us to truth. Philosophers used to believe that if you just sat in a chair and thought about things long enough and reasoned them out, you would necessarily be able to discover the truth of everything. But that turns out to be clearly false. Relying on pure philosophy you cannot be assured that what you think is reasonable or logical actually represents truth.

So truth is not a subject that philosophy is able to discuss or debate. Philosophy cannot say anything about what might or might not be true. Only science can do that.

You might argue that science is a "philosophy", but it's not based on just pure thinking. You need to be able to confirm what you are thinking via testing what reality actually has to offer. And that is the crucial element that is missing from pure philosophy.

So only science can lead us to truth. Philosophy has proven that it cannot discover truth on its own.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #183

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 182 by Divine Insight]



[center]

Philosophy ≠ Pure Reason
[/center]

Divine Insight wrote:
Actually it's not. That was the fallacy that philosophers have always believed, but turns out that this is provably false.

This is why Stephen Hawking, and others, have recognized that pure philosophy is dead. Only science can reveal truth.
We interrupt this program in order to bring you a message from the Blastcat department of the WORD POLICE.

You aren't talking about philosophy.

I think you are criticizing "pure reason" as a way of knowing how nature works.


"I do not mean by this a critique of books and systems, but of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience."

Immanuel Kant - Critique of pure reason, 1781

Philosophy has made, and continues to make progress in thinking.
Philosophy isn't a "dead" method of inquiry at all.

"Pure reason" is.

As to "truth"... I THINK that philosophy deals with it.

That word infraction will cost you three tokens.



:)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6961
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 257 times
Contact:

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #184

Post by William »

Divine Insight wrote:
William wrote: Truth is a subject philosophy is able to discuss and debate.
Actually it's not.


Is that statement actually truthful?
That was the fallacy that philosophers have always believed, but turns out that this is provably false.

This is why Stephen Hawking, and others, have recognized that pure philosophy is dead.
Did Stephen Hawking, and others scientifically verify this claim?
Only science can reveal truth.


Do you mean 'truth of a physical object existing' kinda truth?
How do we know this?

Well, it became apparent several different ways. The first observation was the observation made by Edwin Hubble that our universe is not static.
To be fair, people have realized that things move....and if things move then the universe is not static.
In "pure philosophy" (i.e. philosophy based on nothing more than pure thought), we can imagine an eternal universe that had no beginning and will never end. And there is absolutely nothing in pure philosophy that can reveal to us the fallacy of this thinking.


So, I say that the idea pf GOD is a question of philosophy and then you bring in 'pure thought' (as 'pure philosophy) as if somehow mere ordinary philosophy is somehow different?
It is not immediate clear to me why you have create a distinction...

Only by actually observing the universe were we able to arrive at the truth that the universe had to have started some 13 billion years ago and is currently expanding, and is not static
.

That is an interesting belief you have about the universe. I wonder if you are aware that other non theists have also argued on this board - very recently - that the universe may have always existed?
Pure Philosophy would have never led us to the truth.


All you are doing here is ignoring the difference between scientific 'truth' and philosophical 'truth' and how the two methods differ.

One examines physical evidence, the other examines thought.

If a thought is shared and someone finds a contradiction therein, this is philosophy applied. 'Pure' philosophy is no different that ordinary everyday garden variety philosophy.
So philosophy cannot lead us to truth.


Which wasn't really my argument at all. My argument is that science is of no use in relation to ideas of GOD.
Philosophers used to believe that if you just sat in a chair and thought about things long enough and reasoned them out, you would necessarily be able to discover the truth of everything.
So what? Scientists used to think the earth was the center of all existence.

What has your comment to do with what I said?
But that turns out to be clearly false. Relying on pure philosophy you cannot be assured that what you think is reasonable or logical actually represents truth.
When it come to ideas which science cannot address, then philosophy exists for that purpose.
Rely on science for what science is able to do.
Reason and logic in relation to philosophical questions should be and often are forefront to good philosophical discussion on ideas - even on ideas of GOD.

So truth is not a subject that philosophy is able to discuss or debate.
Of course it is. Your reasoning is skewered.
Philosophy cannot say anything about what might or might not be true.


Of course it can.
"Might the existence of GOD be true or not true? Let us approach this with philosophy and see therein if we can establish that it might be true."
Only science can do that.
Really? "Might the existence of GOD be true or not true? Let us approach this with science and see therein if we can establish that it might be true."
You might argue that science is a "philosophy", but it's not based on just pure thinking.
I argue that science is science and philosophy is philosophy. Different methods for different subjects.

You need to be able to confirm what you are thinking via testing what reality actually has to offer. And that is the crucial element that is missing from pure philosophy.

So only science can lead us to truth. Philosophy has proven that it cannot discover truth on its own.
You appear to be going off on a tangent and arguing something as if somehow I was arguing the opposite.

I am arguing that science is not the right tool for the job re ideas of GOD.
I am arguing that philosophy is better for that.

Your post has done nothing to convince me otherwise. You have misconstrued by the look of it.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7940
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #185

Post by Clownboat »

Hector wrote:I have spend all of my life trying to learn what I debate against and have read both the Bible, Quaran, Book of Mormon, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, Hellenism, Taoism, Psychology, Kemistry, Quantum Physics, Philosophy, Biology, Astronomy etc....

Do I know everything no? Is it realistic for me to know what everyone might debate against me? No!

I have only been on this site for about a week now, give me a break. You are the one who debated against me, not vice versa. So you are the one who should attempt to understand what you are debating against with me. I don't even know who you are or what you believe though my guess is that you are a fairly common atheist.
Strike one. I'm not an atheist.
The facts betray this statement.
That is not even a proper statement.

And why should it? because it is not possible to understand evolution? If you want to debate me you have to give better arguments than that and explain why you disagree otherwise I will not spend more time trying to "educate you". I have spend a lot of time explaining myself to you, the least you can do is to pay the respect back, otherwise we are done!
Readers, read what Hector has typed so far and see if there is anything debate worthy there-in. If so, perhaps relay it to me if you would be so kind.
We are members of the great ape family. More accurately Homo sapiens sapiens.

Speak for yourself! I am not, and just like we are innocent until proven guilty I am not factually of the ape family until someone proves the connection.
Hector, us humans, ALL OF US are members of the great apes. Specifically Homo sapiens sapiens. You can't say things like this and then demand respect. Respect is earned.
My mom has tracked my ancestors back to kings, pirates and vikings all the way back to year 0, and though some of the were a bit wild and crazy, not a single one of them was a ape or had any ape herritage.
Readers, again this is a guy that continues to tell us that he understands evolution. What more needs to be said?
Your denial does not affect the facts, sorry.
Nor does your denial and stubborness make anything factual. You have given 0 evidence in fact you have needed to be taught some of the most basic things about evolution when it comes to the human drive, and you think you have the autority on what is factual?
Who ever argued that my denial of what you claim makes things factual? What a silly statement. Either way, you are not arguing with me here.

Hominidae is a taxonomic family of primates that today is commonly considered to include extant (living) and extinct humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. In this taxonomic scheme, Hominidae is one of two families of apes (superfamily Hominoidea), the other family being Hylobatidae (the gibbons). Members of Hominidae (sometimes exclusive of humans) are known as the "great apes," while members of Hylobatidae are known as the "lesser apes."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hominidae
You have got to be joking, clownboat may fit your name and the picture your argument but there is 0 evidence of any of your claims here, in fact there is a lot of scientific evidence against it. But until you start giving evidence of your many fallacious claims, I will not spend more of my prescious time teaching you some of the most basic things most people I know half your age knows. It's a waste of my time.
Readers, again, anything worth a response here? If so, I'm just not seeing it.
So if you have no desire to give proof of your claims and is not open to other arguments, then there is no point in us debating for all we get is my word against your word, and that is NOT scienfic evidence.
You still deny that we are members of the great ape family?
So time to get the boot out of the beak and put your actions where your mouth is, or we are done for your argumentation is starting to remind me of Monty Pythons argument clinic, and though that is funny as hell when they perform it, it is anything but in a serious debate site like this one.
Once again readers, is this just a meaningless rant? He denies that we are members of the great ape family, yet he claims to have done all this studying (see above for his claims). I have provided evidence. Will he deal with it, or just complain about me personally?
I looked up devolution, and what I found had nothing to do with Evolution.
Honestly that is one of the most ridiculous things I have read since coming here.
Please tell me English is not your first language and that you are still just trying to learn to communicate, for this is really bad mate.
Anything worthy to respond to here?
Do you even know what devolution is?
I would love for you to define it so I know how it is you are using it.
You are not aware that the words are opposite to eachother and has the same root? It's not obvious to you that there is a connection by the fact that every letter but one in both words are the same?
Now your just being silly. Please define this word you use. When I googled it, I was unsure of why or how you are using it.
Stop insulting, and start defining.
You are not even trying....what are you here for?
I come here to have my current thinking challenged. I want to believe what is true. I learn nothing from "Clownboat is a meany head".
I think we should stop our debate and ignore each other in the future, for I can not see how I can take you or what you write serious.
Read this post of yours and ask yourself how much is worthy of a response.
I can't make up my mind if this is English as a second language, ignorance or a really bad joke.
What are you still on about? Take a breath...
Perhaps your lack of understanding about the theory you attempt to dismiss by calling it 'grossly misunderstood' is at play? That and what bearing does who he was married to have to do with anything?
You are talking to me about lack of understanding, when I have had to educate you about some of the most simple things 3 times now?
To many pronouns to know what you are talking about here. If I need education about 1 or 3 things, I ask for it now.
Maybe it has no connection to a clownboat who think he is a ape trying to speak english, but to most others there is a connection between what people do and who they are, especially when it comes to what we love and who we choose to be with.
Your argument about us being great apes is not with me Hector. I have not determined that we are members of the great ape family.
Would Darwin marry a Christian if he believed this christian was deluded, crazy, lying or too stupid to understand even the most basic truths he did?
Possibly. Do you have a point? Do you know why you are asking this question?
Not likely,
So possibly. Again, what was the point?
Its amazing how you can continually fail to connect the dots.
I will need your help. Please connect the dots for me.
I think we should stop debating, for debating you is not likely to go anywhere. I feel its a total waste of time.
You are free to do what you wish. As you can see, I'm already starting to address the readers instead of yourself in regards to much of what you post.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions, Questions...

Post #186

Post by Kapyong »

Hector Barbosa wrote: It is time we start waking up and realize that since both side of the argument has been PROVED wrong countless of times, we HAVE to make room for a definition which covers a third option which is not expressed by the two extreme dogmatic poles.
Pardon ?
HOW was atheism disproved ?
Do you think everyone here is ASLEEP ?
Hector Barbosa wrote: Please read and think about what I said this time, for if I have to repeat myself again while listening to the same argument for the millionth and first time, then I am done debating you.
Please DO go away !

You are NOT debating - you are repeatedly preaching your ignorant religious views, rejecting or ignoring the facts presented to you, and abusing anyone who disagrees.

We seen it all before - like some ignorant home-schooled emo teenage creationist preaches nonsense and debunks 'evolutionism'.
Yawn.

You think evolution is based on atheists in suits telling people to sing Kumbaya and slaughtering anyone who disagrees. WHO told you that Hector ?

If you ever study any history, you will find that it's RELIGIONS who slaughter those who disagree - atheists have never done that.


Kapyong

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #187

Post by Kapyong »

Hector Barbosa wrote: I understand evolution so I don't need an education on it,
HilARious !

You think it's based on atheists in suits singing Kumbaya and slaughtering everyone who disagrees.


Kapyong

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6961
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 257 times
Contact:

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #188

Post by William »

[Replying to post 187 by Kapyong]

That is just ridiculous! Atheists wouldn't sing Kumbaya!
(unless their 'Lord' was a human being of course...
...But then the song takes on a tell-tale feel...) :shock:

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25079
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Post #189

Post by Zzyzx »

.
:warning: Moderator Warning

This post is nothing but a personal attack. Those who are already on Probation should be particularly careful to abide by Forum Rules -- and no one should invite others to 'go away'

Kapyong wrote: Please DO go away !

You are NOT debating - you are repeatedly preaching your ignorant religious views, rejecting or ignoring the facts presented to you, and abusing anyone who disagrees.

We seen it all before - like some ignorant home-schooled emo teenage creationist preaches nonsense and debunks 'evolutionism'.
Yawn.

You think evolution is based on atheists in suits telling people to sing Kumbaya and slaughtering anyone who disagrees. WHO told you that Hector ?

If you ever study any history, you will find that it's RELIGIONS who slaughter those who disagree - atheists have never done that.
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
.
Non-Theist

If you stop claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable unicorns, I will stop challenging your claim. Same goes for gods

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

For a quick tutorial on science vs. religion, compare modern internet weather radar to ancient religious beliefs and superstitions about weather

"Demand money with the threat of violence and you'll get arrested. Do it with the threat of eternal damnation and it's tax deductible"

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6961
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 257 times
Contact:

Why ask for questions and then not answer them?

Post #190

Post by William »

[Replying to post 167 by William]

As can be seen, my post (and the one following it) are obviously something that took a lot of time and effort to write.

Are you planning on answering my questions re those posts Blastcat?

Post Reply