Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Does an object/concept described by words needs to be exists to have a meaning?
Are you proposing the existence of non-existent meanings here?
It's amazing what a dictionary in a blender will come up with.
For us, we can devise a method to prove our claims on terms and conditions agreed by the opposing party. I don't think you can do that.
So, you are proposing to be able to devise a method by which to prove God doesn't exist?
Wow!
Keep in mind, other atheists are only willing to go as far as to say that God has not been proven to exist
to them.
You appear to be saying that you can prove it to everyone.
We are willing to drop our old theories if a new theory can explain all of the old ones.
Well, you haven't been willing to drop atheism.
I don't think you have this option.
I've gone thru all the theories already, including the ones you hold so dear.
You'll find that they're not true, hopefully sooner, but for sure later.
Originally posted by Cris
Hi Tony1,
Sorry I have not been able to debate more with you recently, I’m still snowed under here at work, but you deserve more from me.
I appreciate your taking the time.
Most people in the world now receive significantly more education compared to 2000 years ago. This has reduced ignorance by a large degree. Superstitions are generally only believed by people who have no way to determine truth or fallacy. Ignorance is the seed of gullibility. Religions depend on people being ignorant.
You appear to be making the point that there can be no ignorant although educated people.
This point appears to be combined with the idea that superstition is based essentially upon the absence of education.
However, how many people seek an education on the basis of the superstition that a piece of paper from an educational institution will improve their life, or bring them success or some such thing?
Look at Bill Gates, the richest dropout in the world.
He must have realized a certain superstition involved in his initial foray into the world of education, only to rethink his position.
Who would argue that he made an incorrect choice?
I don’t recall making such claims.
See your post where you claim "above average intelligence."
The primary, and relative, difference between 2000 years ago and now is our standards of education and information technology. Knowledge and information are able to replace ignorance. Our intellectual abilities have not changed in any significant manner but we are now far better informed and hence are more able to make better decisions and choices.
You appear to be implying that more equals better where information is concerned.
Thus, it appears that a person who identifies the sun as the sun 2000 years ago is poorly informed, whereas his modern counterpart knowing the proportion of various elements in the sun is much better off?
I am little different to my ancestors of recent millennia or to anyone alive today. But I do have access to a vast knowledge base, and the abilities to understand it, facilities that were simply not available just a few centuries ago.
This still looks like "quantity equals quality."
Every religionist appears to have their own personal perception of a god, or a soul, or spirit, or nature of being. All these concepts can be grouped under the heading of supernatural. None are supported by unambiguous and credible proofs.
Scientific beliefs fall into this category as well, then.
Most controversy in scientific circles arises simply because there are few unambiguous and credible proofs in science, also.
It is always interesting to see how pro-scientists attempt to present "science" as a monolithic, unified and non-contradictory body of knowledge, where in reality, science consists primarily of huge quantites of data whose accuracy is contested by other scientists, and of conclusions, "based" on this data, which are also hotly contested by other scientists.
This doesn't sound very different from a non-religionist's description of religion.
I couldn’t determine what you were referencing by this.
What I was referencing was that unsupported assertions by non-religionists also do not qualify as debate.
If one non-religionist makes an assertion and another quotes it later, that is still an unsupported assertion.
I agree that some people of limited intelligence will have difficulty understanding complex issues. Can we assume then that if such people cannot understand complex religious concepts and therefore reject them then your god will not accept them? You are implying that Christianity is only for the elite. No I am sure you do not mean that.
I was actually referring to limited comprehension rather than limited intelligence.
Surely, comprehension and intelligence do not have identical meanings.
It is entirely possible to be of superior intelligence and be able to formulate plans far beyond those of an ordinary person, and at the same time be of such limited comprehension as to be unable to choose the right, or any, such plan.
The less intelligent among us do tend to realize their own limitations and are usually content to be led by others.
Interesting.
I've noticed that less intelligent people appear to have no clue that they are such, whereas it normally takes great intelligence to be aware of superior intelligence.
This should be self-evident, in that limited intelligence is, by definition, limited intelligence.
These represent the base fodder for superstitions and religions. Another view is that the support for religious claims is so incomprehensible that only the stupid would believe them.
Hence the great prevalence, and awe of, scientific superstition.
No, I think your claim of inability to understand must mean something other than lack of intelligence. But I am not sure what that could be. If the support for a claim, i.e. the evidential proof, is unambiguous, substantial, and can withstand significant and sustained examination, then that support should be acceptable to at least the moderately intelligent among us, e.g. most of us here at sciforums.
The acceptability of such proof is at such a low level that I actually expect better things from people here.
Granted, there is a great reverence for observation here, however the data collected and accepted as true is based on such a short time-span that it is questionable that it is representative of all time, let alone eternity.
Or are you claiming that your intelligence and therefore your ability to understand is superior to ours; are you one of the Christian elite?
I'm not claiming this.
It is not a matter of superiority of intellect but a fundamental question of whether one should use ones intellect or not. Loone is saying that the human intellect causes confusion when examining supernatural matters and so must be ignored. I simply find that a preposterous and ludicrous requirement.
I'm not sure it should be ignored, however there are things that are felt to be intellect, whereas they may turn out to be manifestations of high dudgeon and not much more.
My above average intelligence, my education, and the experiences of my life, have taught me to be wary of charlatans, salesmen, tricksters, politicians, and anyone who wants me to do as THEY wish. Put another way, I need to see proof of a personal benefit before I accept what anyone wants to sell me.
OTOH, car salesman rank relatively low on most people's trust scales, yet who do most car buyers go to?
The actuality of eternal life is by far the biggest item that could be sold, but the salesmen I meet (the religionists) can offer me no proof that they have this commodity for sale.
"For sale" implies that I have it and stand to benefit monetarily if I transfer it to you.
Eternal life is free for the asking.
Please, please, show me some proof because I would love to believe. But until you can show me proof then you remain classed with all the other charlatans, tricksters, and politicians who offer empty promises.
You say you would love to believe. Proof would deprive you of this, since you would know, rather than believe.
Interesting predicament you've put yourself in.
You realise that what Loone says can't be true. Adam and Eve were not able to choose between good and evil because they had no nowledge of such things before they ate from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil.
They couldnt have known that disobeying a god was wrong before they ate the fruit.
Good point.
Adam and Eve only had God's word to go by. They were OK until they heard the serpent's word and decided to go by that instead.
Originally posted by Ariadne2525
So, er, he's not Lord anywhere else?
He is Lord of all.