What if Eve had not eaten the apple?
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Nisus,
I notice you are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being able to preach your beliefs. It certainly requires research and discipline to form supported arguments. You have my sympathies.
Making the demand is easy. And you are right; I know there is little to no evidence for your claims. The entire point is where does that leave the Christian? They continue to make claims that their belief is true yet admit there is no evidence? Why then do they continue to make unsupported assertions? The difficulty is yours not mine. If you want other's of a more skeptical perspective to believe you then you must find some evidence rather than just making baseless assertions. Or admit you simply do not know if Christianity is true and proceed to discuss it as a speculative concept rather than absolute truth.
Why not attempt logically reasoned debate rather than bashing because of religious pre-conceptions?
Yet we enforce the rules very rarely. But if all you want to do is preach then yes that will not be popular.
You’ll need to explain how that might be possible.
Why not then attempt to do so rather saying you can and then don’t?
And where have I said this or that doesn’t exist?
Many scientists are also very frustrated when their hypotheses and speculations are dismissed through lack of such things. It remains true though that the theist position is very difficult to justify in a logical and scientific arena. The problem isn’t mine.
And even more by theists in their attempts to avoid admitting they have nothing of any substance.
I notice you are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being able to preach your beliefs. It certainly requires research and discipline to form supported arguments. You have my sympathies.
Cris said:
The words are there first as a testament, and evidence in themselves, you choose to believe them or not. Upon believing them you learn to take what you see and the physical evidence and bring that into harmony with what is written. It's not that difficult or complex.
But since most the themes if not all of them deal upon subjects of morality, and faith-- Why do you ask for evidence? Proof and Truth?
God said let there be light, I see the sun. How can that not be true? How can you disprove it?
You want evidence that it's true... first make it evident that it's not true and that's not what happened. Don't keep asking for things that you don't foster yourself.
And all I began talking about before your unsupported and opinion based scrutiny was the discussion, in it's religious context.
Nisus,
I don’t see that it is a logical fallacy to attempt to demonstrate what I see as an unsupportable religious position. Most threads start as a particular position and the debate explores the idea.
But why is that a logical fallacy? The whole point of the thread was indeed an attempt to show the irrationality of the Christian position, as well as to generate an unusual angle for discussion.
I don’t see that it is a logical fallacy to attempt to demonstrate what I see as an unsupportable religious position. Most threads start as a particular position and the debate explores the idea.
I do not have a monopoly on these definitions. Why not simply use generally accepted logic and generally accepted rules for evidence?
Cris said:
How you just sat there while she called me a mother fucker and and asshole, you sat there talking to me about DIATRIBES and Preaching, when you sit here and preach your ideas and opions, without any support while she slanders me. Your initial response to was to see Spidergoat's disclaimer---but you thought to take out the real threat--Me, who was speaking and affirming in the religious context. As if his disclaimer justifys her anyways and you just overlook it. But you edited or someone edited the last time I rebutted the sorry attempts to slander me, from hapsburg.
But you arbitrarily dissmissed it based on your own preference. As if you weren't counterpreaching along with her slander to begin with...
You guys are just hypocrits and on a simple effortless whim all you say is diffused by your own self-contradictory thirst for people to adhere to your garbage "debate rules". That you don't even abide by.
Nisus,
Choosing to believe again gives no indication of whether these alleged testimonies are true. Surely the issue must be whether we can show truth, otherwise we must accept that we don’t know whether the statements are true or not.
But why believe them in the first place? You seem to be advocating an arbitrary choice based on whatever you find emotionally comfortable. And then we do have a real problem with physical evidence – what physical evidence? Gods and souls for example still have no hard evidence for their support, agreed?
Agreed, but it doesn’t appear to result in the determination of truth or not.
Primarily because the source of theist morality is claimed to be of divine nature, which I don’t think can be meaningfully supported. But more importantly many theist moral positions conflict with secular rational morality.
Because you cannot show that a god had any part in the process.
Why does it need to be disproved?
Why? You’re the one making the claims. I simply disbelieve you since you haven’t shown how your claims can be possible.
For example?
LOL why do you keep asking for things that YOU KNOW are based upon FAITH? Are you trying to make me look foolish when I say once again, there is no EVIDENCE that you will accept, and you know of yourself there is no evidence that can be supported by scientific methods? Besides the TESTIMONY of the word, in and of itself, which you already refuse, because it can't be supported by your scientific methods that are satisfactory to you.
You make yourself look foolish for asking for something that you know isn't there in the first place, with that pretext already obvious. Instead you lure believers in trying to get people to trip and stumble into the snares and traps that you lay for them. So you can exalt yourselves above them, using all your "rules" and "regulations" for debate.
So you start in a religious context then try to switch it up into a scientific method, applying those laws and rules, -------to words authored to be finished by faith. Do you know what that means? They are authored and written to be finished by FAITH. Not the scientific method.
Even in this logic is not your friend, but it is the discloser of your devices, that you use to destroy peoples faith.
Smooth stratagem, but I won't fall into your pit.
You make yourself look foolish for asking for something that you know isn't there in the first place, with that pretext already obvious. Instead you lure believers in trying to get people to trip and stumble into the snares and traps that you lay for them. So you can exalt yourselves above them, using all your "rules" and "regulations" for debate.
So you start in a religious context then try to switch it up into a scientific method, applying those laws and rules, -------to words authored to be finished by faith. Do you know what that means? They are authored and written to be finished by FAITH. Not the scientific method.
Even in this logic is not your friend, but it is the discloser of your devices, that you use to destroy peoples faith.
Smooth stratagem, but I won't fall into your pit.
Nisus,
But I deleted your earlier post because it was essentially an attack on another person only and had nothing to do with the topic and I had wanted to stay on topic early on. I deleted an Hapsburg post as well for similar reasons.
The vast majority of her post was addressing the issues, the topic, and your post, with a style much like your own. Some abuse inevitably creeps into many posts from both sides, which are usually ignored.
But I deleted your earlier post because it was essentially an attack on another person only and had nothing to do with the topic and I had wanted to stay on topic early on. I deleted an Hapsburg post as well for similar reasons.
Nisus,
In the hope that eventually those who insist on using faith will eventually understand it has no value in determining what is true.
So doesn’t that leave you in a position where you can never meaningfully participate in reasoned debate? But you are right; this is the essential atheist position, i.e. the request to the theist to prove their claims. My question to you would be why do you choose to believe despite the lack of any substantial evidence that you equally know does not exist? Why do you think your position has any validity?
Why foolish? I see it more as a constant reminder to theists that their position is unsupportable.
You give me far more credit than I deserve, I wish I were that clever, but I do suggest you do not play poker with me, in that I do have some skill.
You seem to have exaggerated this issue somewhat, the rules here are very relaxed and rarely enforced.
Not really. It’s just an imaginative fiction that some theists take as literally true. Whenever we need to discover truth we need something more substantial than the hope of faith, isn’t that where something more disciplined enters that has proven itself many times – i.e. science?
I have no problem with that. Faith has no value – it is simply belief without proof, an entirely irrational position. If I can help destroy people’s faith then humanity might have a chance to climb out of the murky quagmire of religious irrationality.
Yet what can you hold onto to prevent your fall? You only have faith, right? And that has no substance.
Faith is hoping and believing in things not seen. Doesn't have to be confined soley to religion. Scientists use faith all the time to determine things that are true.Cris said:
How many archaeologist have started a dig just hoping and believing they will find something, even yet it's not seen? How many scientists study the cosmos with FAITH that there IS an answer to what's going on, just step by step being led by their faith to find the eventual answer.
And faith has MANY MANY MANY applications, many of which you use in your simple daily life.
It's used specifically in connecting to those things which aren't seen, which are true. Dude and seriously don't like you use the scientific method in like everything you do, as if you believe in nothing and hope for nothing.
Since however you limit yourself to thinking that faith is only a "religious" term you don't see it's practicle use in determining things that aren't seen.
Cris said:
I didn't say there was absolutly no evidence. I said you just won't accept it, by your standards. There is infinite POSSIBILITY, but you search only for plausibility. (according to you denunciation, and termed uselessness of faith)
Cris said:
What's your supported position? Still we're in speculation that you have one. Since you only speak of support but fail to conjure up any sort of statement that relies upon or requires support. So why are we still talking about making supported claims? Words and opinions seem to have sufficed thus far in perpetuating this discussion.
Well even if you started now you could never negate how the Old and New testament have influenced both science and the minds of the worlds greatest thinkers and inventors.Cris said:
If we just assumed that it was unworthy and as dross, and should never have had influence and been used it at all society, the world would be a whole different place. But that's speculation. The facts are as thus. Many great scholars, scientists and leaders of our society were and are believers in the Old and New testament and it profoundly has influenced all of culture as we know it. So as much as you'd like to destroy it, or go back in time to make it null and void. IT is what it is, and we are what we are and it will continue to affect and drive culture and society in different directions.
Nisus,
Faith basics
You need to distinguish between inductive logic that we use every day and in science, which is what you are referring to here and the faith as used in religion which is baseless. Others here have described the two concepts as evidential faith and non-evidential faith. They are distinctly very different.
Note also that while a scientist might have faith (hope in this scenario) that they will discover something they do not assert that their faith is true. In a similar way I might say that I have faith that in my car journey to work today I will arrive safely. I would say this based on the thousands of times I have already done this successfully but there is no certainty each time. This is inductive logic and is essentially a statistical mechanism. It is used extensively in science.
However, within religion there is no past success rate, so faith in this context is not statistical or inductive logic, instead it is purely blind. Further – the religionist then additionally asserts with certainty that their faith is true. Contrast that with the every day and scientific perspective that their faith has no certainty.
Ideally all logic in science should be deductive but in practical terms induction is more common with the strict understanding that the conclusions might not be true. Such inductive conclusions are often described as strong or weak. Newton’s laws of motion for example could be described as strongly inductive since most experiments verified the results. But Einstein showed they were not entirely correct. This is the nature of “faith” within science, a continual process of checking and verification and updating.
In theist religion there is no such process – faith there is simply a certainty that god did it. I hope you see the important distinctions and use them appropriately and further understand my assertion about religious faith being irrational and useless as a means for determining truth.
Faith basics
You need to distinguish between inductive logic that we use every day and in science, which is what you are referring to here and the faith as used in religion which is baseless. Others here have described the two concepts as evidential faith and non-evidential faith. They are distinctly very different.
Note also that while a scientist might have faith (hope in this scenario) that they will discover something they do not assert that their faith is true. In a similar way I might say that I have faith that in my car journey to work today I will arrive safely. I would say this based on the thousands of times I have already done this successfully but there is no certainty each time. This is inductive logic and is essentially a statistical mechanism. It is used extensively in science.
However, within religion there is no past success rate, so faith in this context is not statistical or inductive logic, instead it is purely blind. Further – the religionist then additionally asserts with certainty that their faith is true. Contrast that with the every day and scientific perspective that their faith has no certainty.
Ideally all logic in science should be deductive but in practical terms induction is more common with the strict understanding that the conclusions might not be true. Such inductive conclusions are often described as strong or weak. Newton’s laws of motion for example could be described as strongly inductive since most experiments verified the results. But Einstein showed they were not entirely correct. This is the nature of “faith” within science, a continual process of checking and verification and updating.
In theist religion there is no such process – faith there is simply a certainty that god did it. I hope you see the important distinctions and use them appropriately and further understand my assertion about religious faith being irrational and useless as a means for determining truth.