absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive
- Thread starter walter4
- Start date
absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence
"Are you content to just let them be or would you like to help them further to see what's wrong with their reasoning? And if they can't be helped, perhaps someone else who might come to an unthinking conclusion may be helped."
The reasonable hope is not for the bitter atheists to come clean and admit to their childhood wounding.
The reasonable hope is that someone will actually listen to the arguments made, and see if they are sound.
I don't think anyone will ever find where I stood in opposition to someone opting for atheism as their faith. I don't even think I have said they are wrong.
However, what invariably happens around here is the mass delusion expressed as a fallacy of a false dilemma.
"If I can show the theist where they are wrong, that makes me right be default."
No, it doesn't.
"If I can show the atheist that the are just practicing their own brand of faith, it makes it right for me to practice faith."
No, it doesn't.
There is science which is pure.
There are scriptures and ideas of great men of God which is pure.
Then there are the followers who have neither the inner vision of the true men of God, nor the scientific foundation and/or logical discipline of great scientists and philosophers of western society.
The reasonable hope is not for the bitter atheists to come clean and admit to their childhood wounding.
The reasonable hope is that someone will actually listen to the arguments made, and see if they are sound.
I don't think anyone will ever find where I stood in opposition to someone opting for atheism as their faith. I don't even think I have said they are wrong.
However, what invariably happens around here is the mass delusion expressed as a fallacy of a false dilemma.
"If I can show the theist where they are wrong, that makes me right be default."
No, it doesn't.
"If I can show the atheist that the are just practicing their own brand of faith, it makes it right for me to practice faith."
No, it doesn't.
There is science which is pure.
There are scriptures and ideas of great men of God which is pure.
Then there are the followers who have neither the inner vision of the true men of God, nor the scientific foundation and/or logical discipline of great scientists and philosophers of western society.
Quote from PatternRec:
All one requires to be a judge is cognitive reasoning ability. The more adept, the better. If the logic holds up the only thing one has to complain about is lack of proof. But at least it would be a situation where one can say," well the jury is still out." If the logic is faulty, the proof non-existent, yet the adherent insists on both being real, the adherent is by definition, irrational.
Mmm. Okay. I originally sensed your delusion of grandeur. You confirm it yet again. Fact is, as humans, we stand on each other's shoulders. For better or for worse.
Well yeah it is. Especially considering that these belief systems cannot substantiate their claims. Which really isn't all that big of a bother. It's when they use these unsubstantiated claims to harm or impede upon others that it becomes a real issue.
I think you mean theists at the end.
Why do atheists judge? Well, look at it this way. If someone comes to you and says, 1+1=3 while you can show that in all cases that you know, it is 2, wouldn't you like to know how they came up with 3? And when you see how they did it, if it just doesn't add up, wouldn't you try to show them why and where they are going wrong? And then they insist that you only come up with 2 because you're missing a key element to the equation. You ask about that element but they tel you all sorts of things about it that just don't make any sense. SO you ask for proof. The respond with everything but.
Are you content to just let them be or would you like to help them further to see what's wrong with their reasoning? And if they can't be helped, perhaps someone else who might come to an unthinking conclusion may be helped.
Quote from Free Thinker:
absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence
No chance agnosticism is merely the result of knowing that science changes with new observations, ie. the facts change?
"There is no absolute certainty in this world."
Are you suggesting that death is not an absolute certainty?
Really?
Are you suggesting that death is not an absolute certainty?
Really?
Quote from Free Thinker:
absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence
PatternRec
Guest
Quote from jem:
Saying you know there is no God is far different than saying you doubt theists have it right.
Saying God does not exist -- takes faith and it is a bit nuts if you think you an prove it.
Saying you doubt theists have it right is a rational position to take.
Well, let's see.
Take Optional777's "god." He/she thinks he's/she's being clever by defining it as totality. Something which is indistinguishable from everything else in the universe. There's a few other contradictory concepts about this god which render it illogical. Could it be paradoxical? Sure. But what Op777 fails to provide is any testable proof.
Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?
Or let's take the the ancient Romans and their family of Gods. To you and I, I'm sure we can safely agree that those gods are as nonexistent as the defunct religion that serviced them. No proof they thy still exist today.
OR let's take the god of say a particular Amazonian tribe's god(s). They will undoubtedly attribute such things as rain or food to this god and think it proof of its existence. But we sort of know better. Can we safely discount this god as nonexistent?
So let's say you and I go through every religion or philosophical thought and find that none of the gods that has ever been conceptualized pan out. What are our possible conclusions?
1. We didn't exhaust every conceivable conceptualization of god, therefore there might yet be a God. Trouble is, all the conceptualizations have the same common denominator. That being some unseen, conscious force which has influence on the natural world. I say "trouble is" because if they all have the same common denominator, if that denominator fails proof, every other attribute piled on top has no value.
2. We simply stop there and reason that since no gods have ever panned out, that there must not be a god. But if one is conceptualized that does pan out, to that God will go the spoils of approval. Of course we will have to double check. Something this monumental requires it.
PatternRec
Guest
"Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?"
In addition to falsely stating my position, you can't seem to be consistent on when to capitalize or not...
How about using direct quotes? They are easily found in this thread...
In addition to falsely stating my position, you can't seem to be consistent on when to capitalize or not...
How about using direct quotes? They are easily found in this thread...
Quote from PatternRec:
Well, let's see.
Take Optional777's "god." He/she thinks he's/she's being clever by defining it as totality. Something which is indistinguishable from everything else in the universe. There's a few other contradictory concepts about this god which render it illogical. Could it be paradoxical? Sure. But what Op777 fails to provide is any testable proof.
Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?
Or let's take the the ancient Romans and their family of Gods. To you and I, I'm sure we can safely agree that those gods are as nonexistent as the defunct religion that serviced them. No proof they thy still exist today.
OR let's take the god of say a particular Amazonian tribe's god(s). They will undoubtedly attribute such things as rain or food to this god and think it proof of its existence. But we sort of know better. Can we safely discount this god as nonexistent?
So let's say you and I go through every religion or philosophical thought and find that none of the gods that has ever been conceptualized pan out. What are our possible conclusions?
1. We didn't exhaust every conceivable conceptualization of god, therefore there might yet be a God. Trouble is, all the conceptualizations have the same common denominator. That being some unseen, conscious force which has influence on the natural world. I say "trouble is" because if they all have the same common denominator, if that denominator fails proof, every other attribute piled on top has no value.
2. We simply stop there and reason that since no gods have ever panned out, that there must not be a god. But if one is conceptualized that does pan out, to that God will go the spoils of approval. Of course we will have to double check. Something this monumental requires it.
PatternRec
Guest
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
"Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?"
In addition to falsely stating my position, you can't seem to be consistent on when to capitalize or not...
How about using direct quotes? They are easily found in this thread...
Go for it. Since you assert improper stating if your position, the onus is on you to prove and correct. You might be right.