|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 22, 2020 0:59:21 GMT
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
Religion fans find their own places to go. 
Translation: "My shitty arguments got destroyed and now I'm gonna look for a religious safe space to lick my wounds"
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 1:00:06 GMT
You guys really do act like Thought Police.
"I demand that you tell me what I want to know or I will ask you a million times and virtually beat the living shit out of you."
LOL
If you don't want to answer a simple question here then that is entirely your privilege. But any threats supposed if not are entirely your imagination. But I can see why at this point you might wish to extend a general ad hominem towards everyone rather than simply answering a polite question. I certainly shan't ask it again, as your reluctance to answer really tells one all one needs to know. It’s cute that you see yourself as polite.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 1:02:37 GMT
Actually, I don't participate on Religion boards where people actually like their religions without the anti-religion religion hounding them.
It's not as interesting as reading books, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 22, 2020 1:05:22 GMT
If you don't want to answer a simple question here then that is entirely your privilege. But any threats supposed if not are entirely your imagination. But I can see why at this point you might wish to extend a general ad hominem towards everyone rather than simply answering a polite question. I certainly shan't ask it again, as your reluctance to answer really tells one all one needs to know. It’s cute that you see yourself as polite, Thank you. It's cute that you see yourself as honest. I'm off now to do something more productive.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 1:06:22 GMT
Try living in Israel and refusing to see an Arab Muslim doctor because you think he or she is "irrational" for believing in Allah.
I wouldn't do it - and I don't think they're irrational anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 1:07:14 GMT
So, I guess we're done and it's 3am here. I don't have work tomorrow but I should still get some sleep.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 1:08:40 GMT
Merry Christmas!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 22, 2020 1:16:50 GMT
NO ONE IS MAKING THE CLAIM. Try Google Translate. Geesh. Imagine if I said "I believe John is a pedophile" and someone responded with "That's a pretty outrageous claim!" and my response was "Well I'm not making a claim, that's just my belief!" Do you see how absurd that is? That wouldn't be the end of the discussion if it were me you were saying that to. I would ask you why you believe that before judging it outrageous. The SM doesn't attempt to prove anything; it attempts to disprove hypotheses. If it can't be disproven, it's promoted to theory. Of course this is way oversimplified, but the basic principle remains the same. The question here should be whether or not the hypothesis is logical, reasonable, and/or rational instead of summarily dismissed right out of the gate. I was just pointing out that our court systems do work that way, despite your claim that it doesn't. The claim here is that Sci is delusional. "The question here should be whether or not the hypothesis is logical, reasonable, and/or rational instead of summarily dismissed right out of the gate. " Which is what an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" typically is, a claim that can't be outright disproven even it has no actual evidence. For instance if I were to say "the universe was created by a race of outer space leprechauns" this would be a riddiculous claim that can't really be disproven (unfalsifiable hypothesis) which is obstensibly a useless hypothesis within a scientific setting (can't be observed, expiremented, repeated, etc) It's about simple logic and reason. The First Cause argument is grounded in simple logic and reason, and it's supported by the very world in which we live. While it's true that it doesn't empirically prove the existence of God, it covers a pretty good chunk of it and so it's not that big of a leap. And that's just one argument of many. I think those who say belief in God is irrational/unreasonable haven't really thought it through, and that is evidenced by this very thread. It's the ones who summarily dismiss believers as delusional that stall these chats. Not everyone who believes in God does so because the Bible (or a church) tells them to. Some theists are actually very intelligent people who actually think for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2020 1:58:38 GMT
Imagine if I said "I believe John is a pedophile" and someone responded with "That's a pretty outrageous claim!" and my response was "Well I'm not making a claim, that's just my belief!" Do you see how absurd that is? That wouldn't be the end of the discussion if it were me you were saying that to. I would ask you why you believe that before judging it outrageous. "The question here should be whether or not the hypothesis is logical, reasonable, and/or rational instead of summarily dismissed right out of the gate. " Which is what an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" typically is, a claim that can't be outright disproven even it has no actual evidence. For instance if I were to say "the universe was created by a race of outer space leprechauns" this would be a riddiculous claim that can't really be disproven (unfalsifiable hypothesis) which is obstensibly a useless hypothesis within a scientific setting (can't be observed, expiremented, repeated, etc) It's about simple logic and reason. The First Cause argument is grounded in simple logic and reason, and it's supported by the very world in which we live. While it's true that it doesn't empirically prove the existence of God, it covers a pretty good chunk of it and so it's not that big of a leap. And that's just one argument of many. I think those who say belief in God is irrational/unreasonable haven't really thought it through, and that is evidenced by this very thread. It's the ones who summarily dismiss believers as delusional that stall these chats. Not everyone who believes in God does so because the Bible (or a church) tells them to. Some theists are actually very intelligent people who actually think for themselves. Yet, as I pointed out quite early in the thread, people who believe in God do not have a sound basis for their belief in logic and/or evidence. Hence they can be viewed as irrational and illogical. Exactly. The natural world produces its own evidence because it is surrounding us, viewable and testable. The Supernatural is not and there is no viewable testable evidence, or in fact any of any kind at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 22, 2020 2:02:56 GMT
That wouldn't be the end of the discussion if it were me you were saying that to. I would ask you why you believe that before judging it outrageous. It's about simple logic and reason. The First Cause argument is grounded in simple logic and reason, and it's supported by the very world in which we live. While it's true that it doesn't empirically prove the existence of God, it covers a pretty good chunk of it and so it's not that big of a leap. And that's just one argument of many. I think those who say belief in God is irrational/unreasonable haven't really thought it through, and that is evidenced by this very thread. It's the ones who summarily dismiss believers as delusional that stall these chats. Not everyone who believes in God does so because the Bible (or a church) tells them to. Some theists are actually very intelligent people who actually think for themselves. Yet, as I pointed out quite early in the thread, people who believe in God do not have a sound basis for their belief in logic and/or evidence. Hence they can be viewed as irrational and illogical. Exactly. The natural world produces its own evidence becasue it is surrounding us, viwable and testable. The Supernatural is not and there is no viewable testable evidence, or in fact any of any kind at all. Case in point. 
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2020 2:07:39 GMT
Yet, as I pointed out quite early in the thread, people who believe in God do not have a sound basis for their belief in logic and/or evidence. Hence they can be viewed as irrational and illogical. Exactly. The natural world produces its own evidence becasue it is surrounding us, viwable and testable. The Supernatural is not and there is no viewable testable evidence, or in fact any of any kind at all. Case in point. I don't know what you mean. The first cause as being natural rather than supernatural is the one that will end up being proveable, due to a chronic and immutable dearth of evidence then now and always.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 2:09:55 GMT
Yet, as I pointed out quite early in the thread, people who believe in God do not have a sound basis for their belief in logic and/or evidence. Hence they can be viewed as irrational and illogical. Exactly. The natural world produces its own evidence becasue it is surrounding us, viwable and testable. The Supernatural is not and there is no viewable testable evidence, or in fact any of any kind at all. Case in point. , I suspect that goz thinks she’s agreeing with you somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 22, 2020 2:11:20 GMT
Imagine if I said "I believe John is a pedophile" and someone responded with "That's a pretty outrageous claim!" and my response was "Well I'm not making a claim, that's just my belief!" Do you see how absurd that is? That wouldn't be the end of the discussion if it were me you were saying that to. I would ask you why you believe that before judging it outrageous. "The question here should be whether or not the hypothesis is logical, reasonable, and/or rational instead of summarily dismissed right out of the gate. " Which is what an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" typically is, a claim that can't be outright disproven even it has no actual evidence. For instance if I were to say "the universe was created by a race of outer space leprechauns" this would be a riddiculous claim that can't really be disproven (unfalsifiable hypothesis) which is obstensibly a useless hypothesis within a scientific setting (can't be observed, expiremented, repeated, etc) It's about simple logic and reason. The First Cause argument is grounded in simple logic and reason, and it's supported by the very world in which we live. While it's true that it doesn't empirically prove the existence of God, it covers a pretty good chunk of it and so it's not that big of a leap. And that's just one argument of many. I think those who say belief in God is irrational/unreasonable haven't really thought it through, and that is evidenced by this very thread. It's the ones who summarily dismiss believers as delusional that stall these chats. Not everyone who believes in God does so because the Bible (or a church) tells them to. Some theists are actually very intelligent people who actually think for themselves. "That wouldn't be the end of the discussion if it were me you were saying that to. I would ask you why you believe that before judging it outrageous." Well obviously you would want proof, but that wasn't really the point of that post, I'm just giving an example of the riddiculous semantics ScifFi keeps tryign to play. What exactly woudl be the distinction between "belief' and "claim" wihtint this context? "The First Cause argument is grounded in simple logic and reason" Not really, it comes loaded with special pleading which a logical fallacy "it covers a pretty good chunk of it" How so? "It's the ones who summarily dismiss believers as delusional that stall these chats." I never said they were "delusional", though I would argue belief in God is delusional (believing in something without evidence). "Not everyone who believes in God does so because the Bible (or a church) tells them to" I never said that either, though environment has a huge impact on religious beliefs. It's the reason Indians tend to be Hindu, Middle Easterns tend to be Muslim, Latin Americans tend to be Catholic, etc. There's an undeniable causation between religous beliefs and environment. "Some theists are actually very intelligent people who actually think for themselves." I never said otherwise. I don't really believe anyone truly "thinks for themselves" anyways (were all essentially a product of our environment)
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 22, 2020 2:13:34 GMT
Try living in Israel and refusing to see an Arab Muslim doctor because you think he or she is "irrational" for believing in Allah.
I wouldn't do it - and I don't think they're irrational anyway.
Pathetic strawmans still don't count as an argument. So would you go to a doctor that worships their cat? Yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 2:19:35 GMT
If no one could think for themselves, mankind would still be living in caves.
There would be no innovation, no music, no art, no literature and no advances in technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 22, 2020 2:21:21 GMT
Merry Christmas!!
Oh is this your little attempt at "triggering" atheists? Personally I like Christmas (nothing beats watching "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" while drinking rum and egg nog). BTW you realize it's whiny Christians that get triggered when you don't say "Merry Christmas" right? Were not the ones that pushed the idiotic War on Christmas and get mad when Starbucks removed "Christmas" from their cups (even though it was never on there)
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2020 2:26:24 GMT
If no one could think for themselves, mankind would still be living in caves. There would be no innovation, no music, no art, no literature and no advances in technology. The great problem with your argument is that you are conflating 'thinking for yourself' as believing in God and that he created the universe. In fact it could be said that it is the opposite. You only think you are thinking for yourself when you religiou programmes it.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2020 2:27:32 GMT
Case in point. , I suspect that goz thinks she’s agreeing with you somehow. STFU and fight you own battles using logic instead of nonsequiturs and evidence lacking ideas!
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 22, 2020 2:30:43 GMT
If no one could think for themselves, mankind would still be living in caves. There would be no innovation, no music, no art, no literature and no advances in technology. Thoughts and innovation typically don't just "pop" out of a vacuum, they typically get inspired by other ideas and people. You realize great thinkers and innovaters are typically influenced from other people, right? Thomas Edison himself was greatly influenced by Benjamin Franklin.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 22, 2020 7:54:54 GMT
Mozart was composing his own operas at 6.
How many opera composers does anyone think he knew?
|
|
