Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 166 of 277 (790820)
09-06-2016 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Phat
09-06-2016 9:21 AM


Re: Second Hand Information
Perhaps but it is supported by reality.
Jesus is neither an envelope or a message? Envelopes are not messages. Even if that were true saying the envelope was the message still gives absolutely no information about what the message was.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Phat, posted 09-06-2016 9:21 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 167 of 277 (790821)
09-06-2016 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Phat
09-06-2016 2:59 AM


Re: Second Hand Information
Jesus was the envelope that contained the Creators message. Chew on that one awhile.
Word salad. Means nothing.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 09-06-2016 2:59 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 277 (790837)
09-06-2016 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Phat
09-06-2016 2:59 AM


Re: Second Hand Information
Phat writes:
Could it be that the envelope and the message are the same thing?
That would be a postcard. If there's an envelope with a letter inside, it would be foolish to throw away the letter and "obey" the envelope.
The envelope might have some value - but do you really need a return address when the sender is omniscient? Is a Heaven postmark more valuable than a Nirvana postmark?
Phat writes:
Jesus was the envelope that contained the Creators message.
I think you're the one who needs to chew on that analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 09-06-2016 2:59 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Phat, posted 09-06-2016 12:25 PM ringo has replied
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 09-16-2016 6:47 AM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 169 of 277 (790838)
09-06-2016 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
09-06-2016 12:20 PM


Re: Second Hand Information
The sticking point hinges around the need for the message.(Original Sin or nah?)
It also hinges on whether an omnipotent messenger would need a unique envelope to reach a planet.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 09-06-2016 12:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 09-06-2016 1:00 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 170 of 277 (790839)
09-06-2016 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Phat
09-06-2016 12:25 PM


Re: Second Hand Information
Phat writes:
The sticking point hinges around the need for the message.(Original Sin or nah?)
Did Jesus bring a message of Original Sin?
Or did He bring a message that we already had? According to Paul, the message is already written on our hearts:
quote:
Romans 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Phat writes:
It also hinges on whether an omnipotent messenger would need a unique envelope to reach a planet.
It tends to shoot omnipotence in the foot, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Phat, posted 09-06-2016 12:25 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 171 of 277 (791334)
09-14-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-01-2009 7:15 PM


Wow, what a revived thread. You should now see how ridiculous the OP questions are.
Empirical evidence is only available provided that you can physically go there to gather the evidence. Science is based on experiments and observations which can only be done inside our physical realm that we can reach.
It is thus out of our current capability to explore what lying outside our time-space we are living in. It is however fallacious to draw the conclusion that nothing can exist outside the reach of our science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-01-2009 7:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2016 3:55 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 172 of 277 (791359)
09-14-2016 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Hawkins
09-14-2016 2:27 PM


Have you actually read the OP?
It's about the difference between theists who claim that their beliefs are as much the result of of physical evidence as anything else (e.g. Biblical Creationists) and believers who base their beliefs on subjective feelings, experiences etc.
But things seem to have moved on somewhat from that in the intervening years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Hawkins, posted 09-14-2016 2:27 PM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Phat, posted 09-14-2016 6:17 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 173 of 277 (791367)
09-14-2016 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Straggler
09-14-2016 3:55 PM


Rationalising The Irrational Remix
Actually I think that is the crux of most of my religious debates here at EvC.
My opponents demand objective evidence. This is a logical request, but it has been brought up that there is no way to test of verify the supernatural--apart from any unique effects that it would have on testable things.
Ringo brought up the point that he routinely tests what everybody says---and that it is expected for us to do so.
I must be one who goes more with subjective feelings and that whole side of the argument. I feel that evidence is only necessary in the mind of the believer and that people can call me delusional or living in fantasy all they want.
I have reasons for my beliefs and yet I appreciate the arguments presented here at EvC as they cause me to think outside my own box.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2016 3:55 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 09-15-2016 12:07 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 175 by Taq, posted 09-15-2016 12:18 PM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 174 of 277 (791449)
09-15-2016 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Phat
09-14-2016 6:17 PM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational Remix
Phat writes:
Ringo brought up the point that he routinely tests what everybody says---and that it is expected for us to do so.
I must be one who goes more with subjective feelings and that whole side of the argument.
Just to be clear, it doesn't have to be one or the other, objective or subjective. I have had friends who can't be trusted to be objectively factual. That doesn't prevent me from subjectively wanting them as friends.
The Bible is another example. It is objectively false in many areas, yet I subjectively value it more than many True Believers do.
Phat writes:
I feel that evidence is only necessary in the mind of the believer....
I just wish you'd stop calling it evidence when it isn't. Allow me to repeat my tautology: Evidence must be evident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Phat, posted 09-14-2016 6:17 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 175 of 277 (791450)
09-15-2016 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Phat
09-14-2016 6:17 PM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational Remix
Phat writes:
My opponents demand objective evidence. This is a logical request, but it has been brought up that there is no way to test of verify the supernatural--apart from any unique effects that it would have on testable things.
From my experiences, the only reason that theists claim that the supernatural can not be verified by objective evidence is that they don't have any objective evidence for the supernatural. If we start with no assumptions, I see see no reason why the supernatural would not produce objective evidence.
What we have are claims that are indistinguishable from something that is made up.
I must be one who goes more with subjective feelings and that whole side of the argument. I feel that evidence is only necessary in the mind of the believer and that people can call me delusional or living in fantasy all they want.
Speaking as an atheist, I can completely respect that. Life is too short, and who am I to tell you what to believe.
Much of the friction between the theist and atheist camps is due to history. Atheists have long been the minority, and many theists have acted as if atheists don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to a reasoned position. Us atheists do think we have a good argument for our position, and thus the debate rages on.
However, I also think it is worth mentioning that we atheists (or at least a massive majority of atheists) celebrate your freedom to believe as you wish, and would defend your right to be a theist. I think this point is often clouded over in heated discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Phat, posted 09-14-2016 6:17 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Phat, posted 09-16-2016 6:38 AM Taq has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 176 of 277 (791484)
09-16-2016 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Taq
09-15-2016 12:18 PM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational Remix
I see no reason why the supernatural would not produce objective evidence.
1) We would have no faith if we had evidence. God wants us to have faith.
2) It would give no one the freedom to disbelieve. Its rather hard to disbelieve when the evidence can be replicated before your eyes by anyone or even by yourself.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Taq, posted 09-15-2016 12:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Tangle, posted 09-16-2016 6:56 AM Phat has replied
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 09-16-2016 11:42 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 183 by ringo, posted 09-16-2016 11:50 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 177 of 277 (791485)
09-16-2016 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
09-06-2016 12:20 PM


Re: Second Hand Information
ringo writes:
The envelope might have some value - but do you really need a return address when the sender is omniscient?
Depends whether you want to communicate with the sender or not.
You know the old saying: Don't shoot the messenger!
Apparently folks did. They didn't want to hear from home...they wanted to be ambitious orphans who could make it on their own.
Perhaps they had a mental block where they thought they were orphans to begin with.
I just wish you'd stop calling it evidence when it isn't. Allow me to repeat my tautology: Evidence must be evident.
Perhaps thats why it isnt evident to some folks.
Edited by Phat, : added sentence

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 09-06-2016 12:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 09-16-2016 11:46 AM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 178 of 277 (791487)
09-16-2016 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Phat
09-16-2016 6:38 AM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational Remix
Phat writes:
1) We would have no faith if we had evidence. God wants us to have faith.
That's just wrong.
1. He apparently wasn't at all shy of providing evidence for thousands of years, parting seas, sending plagues, burning bushes, curing people, resurrecting people, changing water into wine, feeding 5,000 people with a loaf and a fish etc etc. It's only when people worked out ways of testing stuff objectively that this 'evidence' ceased.
2. According to you guys, he 'reveals' himself to you. You call that evidence. You repeatedly tell us that you KNOW he exists for this reason. He's some weird contradictions ain't he?
3. He wants me to have faith in what? Why would I choose your god instead of somebody else's without evidence? How can the child born into a remote village in the Atlas Mountains have faith in your god when he's never heard of him?
It makes no sense.
2) It would give no one the freedom to disbelieve. Its rather hard to disbelieve when the evidence can be replicated before your eyes by anyone or even by yourself.
1. And the down side of that would be what? That we'd all believe and follow his teaching? You know, like he wants?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Phat, posted 09-16-2016 6:38 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Phat, posted 09-16-2016 7:04 AM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 179 of 277 (791488)
09-16-2016 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Tangle
09-16-2016 6:56 AM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational Remix
2) It would give no one the freedom to disbelieve. Its rather hard to disbelieve when the evidence can be replicated before your eyes by anyone or even by yourself.
tangle writes:
And the down side of that would be what? That we'd all believe and follow his teaching? You know, like he wants?
The downside is that you would have no free will to reject Him.
When belief is eliminated as an option, we end up with what we get.
Of course you can say that im clinging to belief because accepting evidence would kill my faith. I would say that clinging to the "obvious" kills your freedom.
Its better to freely accept or reject. Facts rob us of free will.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Tangle, posted 09-16-2016 6:56 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 09-16-2016 8:22 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 180 of 277 (791499)
09-16-2016 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Phat
09-16-2016 7:04 AM


Re: Rationalising The Irrational Remix
Phat writes:
The downside is that you would have no free will to reject Him.
When belief is eliminated as an option, we end up with what we get.
Nothing changes about free will because of evidence - people can reject evidence, we see Faith do it here every day.
Of course you can say that im clinging to belief because accepting evidence would kill my faith. I would say that clinging to the "obvious" kills your freedom.
That's just silly. You can believe that a fire will burn you with or without evidence. Sticking your hand in the fire merely confirms it. The facts exist whether you believe in them or not.
Its better to freely accept or reject. Facts rob us of free will.
That's utter nonsense, facts are just facts - truths about our world. Not having facts allows us to think stupid things, having them at least gives us a chance of believing the right things.
The idea that knowing truths about our world robs us of free will is the most bizarre thing I've heard you say.
ABE Doesn't the fact that god has revealed himself to you personally rob you of your free will to believe in him without evidence?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Phat, posted 09-16-2016 7:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024