Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8985 total)
86 online now:
14174dm, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: Harrypotter123
Post Volume: Total: 877,728 Year: 9,476/23,288 Month: 491/1,544 Week: 205/561 Day: 31/14 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does your steryotypical believer actually exist?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4689
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 19 (152897)
10-25-2004 9:10 PM


Schrafinator wrote;

but if those believers choose to attempt to justify their beliefs through reason, logic, or science, all bets are off.

I was just wondering - what with my recent succesful and logical argument concerning a Conclusion of consciousness - about why atheists/agnostics hold a belief that they "own" logic, reason and science?

Is it because we are stealing your cake and eating it?

It seems that many get defensive if we try and justify our beliefs with reasoning etc.. I guess we can't do right for doing wrong, but not for the want of trying. I mean, I thought that you wanted us to test our beliefs, so we don't use post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias etc.. - Fair enough..

Or rather - is it that you atheists/agnostics simply hold a position in your head that says (" No matter whats/he says you must say that it is no logical, scientific or reasonable - no matter what ").

Basically, I am asking if you infact believe we are the emotional steryotypes you make us out to be, and therefore - no logical argument will ever hold water with you, because deep down you have to obey your inner dudeguy - who preaches "they're emotional chumps"?

Why can't science logic or reason justify belief? I say that it can, if it is logical - scientific or reasonable!


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-25-2004 9:34 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 9:55 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 10-25-2004 10:15 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2004 3:47 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4689
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 5 of 19 (152910)
10-25-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Gilgamesh
10-25-2004 9:34 PM


Re: Playing on our turf
By all means use science, logic and reason to justify your beliefs. But if you do, you are then playing on our turf and your beliefs will be subject to detailed analysis, and testing.

If it is your turf - does that mean atheists/agnostic invented all categories and rules concerning the three?

If so - does that imply a possible bias therein?

Because at some logic aites concerning "fallacies" - I notice a LOT of bad examples include Christians or God. The "scotsman fallacy" for example.

Does this mean you infact invent rules to remove God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-25-2004 9:34 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 10:01 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4689
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 19 (152912)
10-25-2004 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
10-25-2004 9:55 PM


Crashbaba
If you employ reason and science, but arrive at a position where you believe in miracles and the supernatural, then you did something wrong.

Does this mean the likes of Newton were wrong?

It's not that we get "defensive." It's that we get pissed to see people misuse science and logic,

This implies that if we simply are logical or scientific - then we have "misused" it in your book, by simply using it. Is that fair?

No, I pretty much believe that believers like you have the same mindset as victims of domestic violence. In fact, the arguments are usually almost always the same in that they exonerate the abuser (God) and blame the victim

The difference might be a logical one that you don't heed.

In that - the abused of domestic violence - are abused by one, and also - might be treated well at times, by the one.

Whereas - we believe there is God (good) - and satan (evil). We believe this because Christ cast out diseases etc - and said they were of satan...

Yeah, I'm sure that's going to piss you off. Well, victims of abuse get pissed off too, when you tell them their boyfriend/girlfriend is abusing them.

Have you ever known me to get p'd off?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 9:55 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 10:14 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4689
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 19 (152920)
10-25-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
10-25-2004 10:14 PM


It's fine for Newton et al to believe in God. But they didn't use logic or science to come to that conclusion.

Neither do I really. However - we are all human, and so we have some level of intellect that requires satisfaction. I know my belief isn't based on science or reasoning etc.. But there is also a part of me that "thinks" about it.

As fair as discarding any purported "proof" that 2+2=5. You can't employ science to arrive at conclusions that are, by their very nature, unscientific.

Well, I dunno - this might be that inner-dudeguy I spoke about.

You are using the 2+2=5, in that - if I use logic for example - and conclude God, then I am wrong and coming to "5". This means that if I use logic correctly - and say 2+2=4 - you are infact saying that God is 5. What if he is 4?

It's still abuse, even if God hires Satan to do it in his place. And the arguments used are still the same.

But Crash - I thought believers all disagreed with each other, and so they can't be right?

I think that God infact rejects satan and his evil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 10:14 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 11:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4689
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 19 (152924)
10-25-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by sidelined
10-25-2004 10:15 PM


I suggest you read the thread " Can logic support theistic position " - my argument and it's premises are based on a neutral position - and common knowledge - which is an observed truth to all peoples.

Are you stating here that the belief can stand alone on its own logically?

No. I am saying one can satisfy the intellectual part of believing - in that, the small part which might prove God to us personally, can be arrived at through common knowledge and observation of agreed truths by all peoples. But you'd have to be incredibly objective/open-minded - and first rid all biases before looking at my argument - because only then will u understand it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 10-25-2004 10:15 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 10-25-2004 10:49 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-25-2004 11:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4689
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 19 (153043)
10-26-2004 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
10-26-2004 3:47 AM


Okay I'm ill today Crash - I'll respond to you a bit later on, but I have not responded to Paul's posts so I will put him first on this occasion.

could point to a particularly illogical believer who insisted that what I said was wrong because he didn't like what he thought I'd said

Paul, I have the feeling that this means me. - don't be angry at me because of this topic. but if I was saying you were wrong - you could well be right aswell - I was probably just being stubborn.

If I criticise a believers arguments for being illogical it is because they are.

Fair enough, if you think that the arguments are illogical then you are simply obeying what you think is true. So, there will be many believers who have illogical arguments - I don't deny this, and the problem is that there actually might be a steryotypical emotional believer - but I can't really stop their tongues.

This topic is also a chance to show that emotional chumps might exist.

I will adress Crash and Gilgamesh later on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2004 3:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mikehager, posted 10-26-2004 1:59 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Nighttrain, posted 10-26-2004 8:11 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4689
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 19 (153145)
10-26-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Nighttrain
10-26-2004 8:11 PM


Haha. Thanks but I still have a few enemies that hate my guts because I "used" to be a YEC here in EvC critterclub.

Honestly though - unlike your average creo - I have no argument against the ToE, I have difficulty believing it happened is all, but that's my problem not science's. So - the only difference between an evo and me is that I see evolution as a possible system used by God, I think it is scientific - not religious, and that it is probably the best theory to fit the facts. However - I admitt it is only a possible truth in my own mind. I guess I am a fence-sitter but in all honesty - I am not a classic "creo". I will even settle for Big Bang Theory and evolution if I have to, and it wouldn't bother my beliefs too much.

Hope you understand.

Back soon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Nighttrain, posted 10-26-2004 8:11 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020