Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Why are all Christians atheists?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 6 of 161 (394681)
04-12-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-12-2007 5:29 PM


Phaticus burnicus!
I've just had a thought.
If all atheists burn in hell, and all Christians are atheist, then all Christians burn in hell.
- I'm wearing my Bart Simpson trunks for the lake of fire. What are you going as?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-12-2007 5:29 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 161 (394684)
04-12-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
04-12-2007 6:35 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
What else is it other than "magic", Phat?
Transcendant reality.
Why do you disagree?
Because it's not evident that God is made-up. That might not be the case. It's just an opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 6:35 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 7:59 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 161 (394787)
04-13-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
04-12-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
What's that?
Magic.
-- Just a possible truth. I'm betting you already accept that there are mysteries to reality that far exceed human knowledge. Reality might go further than what we can experience and study. What we know might be true but might only be like the earth's crust - thin.
Even probability alone can create results. Like winning the lottery - impossible before, but ertain afterwards.
The universe itself is magic enough for me.
Do you mean that it is only an opinion that any superstition is made up, or just the one you subscribe to?
Haha. That assumes it is a superstition.
Well, it's like CS said in response to you - it's just not evident to believers, that God is made up.
To you, you lump all gods in the same superstitious group. But to us it's not the same, because we don't think as you do.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 7:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 8:40 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 161 (394817)
04-13-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
04-13-2007 8:40 AM


Re: Whats The Deal?
Going beyond that and saying, "There are mysteries that far exceed human knowledge, but I actually have special, unsharable knowledge that allows me to understand those mysteries" is making an unwarranted leap.
It's just making stuff up. What else could it be, since we have no way of knowing if you are correct?
So if force X divulges information to source C but source D doesn't know it, or can't know it, then it's made up?
How is it not a superstition? All belief in the supernatural is superstition
Define superstition.
I usually think of superstition as in the following;
If I step on cracks in the pavement, I'll die in two days
Or;
If the wind turns the tide the Oden wants me to live
Belief in God of itself, is not a superstition. I agree that he is unknowable in a sense, but only because of a technicality which is irrelevant.
If force X and source C have a correspondence, it's irrelevant as to what other sources conclude. it becomes a reality which is merely unknowable to other sources.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 8:40 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 04-13-2007 11:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 12:05 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 44 of 161 (394835)
04-13-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
04-13-2007 12:05 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
So, how can one tell the difference between reality and self-delusion in this case?
I've no genuine reason to believe it is self-delusion, from my experience. It's a process that is interior and exterior, and my inferences are reasonable.
I don't need a science experiment to know that chocolate is tastey to me. It's only your assumption that it is self-delusion which would make me start to consider whether that experience was delusion.
Just because you assign self-delusion to the equation doesn't mean it is that.
Like I said already, there's no way to tell if you are correct.
That doesn't mean I'm incorrect. You favour that it IS superstition, and that it is incorrect, which isn't impartial Shraff - it comes from your own beliefs.
If you and I started typing in Japanese, and only you and I could understand it - then objectively, people could conclude that we're speaking nonsense, if they never come to understand Japanese.
Now dost thou ponder the unlimitles irrefutability of my tongue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 12:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 9:09 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 51 of 161 (394986)
04-14-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
04-13-2007 9:09 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
But everybody who holds to superstitious beliefs says that.
The Jim Jones cult people didn't think they were deluded, either, nor the Cargo cults, nor the Heaven's Gate cults, nor the guy at the local insane asylum who thinks he is Jesus.
Nor did Einstein. Ahah! See what I done there? I reversed it on you/(and your objection would rightly be that he wasn't superstitious - thereby proving your reasoning is iffy.)
You're naming group x whom are clearly B (deluded).
That doesn't make mike B, Shraff. it just means that group x are clearly B.
You COULD argue that SOME believers were clearly nuts - but that doesn't tell us much about ALL or FEW, of others of the set "believers".
Anything we dream up could be "correct", Mike. But there's no way to test any of those dreams to learn which one, some, all, or none of them are correct, because the basis for each of those beliefs is exactly the same.
Ahh...but they're not the same. That's the thing - life is complex, and even more complicate than can be imagined. So that even one life is a unique trajectory, un-repeatable.
Because you you cannot establish the truth-value of many claims, doesn't mean their truth value is the same. This is where you go wrong - you assign anything unknown as the "same". But they're only the same in REGARDS to confirmation/falsification.
You're narrow thinking is that you must establish a conclusion or any proposal is false. This is the atheist-subjective side of you Shraff.
You still haven't proved belief in God is superstition.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 04-13-2007 9:09 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 1:21 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 56 of 161 (394998)
04-14-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Nuggin
04-14-2007 1:21 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
You're very far from logical proof. You've got some learning to do yet.
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
If anything, this proves my point. Superstition is based on events that coincide, correlate, or have no genuine causal link, such as a circumstance. my prayers could be considered superstitious, but only in a very cordial way - because I don't claim anything conclusive.
Example; "I step on a crack in the pavement and it rained".
Belief in God, of itself, is just a conviction. It is not strictly irrational necessarily, depending on your belief in God.
Thus you provide a great example of equivocation when you mention eternity in damnation - for what has that got to do with belief in God.
I am not talking about Christianity, or Judaism, but the conviction itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 1:21 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 2:17 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 63 of 161 (395016)
04-14-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Nuggin
04-14-2007 2:17 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
Finish reading my entire post. Refuting the 1 point that I predict you refuting, doesn't exactly work in your favor
I don't do colloquial terminology. You've got to realise that I seek something more than informal responses, in order to suffice.
But you've misunderstood the quote you provided.
Number 3, for example requires that you act on the belief. For example, you BELIEVE that walking under ladders brings bad luck so you don't walk under ladders. You obey the faulty reasoning.
Defining what superstition is, doesn't prove belief in God is superstition of itself. Exacting deduction will, which is what I require.
That's not to say that religion cannot take part in superstition. I'm sure many Christians, including myself, act superstitiously according to their own beliefs, at times. And some religions might be based on pure superstition.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 2:17 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RickJB, posted 04-14-2007 4:28 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 5:44 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 67 of 161 (395041)
04-14-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RickJB
04-14-2007 4:28 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
If the belief that God's image on Earth died for one's sins and that one must embrace him lest face eternal damnation isn't a superstition then I don't know what is.
1. It has nothing to do with belief in God, solely.(My claim)
2. I'm not talking about one interpretation of a Christian, or religions. I'm talking about belief in God - so it's utterly moot.
Belief in God itself has nothing whatsoever to do with burning in hell. That's a non-sequitur.
Belief in God and religions aren't the same thing. I am referring to the former.
Why would I be arrogantly referring to Christians only? What about Pantheists or Deists. I refer to anyone with a beleif in god, not faulty religious interpretations of scripture.
Belief in God, of itself, doesn't qualify as a superstition under the common definition, as of itself, it requires nor claims to cause anything..it is merely a conviction.
There are two things you and Nuggin can't seperate.
Belief and superstitious belief.
If any belief was a superstition, then logically, superstition would have no definition, as we would have one term, which would be belief.
Think long and hard about that sentence. Because consequentially, superstitious belief, would then be nothing more than a grammatical tautology. Google it.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RickJB, posted 04-14-2007 4:28 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 04-14-2007 6:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 04-14-2007 8:16 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 80 by RickJB, posted 04-15-2007 4:29 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 68 of 161 (395043)
04-14-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Nuggin
04-14-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
So, you want someone to prove to you that their usage of a word corresponds to your own personal definitions. Give me a break.
- So you want ducks to bite their wings off and fly to the moon? - Now surely that's an accurate assesment of your posts!
Let's test your reasoning then;
I gave you 5 definitions of superstition
Yes. That's fine so far.
3 of which, by your own lack of response, are unchallengable
Ahh...the ship sinks. What exactly does that mean? Is it consequential - am I supposed to treat your claims as true because you provided definitions? How odd.
But since I only need to be correct with 1 of the 5, I'm gonna consider this debate over
That's fine........a bit like believing that the fight ends when the first boxer puts his boxing gloves on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 5:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 6:55 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 82 of 161 (395134)
04-15-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RickJB
04-15-2007 4:29 AM


Re: Whats The Deal?
Maybe you should google "strawman" instead?
Now hang on a minute, did you or did you not mention damnation? So is it belief in God that's superstitious, or belief in common Christian interpretations?
To believe in God is to believe in the existence (and influence) of something for which we have no empirical evidence.
There is no empirical evidence he does not exist, so to believe he doesn't, would be superstitious, according to that illogic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RickJB, posted 04-15-2007 4:29 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Nuggin, posted 04-15-2007 12:27 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 88 by RickJB, posted 04-15-2007 12:51 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 83 of 161 (395135)
04-15-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by anastasia
04-14-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
Hi Ana
Many times the etymology of a word is more useful than the common definitions, which are attached more to the practical applications of the word.
Using the common definition stops people from puling their own definition out of their butts, like we see Nuggin and co doing right now.
They try and force something to work - like trying to fit a brick through a straw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 04-14-2007 8:16 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Nuggin, posted 04-15-2007 12:31 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 87 of 161 (395168)
04-15-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Nuggin
04-15-2007 12:27 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
It's called reductio ad absurdum.
Example;
Guy says X is true.
Mike says that if X is true then F - which is clearly false therefore X is false.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Nuggin, posted 04-15-2007 12:27 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 89 of 161 (395175)
04-15-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Nuggin
04-15-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Whats The Deal?
It's this kind of crazy ass bullcrap coming from you gdamn fundies that results in every single one of these thread crashing and burning into these typical garbage arguements......I'm amazed you learned to use a keyboard at all
Nug, calm down, it's only a discussion.
As Ringo said, there aren't any fundies taking part in the thread. That means I am not one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Nuggin, posted 04-15-2007 12:31 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Nuggin, posted 04-15-2007 12:59 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 91 of 161 (395187)
04-15-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Nuggin
04-15-2007 12:59 PM


The end is nigh
I think you're saying that I have said that because people haven't proved belief in God is superstitious, then it isn't.
That would be argumentum ad ignorantium. Infact, I have reasoned that one can infer that it is not a superstition according to the common definition (evidence contrary to the positive claim). Your ad nauseum of the ad hominem is becoming a tad tiresome.
At this stage I think it would be futile to continue with this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Nuggin, posted 04-15-2007 12:59 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 04-15-2007 2:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 93 by RickJB, posted 04-15-2007 2:19 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 96 by nator, posted 04-16-2007 8:52 AM mike the wiz has 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