|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Belief Versus The Scientific Method | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
They're not "my" rules. They're THE rules - and YOU follow them in every instance but one. If your rules were accepted as valid, NOBODY could be a believer. If everybody FOLLOWED the rules in every instance, nobody would be a believer - and that would be a good thing.
Phat writes:
Again, for the same reasons YOU reject the research and arguments of the Santa-believers.
What puzzles me is why you reject the research and arguments of the apologists... Phat writes:
I have never read a single word by any "mythicist" so you can stop using that tired old PRATT.
... and accept the mythicists and other secular sholars with an axe to grind against the Jesus. Phat writes:
And AGAIN you say nothing to actually back up your position. SHOW us the difference between your god and all the other gods.
And you cant show why *we* only imagine God and never actually experienced an encounter with Him. Phat writes:
Duh. I recognized that the beliefs were empty, so I dropped them.
If so, how is it that you once were a believer...if in fact you only ha empty beliefs to work with? Phat writes:
Nonsense. People ignore the evidence or reject the evidence. That doesn't make the evidence subjective. It makes the people fools.
If all evidence were objective, all people would have no choice but to question and doubt their beliefs. Phat writes:
Nope. All you ever do is repeat that opinion. You never make the slightest effort to back it up.
And as I have tried to convince you time and time agin, all "Gods(gods) are NOT equal. Phat writes:
Argument from popularity. Invalid. PRATT.
If we had numerous believers in Big Foot and the Spaghetti Monster running around behaving like Biblical Christians... Phat writes:
Which is a fallacy. I invoke the appeal to popularity"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Sure I can. A lot of us here have done that.
You cant simply expect me to critically evaluate the object of my faith/character of my belief as if He were just another Harry Potter character. Phat writes:
You should think about that and answer it for yourself. So explain to me why it would be a good thing if we had a world where nobody believed in any Gods/Sources By the way, Gods are not Sources. The human mind is the source of all gods.
Phat writes:
Yes I can. I've done it several times in this thread already. Why can't you give any coherent response?
You cant lump my one stand...my one belief which I stand on...and throw it in a pile with Santa believers and flat earth believers and Harry Potter believers. Phat writes:
Then you'd better start now when we've still got a little lifetime left.
Showing you the difference will likely involve a lifetime. Phat writes:
Copout.
The Spirit only moves in people. Phat writes:
We have a perfect score so far. Feel free to roll out the next victim.
But we have yet to prove that all apologists are dishonest Phat writes:
It has nothing to do with patience. Empty is empty; it doesn't take long to figure that out. What can take a long time is accepting what you know deep down is true. But I will also assert that some of us were more patient than you were and found substance in beliefs where you hastily found only emptiness. And I was not hasty. I've been thinking about this a lot longer than you have.
Phat writes:
If you can't back it up, that should be a strong indication that it isn't true.
Play devils advocate a moment. Can it even be backed up? Phat writes:
How can you make an argument defending Fred Flintstone over Homer Simpson? How would that argument be anything but empty?
How can you make an argument defending one God over other Gods? Phat writes:
False. Stupidly false. ... only one of them has an army of followers, evidence of changed lives, and many homeless getting fed, much spare change flowing, and positive creativity in general. ALL Gods have followers. Some of them have many more followers than yours.
Phat writes:
How so? It has never been refuted. 0<1000.
The assertion that Big Foot=Jesus is itself a PRATT. Phat writes:
Of course. If it is a fallacy for Biblical Christians it is a fallacy for non believers. And I'll remind you again that you are not a "Biblical Christian" since you reject the Bible as a "dusty old book".
Phat writes:
It's not a "claim". It's supported by evidence. "We" can all agree on what reality is, whether we're atheists or Christians or Jews or Muslims or whatever. You believers can't even agree on what your fantasy is like. You dont get to claim that you all live in reality while we all live in fantasy..."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Nope. Conclusion based on evidence. Even you understand that the OTHER gods are made up in human minds.
ringo writes: Speculation. Gods are not Sources. The human mind is the source of all gods. Phat writes:
As I've told you many times, I do NOT just want it to be true. It would be a comfort to me if there was a real god watching over me - but there isn't. You want this to be true yet you simply cannot prove it. And I DO have evidence that gods are made up in human minds. See above. Edited by ringo, : No reason given."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
drlove writes:
Yup. So now you believe that you can dismiss usual test times. It's not a rule. "Usual" does not mean "required". For example, it usually takes a couple of hours to solve the New York Times crossword puzzle. If somebody does it in less time, is that a bad thing? Is the solution invalid because it was done "too fast"?"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
What does that have to do with what you quoted? ringo writes: There are thousands of gods. Your apologist's claims do nothing to support one over the others. Thousands, eh? I may reject the book, but you reject Jesus...the central character. And no, I do not reject Jesus any more than I reject Long John Silver or Holden Caulfield. I accept Jesus' message and YOU reject it.
Phat writes:
Have you ever read anything I've posted? I do NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, try to get out of responsibility. I have no more responsibility to Jesus than I have to Long John Silver or Holden Caulfield - but I am responsible to my fellow man. I am my brother's keeper. YOU are the one who tries to get out of that responsibility by claiming that Jesus whispered in your ear that the dusty old book is wrong.
You claim a "get out of responsibility" card because you don't believe that Jesus is real or can help you. Phat writes:
And yet YOU are the one who is ALREADY disappointed - you readily admit that your made-up Jesus doesn't do anything concrete.
For all of you here at EvC who trust humans to be our collective higher power, I can only say that you WILL be disappointed. Phat writes:
On the contrary, as I have told you many times, if you could show any difference between your made-up god and any other made-up god I would gladly accept that your made-up god is different. You just can't convince me of something that is false.
ringo writes:
As long as you call ALL of them made-up, I can't convince you of anything. you can't show any difference between your made-up god and any other made-up god. Phat writes:
No, I do not "believe in" the Book. I believe in one particular message IN the Book. Why is it so hard for you to understand the most basic concepts? ringo writes: The human mind is the source of all gods. You do believe in the Dusty Old Book, so allow me to quote that. I believe in the message of "love thy neighbor" because it works in reality, not because it's in the Book. And your quote from Acts doesn't disagree with what I said.
Phat writes:
As I said. It's amazing how not much has changed. These days people still worship things made by men. Your quote from Acts might carry some weight if you didn't reject what the Book says about Jesus and make up your own self-serving Jesus. But the book of Acts is talking about YOU.
Phat writes:
Which God is that? The many versions of God in the Book? Or your made-up version?
God will not overlook such ignorance veiled behind education and "evidence". Phat writes:
The Book that you reject. The evidence is found in your Dusty Old Book. Seriously, how many feet can you get into your mouth at one time?
Phat writes:
Liar. See above.
You escape responsibility for placing yourself under God's authority because you are not a believer. Phat writes:
Stop it. I don't hold you to anything. I just wonder why you reject the only evidence we have for Jesus, the Bible.
You then turn around, hold me to giving everything.... Phat writes:
It is our only hope. Do you understanhd the difference between hope and wishful thinking? You wish Jesus would do it all for you but deep down you know He won't. He told you the same thing that I'm telling you: You have to do it yourself. ... essentially *worship* human potential and creativity as the sole hope for mankind.... You're responsible for your own "salvation". You gotta build your own ark because God ain't gonna do it for you. You gotta feed the hungry because Jesus ain't gonna do it for you. You ARE your own only hope.
Phat writes:
Yes, it is human-inspired. The only things it gets right are what humans get right. ... and scold me for ignoring a dusty old book which you yourselves believe was entirely human-inspired and compiled."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024