Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9076 total)
88 online now:
dwise1, Tangle (2 members, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,958 Year: 5,070/6,534 Month: 490/794 Week: 116/89 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief Versus The Scientific Method
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 26 of 513 (885298)
04-03-2021 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
04-03-2021 3:43 PM


Re: Peanut Gallery dogpiles Phat
Phat writes:

ringo would charge me with ignoring what He says to do in scripture.


Not only do you refuse to do what He said but you dismiss the Bible as a "dusty old book".

Phat writes:

I challenge and deny ringos assertion unless it is taken word for word literal...


I wouldn't use the word "literal" but I do insist that it says what it says. You assert that it doesn't mean what it says but you can't back up that assertion.

Phat writes:

...and I am failing simply because I refuse to give everything up.


You refuse to give ANYTHING up. You worship every word that cometh out of the mouths of the apologists even though you don't understand them.

Phat writes:

I dismiss ringos accusations due to the fact that he doesnt even believe in a character alive apart from the inked words and symbols within the book itself.


How many times do we have to go through this? I don't have to believe Frodo existed to know what he said. Why don't you address that point instead of just repeating the same old foolish accusation? If I claimed that Frodo was communing with me and telling me that the "dusty old book" was wrong, you'd think I was stark, staring mad. So why is your claim any different?

Phat writes:

He would argue that it doesnt matter whether the character of jesus is alive apart from the written word or not.


And that's another argument that you never address.

Phat writes:

He would say that i wont listen and do what Jesus says to do. I would argue that none are righteous...


None are righteous BECAUSE they don't do what Jesus said. It's not an excuse (see the case of sheep v goats).

Phat writes:

...and that no one does what Jesus said collectively to do.


That's blatantly false. As I have pointed out many times, the early church did it (see Ananias and Sapphira). And throughout history, many religious communities have done it, Christian and otherwise.

Stop repeating the same old same old falsehoods and address the responses.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-03-2021 3:43 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 04-04-2021 12:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 30 of 513 (885310)
04-04-2021 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
04-04-2021 12:07 PM


Re: Peanut Gallery dogpiles Phat
Phat writes:

But what you are essentially doing is acknowledging that I believe that Frodo exists and then attempting to hold me to the Frodo in the book...


It has nothing to do with me acknowledging your belief. It's about YOU rejecting my argument BECAUSE I don't believe. The whole point of bringing up Frodo is to try to get you to understand that my lack of belief in the character has nothing to do with my understanding of the character.

Phat writes:

And If I then claim that Frodo transcends the book and that a bit of Frodo exists in ALL of us...


Then you need to present something more than just a belief that Frodo is whispering in your ear (and telling you that Tolkien got it all wrong).

Phat writes:

Why accuse me? I channel my inner Frodo. All that you attempt to claim is that the dusty old book says what it says, period.


I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm pointing out that your inner Frodo IS just an inner Frodo with no basis in reality, not even any basis in the fantasy it's based on. Why do you call it Frodo at all? Why not call it Holden?

And do you see how silly your position looks when we substitute "Frodo" for "Jesus"?

Phat writes:

And never mind that there are more Frodos out there than simply the one in the Lord of the Rings. (or the Hobbit)


There really aren't.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 04-04-2021 12:07 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 04-04-2021 3:43 PM ringo has replied
 Message 211 by Phat, posted 01-06-2022 7:40 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 35 of 513 (885318)
04-05-2021 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
04-04-2021 3:43 PM


Re: Frodo Lives
Phat writes:

This shows me that you really *should* be a believer.


How so? I said that there's only one Frodo and you come out of left field with a statement that has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Frodo writes:

I think you reject it due to your pride on your own methodology that replaced your belief.


It isn't "my" methodology. It's THE methodology, the same methodology that YOU use for almost everything.

Phat writes:

Jesus is not simply a character in a book.


Yes he is. You wish he wasn't but he is.

Phat writes:

You cant tell me what my interpretation of the character must be by forcing me into your argumentative points.


I can demonstrate that your interpretation is made up in your head.

Phat writes:

I refuse to "throw away" Jesus (which is, by the way the silliest argument jar has ever brought forth.) It would be like throwing away Lincoln and believing in revisionist history!


Utter nonsense. We have all kinds of evidence that Lincoln existed. We're only a couple of generations away from people who knew him personally and did actually commune with him. Please don't make such a fool of yourself.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 04-04-2021 3:43 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 04-05-2021 11:47 AM ringo has seen this message
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 04-05-2021 2:51 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(4)
Message 41 of 513 (885329)
04-05-2021 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phat
04-05-2021 2:51 PM


Re: Frodo Lives
Phat writes:

Keyword: ALMOST.


Indeed. It's the "almost" that shoots you down. Do you use gasoline "almost" always in your car - and substitute GatorAde only on specific occasions?

Phat writes:

Not only is GOD more than a chaacter in a book...


Sure, he's thousands of characters in thousands of books.

Phat writes:

God is not on the same level as leprechauns, bigfoot, weird hindu deities bedecked with jewels, or old indian legends.


Blah blah blah.... You're just repeating an opinion. SHOW that he's not on the same level.

Phat writes:

As for "The" Methodology, I disagree with that claim. Science is not to be elevated above belief unless it objectively and conclusively refutes a prior assumption.


Which it does. The assumption that God creates thunder has been thoroughly refuted.

Phat writes:

He does not owe it to everybody to present Himself.


But you owe it to yourself to think about why he doesn't. And why the leprechauns don't.

Phat writes:

He gives them the roadmap and they must do the work to find Him.


You contradict yourself. You've said many times that he doesn't speak to everybody.

Or would the "road map" be the Bible - which you reject?

Phat writes:

Finally, you will get back to your primary accusation: That I don't do what the character in that dusty old book says to do. Thats a pretty brash statement coming from a guy who doesn't observe me or my habits on a daily basis.


YOU'RE the one who says you don't do it. YOU say it would be foolish to do it.

Phat writes:

But its insane to imaine that everybody on this planet could, would, and should give up everything they own...for each other.


READ. I'll type slowly so you can keep up: Nobody said anything about everybody on the planet. The instruction is to CHRISTIANS.

Phat writes:

Your defense is that there are select groups of christians throughout History who have done just that.


It's not "my defense". I point it out when you say it can't be done. I point out that you are factually wrong.

Phat writes:

And why dont you do it?


Because I don't believe Jesus will take care of me. Obviously, neither do you.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 04-05-2021 2:51 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 04-05-2021 3:44 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 52 of 513 (885341)
04-05-2021 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Phat
04-05-2021 3:44 PM


Re: Frodo Lives
Phat writes:

Why should you get to sit around in a warm house while I shiver under a bridge due to the fact that I gave up mine?


Becuse that's what Jesus told you to do. It's the straight and narrow way.

Phat writes:

Jesus gave me the brains to keep my house for now.


He gave you the brains to ignore what he told you to do? That's an odd thing to say.

Phat writes:

He likely knows darn well that a guy in a warm house...perhaps even a guy who doesn't believe in Him...is far better equipped to give out spare change to His children under the bridge.


That doesn't make any sense. A house is worth a lot of spare change.

Phat writes:

A sheep cannot pull a sheep out of a ditch if it too is in the ditch.


He can push.

Phat writes:

A guy under a bridge cant very well help anyone....


Here's a story for you: Last summer, I was sitting outside the library using the wifi. I had just put my phone away and was sitting there getting ready to get up when a guy that I would have thought was homeless offered me a dollar. I had quite a time convincing him that I didn't need it.

So yes, homeless people can be generous, even if it's only with two mites.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 04-05-2021 3:44 PM Phat has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 61 of 513 (885350)
04-06-2021 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
04-06-2021 8:23 AM


Re: Apologists are us
Phat writes:

I tend to favor....


Taking up your cross daily and following Jesus is not about what YOU favor.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 04-06-2021 8:23 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 04-07-2021 2:25 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 65 of 513 (885358)
04-07-2021 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Phat
04-07-2021 2:25 PM


Re: Apologists are us
Phat writes:

So I attempt a bit of levity...


What levity?

Phat writes:

... and am essentially told to get busy and embrace suffering. What are you? Channeling Jesus?


I have never promised you anything but blood, sweat, toil and tears - as opposed to the aplogists who promise you a get-out-of-hell-free card and secret messages from Jesus with no effort required on your part.

Yes, life is hard, especially when you consider the hardships in the other guy's life.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 04-07-2021 2:25 PM Phat has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 70 of 513 (885364)
04-08-2021 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
04-08-2021 9:00 AM


Re: One For AZ
Phat writes:

Also:
10 Quick reasons you shouldn’t be so quick to write off Christianity

Feel free to challenge, scoff, and trash this.


Okay.

It's thinly-veiled creationism. And even IF the universe had a beginning, was finely tuned, yadda yadda yadda, that might suggest a creator but it has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

If you think you can defend any of that tripe, go ahead.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 04-08-2021 9:00 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 04-08-2021 1:37 PM ringo has seen this message
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 04-08-2021 1:58 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 78 of 513 (885374)
04-08-2021 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phat
04-08-2021 1:58 PM


Re: Though some are PRATTS, the worldview is defended
Phat writes:

I dont see anything suggesting creationism...


Oh come on, I gave you two examples - the universe had a beginning and it's fine-tuned.

Phat writes:

...unless perhaps you are worried that any argument that supports the Christian God assumes creationism to begin with.


Neither of those arguments supports the Christian God. They could apply to any god.

Phat writes:

What I DO is I read the arguments and form my own beliefs and opinions or hone and revise the beliefs I already hold.


Then why can't you make the arguments in your own words?

Phat writes:

(Ringo is careful to distance this concept from the Christian God, for some reason)


Because it has nothing to do with the Christian God specifically. If you think any other god is excluded, you need to explain why.

Christianity far from being a crutch for the weak grew and continues to spread during times of intense persecution.

PRATT.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 04-08-2021 1:58 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Phat, posted 04-11-2021 9:39 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 81 of 513 (885403)
04-11-2021 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Phat
04-11-2021 9:39 AM


Re: Though some are PRATTS, the worldview is defended
Phat writes:

It may not be fine tuned, but it most definitely had a beginning. Science even supports that currently.


Which has nothing to do with Christianity.

Phat writes:

There is only one God (If any) and there is no reason it couldnt be the Christian God. Specifically.


There are thousamds of gods. Your apologist's claims do nothing to support one over the others.

Phat writes:

It takes me a while to learn the arguments and counter-arguments well enough to articulate them in combination with my evolving beliefs in my own words.


So learn them and present them in your own words.

Phat writes:

As I said before, no other Gods exist.


I asked for an explanation, not an empty opinion.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Phat, posted 04-11-2021 9:39 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 04-11-2021 1:14 PM ringo has replied
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 04-12-2021 1:08 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 96 of 513 (885520)
04-16-2021 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Phat
04-11-2021 1:14 PM


Re: Though some are PRATTS, the worldview is defended
Phat writes:

An empty opinion is but a belief.


And vice versa, a belief is but an empty opinion, like one's favorite flavor of ice cream.

Phat writes:

We all have them, and some of us rely on them more than others.


But we shouldn't "rely" on them. They're not reliable.

Phat writes:

I submit that it is impossible to defend either the idea that One God or many gods exist.


That's what I've been telling you for years.

Phat writes:

You are asking me to become either a science fiction writer or a contrarian skeptic such as yourself.


Either would be preferable to an empty believer.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 04-11-2021 1:14 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 04-22-2021 9:07 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 97 of 513 (885521)
04-16-2021 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Phat
04-12-2021 1:08 AM


Re: Though some are PRATTS, the worldview is defended
Phat writes:

There are only thousands of gods within human imaginations.


Yup. That's the only place there are any. Even IF there is a creator of all thigs seen and unseen, there is no way for anybody to know anything about him/her/it. Everything you think you know about him/her/it is the product of human imagination.

Phat writes:

And before you mock me for claiming to know the One God, ask yourself why any God is possible, pick one blindfolded, and then ask whether or not you choose to believe your pick is likely or unlikely.


That's what YOU should be doing.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 04-12-2021 1:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Phat, posted 04-21-2021 2:21 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 99 of 513 (885651)
04-21-2021 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Phat
04-21-2021 2:21 PM


Re: Though some are PRATTS, the worldview is defended
Phat writes:

Did it ever occur to any of you that this mysterious "God" whom we speak of would allow us to know?


Don't assume that nothing occurs to anybody but you.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Phat, posted 04-21-2021 2:21 PM Phat has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 103 of 513 (885674)
04-22-2021 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Phat
04-22-2021 3:21 AM


Re: Luke 4 yet again Phat
Phat writes:

So you have thought about it.


If I ask YOU whether you have thought about something, it's because you've said something that indicates you haven't thought about it. For example, I have to wonder if you have really thought about the difference between your God and other Gods because you can never give a valid example of the difference.

Phat writes:

The God I create exists even if I never existed.


That's just a detail of the story that you made up, like Long John Silver only having one leg.

Phat writes:

That, my friend, is not an empty belief nor simply a subjective opinion.


It certainly is. You can't just claim that Long John Silver really did have only one leg even if Robert Louis Stevenson never existed.

Phat writes:

You and ringo cant simply use the silly argument of (insert God of choice here.


Of course we can, because you can't show any difference between your made-up god and any other made-up god.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 04-22-2021 3:21 AM Phat has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19604
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 104 of 513 (885676)
04-22-2021 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Phat
04-22-2021 9:07 AM


Re: Yet Another Attempt To Further reframe my arguments
Phat writes:

A belief is not simply a subjective opinion.


Says your subjective opinion.

Phat writes:

You seem to think that without evidence beliefs become "empty."


They don't "become" empty. They start out empty and without evidence they stay empty.

Phat writes:

The type of evidence which you seek is objective. Right or wrong?


ALL evidence is objective. When will you learn that? I've told you many times.

Phat writes:

ringo writes:

But we shouldn't "rely" on them. (unevidenced beliefs)They're not reliable.


Why not?

Because they disagree with other unevidenced beliefs.

Phat writes:

Yes, but you continue to try and push the idea that an undefendable idea/belief is no closer to the truth than is a unicorn, a Big-foot, or a Spaghetti Monster.


And you continue to fail to show that I'm wrong.

Phat writes:

Dont you realize how silly you sound?


You're the only one here who sounds silly. If you think there is a difference, you have to show us what the difference is.

Phat writes:

To start with, I will first move that this God should be known also as Jesus. Any objections?


Of course I have objections. You might as well say that this God should be known also as Holden Caulfield. It's nonsensical.

Phat writes:

It is pretty clear why you stopped believing. You preferred honest unbelief over what you call empty belief.


And why would anybody prefer dishonesty?

Phat writes:

But you should not then lump every single believer (those who chose what you define as empty belief) as engaging in fantasy over reality.


Why not? How is fantasy different from fantasy?

Phat writes:

There is in my opinion quite a bit of evidence..(however subjective)...


No such thing as subjective evidence.

Phat writes:

... that Jesus existed...


Very little evidence. And remember that you reject what the Bible says about Jesus.

Phat writes:

and was quite an influential figure in human history.


A fictional character can be influential, especially if people believe he is real.

Phat writes:

Care to argue that one or can we move on?


I'll argue it till the cows come home. Why don't you address my arguments?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 04-22-2021 9:07 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Phat, posted 04-22-2021 10:15 PM ringo has replied
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 01-05-2022 12:09 PM ringo has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022