Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition please
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 13 of 164 (182318)
02-01-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by riVeRraT
02-01-2005 6:12 AM


Re: Yourself
The proof of God's existence is the behavior of individuals... but only how it affects themselves?
That's inane. Exactly what individual behaviors are evidence of a deity? Which are not? Are all behaviors such evidence or only some? How does one tell the difference?
Finally, how exactly is any sort of behavior evidence of a deity? Can you show that a given behavior is indicative of said deity and cannot be explained by the vast variety of human behavior produced naturalistically?
Believe what you want, but when you start talking about proof, you better bring something other then personal opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 6:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-01-2005 12:17 PM mikehager has not replied
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 5:54 PM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 19 of 164 (182422)
02-01-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
02-01-2005 5:54 PM


Re: Yourself
The proof is your own personal opinion.
Actually, no it isn't. Personal opinion is personal opinion. Proof is proof, verfiable independent of the perceptions of any one individual.
You are also correct that everything "supernatural" can be explained away. So, why do you believe in this "supernatural" nonesense?
Read the bible, and then make comparisons to real life, you'll figure it out on your own. "If" God is real, you'll find him.
Excellent! I had no idea it was so simple. I have read the Bible several times. I still see belief in any deity as self deception, so I think it safe to say that I did not find the "god" you refer. So, by your logic we may safely infer that the god in the Bible does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 02-01-2005 5:54 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 02-01-2005 7:58 PM mikehager has not replied
 Message 23 by riVeRraT, posted 02-02-2005 6:11 AM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 65 of 164 (183806)
02-07-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by riVeRraT
02-02-2005 6:11 AM


Re: Yourself
By what I say, does that prove that God exist? No
By what you say, does it prove that God doesn't exist? No
Then why do you believe in this "God"? No answer needed, I don't care. Believe what you will.
However, when you said,
Your on the right track. The proof is your own personal opinion.
you stepped into another area. Proof is one thing and your beliefs are another. I know several small children who believe in Santa. Is that proof of Santa's existence? No, and your belief, or anyone's belief, in some deity is no kind of proof, in spite of what you said.
It is also interesting to note that you are directly contradicting yourself in the two passages above. Do you know what you're trying to say? It seems you are unclear on even that, given the self-contradictory positions you take.
Finally, in response toy your three insulting questions:
I am old enough.
My upbringing is apparently better then yours, judging by these questions.
None of your damned business.
I will not participate in some simple minded lead on to meaningless ad hominum attacks. Why don't you try replying to the fact that by your own logic, it can be demonstrated that your deity doesn'y exist?
The lateness of this reply is due to my being away from home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by riVeRraT, posted 02-02-2005 6:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by riVeRraT, posted 02-08-2005 7:27 AM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 67 of 164 (183929)
02-08-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by riVeRraT
02-08-2005 7:27 AM


Re: Yourself
I did make a very simple demonstration. You said that by reading the bible one would come to know that your idea of God exists. I pointed out that I have read the bible and I do not accept your idea of God, so by your logic, he does not exist. You still aren't sddressing that. Do you accept my point or admit to an error? You really have no other choices, save continued avoidance.
Yes, your business is damned in the sense I was using the word. In this case, your questions are rude and inpertinent and irrelevant and a clear attempt to find something you can use to dismiss me.
"Everyone has to find the lord on their own"? Why don't you try saving the arrogance and condescenscion and actually reply. Was your statement to me one you stand by, in which case you must admit that it argues against the existence of your deity, or do you admit to your statement being factually incorrect and not an accurate reflection of your actual position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by riVeRraT, posted 02-08-2005 7:27 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 02-09-2005 8:03 AM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 69 of 164 (184087)
02-09-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by riVeRraT
02-09-2005 8:03 AM


Re: Yourself
That is incredibly facile. The attitude amongst theists that they are not only right and know universal truth but that everyone must inevitably come to agree with them is one of the more undesirable traits they posess.
You have moved the question back a bit in time but still not replied to it. All that is needed is a person who read the Bible and led a full, long life, having never accepted the god of the King James Version or whatever. Very well. I give you two, my Father and Grandfather. I am sure there are more that I can find if I need to.
You are left where you were, Rat.People exist that have read the bible and have since died. So, is the original statement that sparked this discussion true or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 02-09-2005 8:03 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by riVeRraT, posted 02-09-2005 7:07 PM mikehager has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 73 of 164 (184228)
02-09-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by riVeRraT
02-09-2005 7:28 PM


Re: Yourself
So now you are making a distinction between reading and comprehension which did not occur in your original statment. You also say that if a person reads the Bible and comprehends they will see your truth and if they read and do not come to your conclusions, they have not properly comprehended it. Try comprehending this... you are engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Why is it so hard for you to simply say that you were wrong? You change terms, (read to comprehend), apply idiosyncratic definitions (comprehend means to reach the same conclusions you did from a given text), and generally avoid the basic point.
Way back in message 17, you said:
Read the bible, and then make comparisons to real life, you'll figure it out on your own. "If" God is real, you'll find him.
I pointed out the simple fact that I had read the bible and so, by your own logic, since I did not "find" and do not believe in god, he is not real. All you have to do is admit that you were wrong in making that statement, if you do not accept my disbelief after meeting your requirements as evidence that god does not exist. You set the test, I applied it and reported the results. Either accept the results or admit your test was in error.
You go on to say:
What I can offer you is someone to talk to about it. Should you ever have questions comprehending the bible, from my humble Christian perspective...
There is nothing "humble" about your perspective at all. You offer only arrogant self assurance and still provide no good defense for your views beyond "I am so right, and if you knew anything you would agree with me, and as you grow older and wiser you may well come to agree with me, and I feel sorry for you if you don't because you'll regret it". Show me exactly what is humble about thinking you are absolutely right in every regard and anyone who disgrees is wrong and will come around if only they will let themselves.
I was happy to read the following:
I think the best thing to do is spend some time in prayer to ask God what it all means. The power of prayer is great. God will speak to you.
Another test! I will do it and report my results, as well as my remembrance of my past efforts in the same vein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by riVeRraT, posted 02-09-2005 7:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by riVeRraT, posted 02-10-2005 7:00 AM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 75 of 164 (184380)
02-10-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by riVeRraT
02-10-2005 7:00 AM


Re: Yourself
Actually you did say what I rephrased. Shall I quote and link it?
The point of the whole conversation, and my original statement is to encourage you to read the bible, so that you may believe. I get nothing from it. I think your a smart person, and should come to know God
Um... no. You made a statement of fact and I took issue with it. As to your encouragement, I do not need it, having read the bible, and do not want it, having no interest in living a life based on deception.
All that is unimportant. You made a statement of fact that I showed to be false several times and in several ways. Yet still you refuse to admit that you were simply wrong. You backpedal, try to change the subject and everything else you can do to keep from simply saying "I was wrong, it is not a fact that reading the Bible will result in belief." Instead, we get this from you:
It doesn't matter if I am wrong or right, I do not care.
It does matter, because that is all this exchange is about. I do not care for your insulting attempts at witnessing to me. Also, it isn't true. If you didn't care, you would admit your error.
Finally, you have likely never felt about the Bible like I do and it is typically presumptious of you to think you can know how I feel about it. How about you stop with the senseless and useless preaching and respond like the adult you claim to be? Yes or no, plain and simple, do you still maintain the truth of your original statement that began this exchange? An answer on that and commentary on that point only is all I am interested in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by riVeRraT, posted 02-10-2005 7:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 02-10-2005 4:28 PM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 77 of 164 (184447)
02-10-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by riVeRraT
02-10-2005 4:28 PM


Re: Yourself
Wow. You really, really don't like admitting you're wrong, do you? I began this exchange with one goal, taking issue with you over one statement. You have avoided the question repeatedly and I have persisted. That makes it a childish big deal? No. That's all this has been about.
You made the statement. I challenged it. This should have been simple, but you have made it otherwise and I am not going to let you go on this point.
All of your unimportant prattle and quoted poetry aside, you offer the following:
Do we agree that reading should include comprehending?
Do not they test you in school on your comprehension when you read something?
If you do not comprehend it, should you not read it again?
Yes, yes, and yes, but the line of reasoning indicated by these questions is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy (see below), as I pointed out earlier. Need I explain why again?
I am not wrong, and it still doen't matter.
You are either wrong or your argument supports an atheistic position, for the reasons I have shown. It does matter because that is all this discussion is about. To repeat the pertinent points, you said:
Read the bible, and then make comparisons to real life, you'll figure it out on your own. "If" God is real, you'll find him
I showed, by the simple expedient of pointing out that I had read the bible and did not find god, that either your argument supported the propositon that god does not exist or you were in error in proposing it. When you finally responded, it was with this:
To read the bible is to comprehend it. If you don't then you really aren't going to find God then are you?
Which I pointed was a fallacy. Your definition of comprehension of the bible or any other text is not the only one.
Yet now, you claim that you were in fact right from the start. Care to demonstrate that? How are my arguments wrong? In light of my arguments, how can your position be correct?
Stop preaching to me. I'm quite tired of it. Answer the actual questions I have posed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 02-10-2005 4:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by riVeRraT, posted 02-10-2005 11:06 PM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 79 of 164 (184504)
02-11-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by riVeRraT
02-10-2005 11:06 PM


Re: Yourself
You are done? Well, of course you are. Cut and run if you will, those of us who debate with theists are quite used to it.
Well, all of my unimportant prattle and quoted poetry, was from the bible. If you read it, you would have known that.
Well, at least we agree that it was unimportant, as is clearly indicated by it's source, and since you admit it's unimportance, you will understand that I skimmed it at best. I payed attention to the small parts of the post where you actually said something.
Of course, not, because you left out the compare to real life part.
Something all atheists are famous for, and thats taking things out of conext to prove what? Nothing I guess, because it's all sillyness. You need ALL the pieces of the puzzle to see the larger picture mike.
In the same passage you accuse me of taking things out of context and then pull out one semantic point that is entirely invalid. Had you asked rather then assuming you know everything already, I could have told you that I of course had compared it to real life and did not find your god, so my point remains.
You also continue to use a fallacious argument, so I will again explain your error. Perhaps another chorus of the song will let it sink in. It was your contention (and I shall find the quote if requested) that if one reads the bible and does not find god, then one did not properly comprehend it. This is what is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the classic description of which is:
Person one: All true Scotsman drink whiskey.
Person two: Angus is a Scotsman and he does not drink whiskey.
Person One: Then Angus is no true Scotsman.
In our case it is:
Rat: All people who read and comprehend the bible find god.
Mike: I read and comprehended the bible and did not find god.
Rat: Then you did not truly "comprehend".
Understand? I hope so. Buy the way, you may rely utterly on my reading skills. They are quite good.
Also, I think my charges of arrogance have been in some degree affirmed by you declaring your own words (in spite of the clear falsehood, which I demonstrated before and here again) to be as you put it, "beatiful words of wisdom".
So, as I said, cut and run if you will, but leave knowing you have never really responded to a simple criticism. I wonder if you can really not respond and stand exposed as not only wrong and unwilling to admit it, but also unwilling to even think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by riVeRraT, posted 02-10-2005 11:06 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by AdminNosy, posted 02-11-2005 12:28 AM mikehager has replied
 Message 81 by riVeRraT, posted 02-11-2005 7:28 AM mikehager has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 82 of 164 (184564)
02-11-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by AdminNosy
02-11-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Be cool
You are correct, AdminNosy. Determined and willful ignorance will always get my nose out of joint. I will withdraw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by AdminNosy, posted 02-11-2005 12:28 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 83 of 164 (184567)
02-11-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by riVeRraT
02-11-2005 7:28 AM


Re: Yourself
As I told AdminNosy, I will withdraw, and you are free to have the last word. The fact remains that you made a false, over-reaching statement abd then refused to back it up or support it in any valid way and then refused to admit to your error.
As I said, your willful ignorance has annoyed me to the point that I cannot be civil. Good day to you and enjoy your tiny, demon-haunted world.
This message has been edited by mikehager, 02-11-2005 11:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by riVeRraT, posted 02-11-2005 7:28 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by riVeRraT, posted 02-12-2005 6:55 PM mikehager has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 88 of 164 (184791)
02-13-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by CK
02-12-2005 7:15 PM


Re: Yourself
I appreciate your comments, Charles. I haved been forced to withdraw from this, as you may have read, because I have reached a point with Rat where I cannot be civil, but thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by CK, posted 02-12-2005 7:15 PM CK has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 104 of 164 (184939)
02-13-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by daaaaaBEAR
02-13-2005 2:57 PM


Re: Definition please.....
what do you think makes pieces on a Oujia board move?
Either the other person messing with you or self delusion.
"Witch" in christian myth means someone who has friendly traffic with demons or the devil to recieve temporal power, generally in exchange for their souls. Wicca is a whole other mythology. The two are not even remotely the same.
You talk about demons and other such things as if belief in them is both reasonable and commonly accepted. It is neither.
Finally, your claim that a thing should be believed because it cannot be disproved is ridiculous, but others have pointed that out quite effectively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 02-13-2005 2:57 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 131 of 164 (185096)
02-14-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Phat
02-14-2005 10:48 AM


Re: Definition please.....
And with this prayer god will reveal himself in an unambiguous manner? Okay, I will try it...
Nothing. How surprising. I'm afraid your incantation didn't work, Phatboy. Of course, the position will be taken that I wasn't sincere enough or some other equally unprovable and convienent dodge will be provided.
It's like the demon thing a few posts back as pointed out be Schrafinator, an entirely unprovable, self-referential claim. How can adults believe this stuff? Do you also believe in Santa, Phatboy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Phat, posted 02-14-2005 10:48 AM Phat 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