2 questions to ask a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 12:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Since almost every secular person still uses Lawrence Krauss as an authority for the definition of "nothing" because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about - It's hard to have a conversation with someone just asking if they would understand that there then becomes two separate definitions of nothing.

Here's an interesting concept that I think is overlooked; When talking with people that agree with your point-of-view, we tend to be easier on them, even when they are being fallacious in their arguments or propositions. Sometimes we will even overlook major flaws in what someone is saying just for the sake of being consistent.
I see this with the Lawrence Krauss proposition. If I simply want to have a conversation with a skeptic about the nature of what Lawrence is saying, the first thing I say - "Is it agreed that we now have more than one definition of 'nothing' being this is the case?" - is shut down.
Lawrence, being that he happens to deeply ridicule religion like the skeptic enjoys so much, they then switch their mindset to overlook any problems in the argument he might have.

The example of the Omnipotence Paradox argument we were having is a pretty good example. Only because the concept goes against a persons consistency, and is presented by someone they don't agree with, they will only say that I myself am changing a definition and try-hard to shut down what I'm saying.
The Omnipotence Paradox Thread has led me to a much better understanding of a major Atheist standpoint; Biased and illogical when presented with ideas that break their consistency.
Coming here, I had thought the average Atheist to be hugely consistent in the laws of logic. Then the Omnipotence Paradox Thread. For some reason, it then became OK to use contradictions and logic-breaking concepts in a definition. I can tell it was only because it supported the persons view. People like Vosur will accuse me of twisting my ideals in order to fit my worldview. Then him and his own kind do the exact same thing when presented with a problem like Omnipotence.
But hey, I'm no Krauss right?

A good question that I think needs to be asked is: When the definition of "Omnipotence" was developed, do you really think that the people creating that definition were also trying to include non-doable things? Is it really reasonable to believe that? It is when you're talking to a Theist and don't want to lose your footing on a particular viewpoint.

Because the average Atheist will never accept defeat on any particular item threatening their worldview consistency, some conversations will continue to make no sense or progress.
The same obviously goes for the Theist, and since I know that, I often look for ways to prove myself wrong.
Egor 2.0? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2012 02:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Impulse,
I hope you know that all this BS about sin being the opposite of god is just Idiot's personal opinion. It's not at all the traditional position of any sect in Christianity. It's what they would consider "heresy". He's entitled to his opinion. He does not, in any way, represent Christianity, other than his unusual personal opinions. Anyone can come here and make up shit, and pretend to be a Christian, (just like Joseph Smith did, when he invented Mormonism). And in fact, since hisotically Christianity only arises in community, with ideas validated by community, it actually means he's not even Christian.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 01:30 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 01:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Impulse,
I hope you know that all this BS about sin being the opposite of god is just Idiot's personal opinion. It's not at all the traditional position of any sect in Christianity. It's what they would consider "heresy". He's entitled to his opinion. He does not, in any way, represent Christianity, other than his unusual personal opinions. Anyone can come here and make up shit, and pretend to be a Christian, (just like Joseph Smith did, when he invented Mormonism).
Bucky Ball, thanks yes I do know that about Christianity. It's the point I'm trying to get IFC to understand and why I asked him way back in this thread how he reconciles that with his statement that he is Christian. It's definitely inconsistent so I wonder where his opinion comes from. I'm also not sure that he realizes it's not what any sect of Christianity teaches.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 01:35 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  I would love to know some of the reasons for not beleiving in God.

That's the run of the mill misconception and "fallacy of the further assertion" of theists about atheism. One does not need/have reasons for NOT believing in god. Do YOU have reasons for not believeing there is a 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto ? What a-theists need is 1 good reason for the positive assertion in the first place, AND why and how that leads to any 1 particualr god.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 01:37 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 01:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-09-2012 09:08 AM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  I would love to know some of the reasons for not beleiving in God.

That's the run of the mill misconception and "fallacy of the further assertion" of theists about atheism. One does not need/have reasons for NOT believing in god. Do YOU have reasons for not believeing there is a 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto ? What a-theists need is 1 good reason for the positive assertion in the first place, AND why and how that leads to any 1 particualr god.
You should ask him why he doesn't believe in Allah. Wink

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
30-09-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Good, because quite frankly, your approach sucks.

Most of the distaste for me on this forum doesn't seem to stem from any dishonesty on my part, but more from the general fact that I simply concluded with God's existence.
Before I had revealed that I was a Theist, I was well on my way to being friends with almost all of you. Said the words "I believe God exists" and the whole environment changed dramatically.
I can tell quite adamantly from this kind of behavior that so many of you automatically brand the person that believes in Gods existence with "delusional".

I can also tell from your statement "Your approach sucks" that my conclusion deters how you view me. I can tell because there are so many Atheists on here that I watch you converse with that have a much worse approach than myself, and you don't have this same thing to say about them.

(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I recall participating in several debates, such as the Resurrection thread, the Omnipotence thread, the Benevolence thread, the Compelling Evidence for Christianity thread. All times, you leave, claiming to "search for more evidence", but you never return.

Why is this a bad thing?
Many others that bombard your forum, don't they behave in a more barbaric or arrogant way?
Would you rather I act like them and pretend to have an answer? No matter what approach I take, you're unsatisfied until I drop my belief in God, aren't you? That just makes me not want to take you seriously at all.

(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  As for the semantics, that was non-existent in my argument. You were attempting to redefine the word "omnipotent", and I told you not to do so.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, both parties can be viewed as trying to redefine Omnipotence.
I was trying to take a more logical stance in saying that 'everything' does not necessarily include self-contradicting state of affairs.
The other side was trying to say that it does, and that I was redefining the word.
How can you say that you were not also redefining the word, but only say that I was? Bias is how, and you have plenty of it towards someone like me. And all I did was believe in God.


(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You also like to avoid important questions and run away from a strong opposition.

The important questions are the one that deserve more attention and detail. The strong opposition you might be talking about is more like a biased attack at my worldview. So far, I've seen stronger opposition on general debate websites.
To me, a strong opposition is not someone being witty and putting their words together to sound superior. A strong opposition is a proposition that strongly questions the opposers viewpoint to an almost definite degree that has been given great attention and detail in order to justly cover every point raised.
The approach of yourself is about like your responses here; Short and bias-driven.


(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Irrelevant. If you start a debate, you finish it.

Really? Have you ever done that before? Ended a debate with the other person undoubtedly seeing things from your viewpoint and thereby changing their minds while you stand without any questions whatsoever?
If I don't finish a debate, it's usually because I've been shown information that I didn't have previous knowledge of that perhaps challenges my worldview. That usually is a good indication that I need to do more research, not continue debating about it. That would cause someone to be fake and throw a bunch of lies around. That's childish and irresponsible.


(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Yes, I see many a flaw in your ridiculous conviction. Yet, whenever an opposing argument is presented to you, you seem to crumble. You run away, lying about getting "more evidence" for you argument. Several times, such as the Omnipotence thread, I have shown to you that it is impossible for your deity to be Omnipotent. You used Thomas Aquinas' flawed logic, and I showed you the fallacy in said logic. You ran away.

What you see as someone "crumbling" may actually be an appropriate response in some cases. You seem to see it as a weakness when I say I don't know what you're talking about and will do some research at the chance I get before I go further.
And what you think is me running away, is more like my inability to deal with people that claim to follow the laws of logic, and then don't use it themselves. A conversation, after that point, then becomes useless.

(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If you truly had serious doubts about your theological stance, you would not be a theist.

Is this true? So what's your logic? Either don't be a skeptic of my own viewpoint and stay a Theist delusionally, or just become an Atheist at the first sign of doubt?
You're seriously hard to talk to Dodgy

(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Too bad you can't obtain the truth as a theist.

See how ridiculously biased you can be?
It's as if it is an absolute fact that as long as I believe God exists or even that his existence is more probable then, by your statement, I can never obtain the truth. I believe this is the bias that keeps people from ever questioning their own belief in order to screen out the bad ideas and learn better ones.

(30-09-2012 01:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(29-09-2012 06:06 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So Logica, if I find a legitimate sound flaw in my belief, I WILL admit it.
But just because you think something is a flaw, doesn't mean you're right. The same goes for me. But at least I'm still searching for the answer.

You must be trying to redefine the word "legitimate", my friend. Drinking Beverage

Hows that? I need education to find legitimate flaws. I need research and better understanding. If something is illegitimate, it will never be seen as legitimate if I'm being unbiased.
Do you ever think that you are possibly wrong? I do, all the time. If you don't - you are automatically subject to bias.
I talk about bias a lot, I know. But that's because it's what causes people to be irrational and to keep people from getting closer to the truth about life.
I think bias is a major problem with just about everyone.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 02:03 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2012 02:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 12:52 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Since almost every secular person still uses Lawrence Krauss as an authority for the definition of "nothing" because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about - It's hard to have a conversation with someone just asking if they would understand that there then becomes two separate definitions of nothing.

There are two, at least, definitions of "nothing".

Krauss has demonstrated that in this universe there is no such thing. What there may be apert from this universe, is not known yet.

The Philosphical discussion of nothingness is more than just about 2 definitions.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ . It may just be all nonsence, which was conceptually based in the past, on a cognitive percetion of emtpy space, (which we now know is not really empty). Until anyone proves to me, or provides 1 reason that there really is "nothingness" in Reality, it's dismissed, as far as I'm concerned. It's a cognitive fiction. Where did the idea of "nothingness" come from, in the first place ? (It's not real).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 02:15 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 02:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There are two, at least, definitions of "nothing".

Krauss has demonstrated that in this universe there is no such thing. What there may be apert from this universe, is not known yet.

The Philosphical discussion of nothingness is more than just about 2 definitions.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ . It may just be all nonsence, which was conceptually based in the past, on a cognitive percetion of emtpy, space, (which we now know is not really empty). Until anyone proves to me, or provides 1 reason that there really is "nothingness" in Reality, it's dismissed, as far as I'm concerned. It's a cognitive fiction. Where did the idea of "nothingness" come from, in the first place ? (It's not real).

You're quite right about that. A literal nothing is something that, if it really is nothing, would have to be outside of space and time since the entirety of space is all something in one regard or another.

As far as what is outside space, I don't know if we will ever know what is out there, but the ideas of multi-verses and so on can only be taken as theories. Some take them as factual, and I can't stand that.
Whatever is outside of space and time is currently unknown and could actually fit the definition of a literal nothing for all we know.
Smile

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 02:18 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
1. If God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent (as he is according to doctrine), why is there evil in the world?

2. Is God able to create a paradise where we have free will, but lack sin/evil (aka heaven)?

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 02:23 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Quote:It doesn't matter how you slice it, both parties can be viewed as trying to redefine Omnipotence.

Umm, no. You were redefining a definition which was already defined as the ability to do anything, or everything. If the ability to do ANYTHING(EVERYTHING) is at the least bit accurate, It should include self-contradictory things as well.

This is our definition: Omnipotence: The ability to do anything; the ability to do everything.

This is yours: the ability to do anything(Except self contradicting things); the ability to do everything( Except self contradicting things)

You exclude the self contradicting because it is your view that everything is only "That which can be done." While we see everything as " an inclusion of ALL things.

You may have "solved" the Rock-paradox by simply twisting the term, but you have already lost, and we have lost as well. Let me explain. your version of omnipotence is not ours, nor does it fit our criteria for omnipotence so it, by our definition(which we believe to be the most accurately implied), it is not omnipotence, and we see your attempt at "expanding" on the word as a failure of the God paradox, and thus you have given up "Omnipotence."( by our definition of the word.)

Now, since you clearly think your definition is right, in your mind, you have succeed in thwarting the God-Rock Paradox, which is why it can't be an argument if it just is semantics between the parties. You have (tried) to redefine "Omnipotence" to something that fits into the God-Rock Paradox, but we see what you are doing and are against you changing, or "Expanding( whichever you prefer)on, the word itself.

Some of us just see it as a "lets change the word" argument, and some of us think that is very cheap and underhanded.

That's all I am saying about that.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: