Apples and Oranges
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 01:07 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 11:34 AM)wtfbbq Wrote:  I hope you aren't jesting with me at this point, because I don't really understand (9), and I said earlier that leaving these things untouched is what lead to the misunderstanding. Luckily patience is the way of the Sith. I mean the Jedi. Eh, either works.

(10) how does a radical conversation cause you to have faith in the Christian God?
11) I don't want to go into the long drawn out story of my conversation. I didn't believe in God, and in an instant, that all changed... nothing drastic happened - no life altering event - just God changing my heart and who I was. I didn't understand who this "God" was until I read certain parts of the Bible.
That's cheating isn't it? "certain parts of the bible". I was under the impression it was accept the whole thing, that includes a giant flood, a giant, human kind is just on one big time out after eating an apple etc..., or go home sort of book.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 08:22 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 08:17 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 01:07 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  11) I don't want to go into the long drawn out story of my conversation. I didn't believe in God, and in an instant, that all changed... nothing drastic happened - no life altering event - just God changing my heart and who I was. I didn't understand who this "God" was until I read certain parts of the Bible.
That's cheating isn't it? "certain parts of the bible". I was under the impression it was accept the whole thing, that includes a giant flood, a giant, human kind is just on one big time out after eating an apple etc..., or go home sort of book.
It's not, but it should be. Too many people (KC, especially) play apologetic acrobatics with the Bible. The parts they don't like, they call myths, parables or object lessons. The parts they like is God-breathed inspiration. They don't seem to see the fallacy of their own approach to the Bible, but instead keep arguing their theology from the parts that give them a spiritual erection.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2012 08:40 PM by wtfbbq.)
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 08:22 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  It's not, but it should be. Too many people (KC, especially) play apologetic acrobatics with the Bible. The parts they don't like, they call myths, parables or object lessons. The parts they like is God-breathed inspiration. They don't seem to see the fallacy of their own approach to the Bible, but instead keep arguing their theology from the parts that give them a spiritual erection.
This is what I'm trying to argue is a mistake on the part of the atheists; instead of giving up here, you need to go deeper into what justifies all of this to the theist in the first place.



(25-04-2012 07:54 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Only for the reasonable ones, sadly the vast majority of theist usually fall for emotional arguments instead of more logical ones, if all they "reasons" to believe in god are disproved they eventually say "I feel him in my heart" or "I been transformed by his love" and stuff like that, of course that's impossible to counter argument as it's a subjective experience. For those theist usually showing them the atrocities of religion and belief and the evidence of indifference of their god does the trick.
Lets be honest with ourselves now; does this really usually work? Or does it just describe how many of the atheists that were previously theists dropped theism? Furthermore, what's impossible about subjective experience to talk about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 09:23 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 08:36 PM)wtfbbq Wrote:  This is what I'm trying to argue is a mistake on the part of the atheists; instead of giving up here, you need to...

...move the selector to full auto. Angel

You know, fuck a Bible. All there is to it. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 09:45 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 09:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 08:36 PM)wtfbbq Wrote:  This is what I'm trying to argue is a mistake on the part of the atheists; instead of giving up here, you need to...

...move the selector to full auto. Angel

You know, fuck a Bible. All there is to it. Tongue
I would but I don't like paper cuts! Big Grin

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 09:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 08:36 PM)wtfbbq Wrote:  This is what I'm trying to argue is a mistake on the part of the atheists; instead of giving up here, you need to..
...move the selector to full auto. Angel
You know, fuck a Bible. All there is to it. Tongue
I think some might think that that's not a rational argument. I don't at any rate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 10:04 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 08:36 PM)wtfbbq Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 08:22 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  It's not, but it should be. Too many people (KC, especially) play apologetic acrobatics with the Bible. The parts they don't like, they call myths, parables or object lessons. The parts they like is God-breathed inspiration. They don't seem to see the fallacy of their own approach to the Bible, but instead keep arguing their theology from the parts that give them a spiritual erection.
This is what I'm trying to argue is a mistake on the part of the atheists; instead of giving up here, you need to go deeper into what justifies all of this to the theist in the first place.



(25-04-2012 07:54 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Only for the reasonable ones, sadly the vast majority of theist usually fall for emotional arguments instead of more logical ones, if all they "reasons" to believe in god are disproved they eventually say "I feel him in my heart" or "I been transformed by his love" and stuff like that, of course that's impossible to counter argument as it's a subjective experience. For those theist usually showing them the atrocities of religion and belief and the evidence of indifference of their god does the trick.
Lets be honest with ourselves now; does this really usually work? Or does it just describe how many of the atheists that were previously theists dropped theism? Furthermore, what's impossible about subjective experience to talk about?
A subjective experience is impossible to prove either true or false to others, it's implied in the scientific method, for something to be considered proved it needs to be experimented on by others at such an extent that is impossible not to say it is, furthermore, it needs to be falsifiable, this means it must be possible (in principle) to prove a claim as false, if experiments can't do that, then the claim is regarded as true.
For personal experiences, that simply can't be done, for example, if you say that last night you dreamt about riding an unicorn you can't prove it, because it was a one time experience and can't be subject to experimentation, anyone will probably believe it because weird dreams are usual and everyone has them, but that belief is without proof.
For theist that claim a personal experience of god it's the same, and that belief is reinforced by a lot of people claiming the same experience, as it were a scientific fact, and therefore is virtually impossible to convince them otherwise, that's why I say it needs a personal experience against god to counter their belief.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 10:09 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 10:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  A subjective experience is impossible to prove either true or false to others, it's implied in the scientific method, for something to be considered proved it needs to be experimented on by others at such an extent that is impossible not to say it is, furthermore, it needs to be falsifiable, this means it must be possible (in principle) to prove a claim as false, if experiments can't do that, then the claim is regarded as true.
For personal experiences, that simply can't be done, for example, if you say that last night you dreamt about riding an unicorn you can't prove it, because it was a one time experience and can't be subject to experimentation, anyone will probably believe it because weird dreams are usual and everyone has them, but that belief is without proof.
For theist that claim a personal experience of god it's the same, and that belief is reinforced by a lot of people claiming the same experience, as it were a scientific fact, and therefore is virtually impossible to convince them otherwise, that's why I say it needs a personal experience against god to counter their belief.
Hmm, hate to be knit picky with words, but I want to be sure I'm understanding you. What do you mean by "personal experience"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 10:18 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 10:09 PM)wtfbbq Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 10:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  A subjective experience is impossible to prove either true or false to others, it's implied in the scientific method, for something to be considered proved it needs to be experimented on by others at such an extent that is impossible not to say it is, furthermore, it needs to be falsifiable, this means it must be possible (in principle) to prove a claim as false, if experiments can't do that, then the claim is regarded as true.
For personal experiences, that simply can't be done, for example, if you say that last night you dreamt about riding an unicorn you can't prove it, because it was a one time experience and can't be subject to experimentation, anyone will probably believe it because weird dreams are usual and everyone has them, but that belief is without proof.
For theist that claim a personal experience of god it's the same, and that belief is reinforced by a lot of people claiming the same experience, as it were a scientific fact, and therefore is virtually impossible to convince them otherwise, that's why I say it needs a personal experience against god to counter their belief.
Hmm, hate to be knit picky with words, but I want to be sure I'm understanding you. What do you mean by "personal experience"
personal or subjective experience as I'm using it here, is an individual perception of reality that cannot be demonstrated by experimentation or caused in others with the same characteristics. Have you ever wondered if others see the colours the same as you? like if what is yellow for you I see it as you see blue? that can't be demonstrated or caused in others, that's your subjective experience of colours, I'm not sure if that's clear though Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 10:32 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 10:18 PM)nach_in Wrote:  personal or subjective experience as I'm using it here, is an individual perception of reality that cannot be demonstrated by experimentation or caused in others with the same characteristics. Have you ever wondered if others see the colours the same as you? like if what is yellow for you I see it as you see blue? that can't be demonstrated or caused in others, that's your subjective experience of colours, I'm not sure if that's clear though Tongue
Ah. Would this also apply to something like... say, touch? Would my sensation of smooth/rough and solid/squishy also fall under this then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: