Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 04:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Anyway, I'll expound.

It's impossible because my Christianity is founded on the premise of faith. It is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.

So, if further empirical evidence is presented contrary to the belief system, logically speaking, that evidence cannot be used since it does not affect anecdotal evidence and faith.

This is actually a very rational and logical approach to it.

In what way is that not special pleading? Listen man, you know I don't care one way or another what you believe but don't try to claim it's rational to ignore all evidence to the contrary.

I'm not.

It's not special pleading.

This is why God cannot never be 100% proved or disproved.

Faith does not refute empirical evidence and empirical evidence does not refute faith.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Anyway, I'll expound.

It's impossible because my Christianity is founded on the premise of faith. It is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.

So, if further empirical evidence is presented contrary to the belief system, logically speaking, that evidence cannot be used since it does not affect anecdotal evidence and faith.

This is actually a very rational and logical approach to it.

Nope, faith is itself irrational.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2013 04:48 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 04:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Anyway, I'll expound.

It's impossible because my Christianity is founded on the premise of faith. It is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.

So, if further empirical evidence is presented contrary to the belief system, logically speaking, that evidence cannot be used since it does not affect anecdotal evidence and faith.

This is actually a very rational and logical approach to it.

Nope, faith is itself irrational.

Which is why it's logical to say that rational can cannot disprove irrational and vice versa Drinking Beverage

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 04:45 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:42 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 04:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope, faith is itself irrational.

Which is why it's logical to say that rational can disprove irrational and vice versa Drinking Beverage

Huh

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 04:45 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:36 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 04:32 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  In what way is that not special pleading? Listen man, you know I don't care one way or another what you believe but don't try to claim it's rational to ignore all evidence to the contrary.

I'm not.

It's not special pleading.

This is why God cannot never be 100% proved or disproved.

Faith does not refute empirical evidence and empirical evidence does not refute faith.

Faith is in and of itself special pleading as it exists in place of, or indeed in spite of evidence to the contrary. Faith is belief without knowledge and empirical evidence does indeed disprove faith or else you'd leave you job via the 5th story window or do as the kids say these days and "Let Jesus take the wheel".

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
05-08-2013, 04:47 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 04:42 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Which is why it's logical to say that rational can disprove irrational and vice versa Drinking Beverage

Huh

*cannot

lol stupid typo

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Faith is in and of itself special pleading as it exists in place of, or indeed in spite of evidence to the contrary. Faith is belief without knowledge and empirical evidence does indeed disprove faith or else you'd leave you job via the 5th story window or do as the kids say these days and "Let Jesus take the wheel".

Lol, I love both this response and your sig. quote from Douglas Adams. Good stuff.

Religious but open minded about the arguments of atheists? You may have spent your whole life learning about the arguments for religion. May I present to you 10 segmented hours for the case against it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Golbez's post
05-08-2013, 06:09 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
You should try posting this to Facebook or tumblr to get a proper response
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BrokenQuill92's post
05-08-2013, 06:20 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2013 06:25 PM by Golbez.)
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
(05-08-2013 04:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Anyway, I'll expound.

It's impossible (1) because my Christianity is founded on the premise of faith. It is simply not compatible with empirical evidence.

So, if further empirical evidence is presented contrary to the belief system, logically speaking, that evidence cannot be used since it does not affect anecdotal evidence and faith.

This is actually a very rational (2) and logical approach to it.

1 - Think about that - "it's impossible." There's nothing the world can demonstrate to you to not only shake your belief in a god in general but a Christian god specifically. Which is ironic, since I imagine it was fairly worldly and materialistic that you believe in a Christian god to start with. You know, Jesus in the flesh allegedly performing miracles, inspiring literature, etc. You use what established, empirical evidence there is to believe in the Christian faith over the Muslim or Jewish faith (or hundreds of other less popular faiths). Alternatively, your parents aren't Muslim or Jewish, so really, what choice did you have? But you'd confirm this on the basis of empirical data with the historical records of Jesus' life.

It would take faith and faith alone to believe in Poseidon or Zeus, as there's no historical/empirical evidence for them. Yet you do not take this leap of faith. You choose the god and faith of your choice because there is at least some semblance of evidence to back it up. So it's ironic that limited amounts of evidence can confirm the deity of your choosing that influences the whole of your life. Yet you can't bring yourself to honor evidence that illuminates why that belief is nevertheless unfounded. And so you trap yourself in a cage, never allowing for a way for the gate to be opened. Why this posture is preferential is beyond me.

Edit - Oops, forgot point 2.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rational

Capable of reasoning. [quotations ▼]

Man is a rational creature.

Logically sound; not contradictory or otherwise absurd.

His statements were quite rational.


Rationality is based on reason, grounded in reality. So having more evidence to suggest your position is baseless is the antithesis of being "very rational." And stating so is definitionally what it means to be delusional.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/delusion#English

Religious but open minded about the arguments of atheists? You may have spent your whole life learning about the arguments for religion. May I present to you 10 segmented hours for the case against it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2013, 06:41 PM
RE: Attn: theists. What would it take to prove you wrong?
KC is rational because he knows his beliefs are irrational and he doesn't care. He keeps a cognitive dissonance at his own expense and that's the limit of rationality. He's like an addict who doesn't want to quit even if you demonstrate how bad it is for him... And that's the limit of our liberty to try to convince him

I got your back KC, you crazy bastard ಠ_ಠ

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: