Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(14-11-2016 10:03 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 08:10 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  People can sincerely look in the wrong place and still not find what they are looking for. It is not a fault of those who may have sincerely sought, that they were lead astray.

The point is that an actual god would not that they were honestly seeking and would guide them to the right path.

Quote: Thankfully those here who fall into that category were evidently able to distinguish what is right from what is idle fancy to some extent.

Something you are apparently incapable of doing.

Quote:Thinking that the possibility of GOD is necessarily not true because man can be seen to be wrong just isn't intellectually honest.

Where have I said that "the possibility of god is necessarily not true"? Either your abysmal reading comprehension strikes again or you are too dense to understand that "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X" are distinct statements or you are simply lying. Which is it?

Please explain how something that can't be tested can be distinguished from something that is merely imagined? I'll wait.
What silly word game are you playing now?

To not believe (x)

Is the same as to believe not (x).

Silly ass word games will never adequately supplement simple truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 11:15 AM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(14-11-2016 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  To not believe (x)

Is the same as to believe not (x).

No, it isn't the same at all. There are two distinct claims and I can accept one or the other or neither of them. The only thing I can't rationally do is accept both.

The best example may be a jar of gumballs. There are 2 claims:
a. the number of gumballs is even
b. the number of gumballs is odd

I know that one of those 2 claims is true but I do not have sufficient evidence to believe either one. Just because I don't believe that the number is even does not mean that I have to believe that the number is odd. If you say "I know that the number of gumballs is even" then my response is "prove it".

The same is true for the claims:
a. a god exists
b. no god exists

You say a god exists. I say prove it. I am not claiming that no god exists; I'm telling you that I have no reason to accept your claim without evidence.

Quote:Silly ass word games will never adequately supplement simple truth.

Unsubstantiated claims about undetectable things will never be believable. If your god's existence is "simple truth" it should be easy to substantiate it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like unfogged's post
16-11-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(14-11-2016 11:15 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  To not believe (x)

Is the same as to believe not (x).

No, it isn't the same at all. There are two distinct claims and I can accept one or the other or neither of them. The only thing I can't rationally do is accept both.

The best example may be a jar of gumballs. There are 2 claims:
a. the number of gumballs is even
b. the number of gumballs is odd

I know that one of those 2 claims is true but I do not have sufficient evidence to believe either one. Just because I don't believe that the number is even does not mean that I have to believe that the number is odd. If you say "I know that the number of gumballs is even" then my response is "prove it".

The same is true for the claims:
a. a god exists
b. no god exists

You say a god exists. I say prove it. I am not claiming that no god exists; I'm telling you that I have no reason to accept your claim without evidence.

Quote:Silly ass word games will never adequately supplement simple truth.

Unsubstantiated claims about undetectable things will never be believable. If your god's existence is "simple truth" it should be easy to substantiate it.
I'm glad you admit that they are two distinct claims, and that in the lack of knowledge one can only honestly claim agnosticism on some level. I too, even having what I whole hearted believe to be multiple experiences and verifications of GOD, cannot limit GOD to those things and too can technically only claim some sort of agnosticism in that I cannot limit the nature or extents of GOD based on my limited experiences and capacities.

So you're an agnostic on some level as any intellectually honest, logical, perceptive person must be?

Peace
(14-11-2016 11:15 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 10:57 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  To not believe (x)

Is the same as to believe not (x).

No, it isn't the same at all. There are two distinct claims and I can accept one or the other or neither of them. The only thing I can't rationally do is accept both.

The best example may be a jar of gumballs. There are 2 claims:
a. the number of gumballs is even
b. the number of gumballs is odd

I know that one of those 2 claims is true but I do not have sufficient evidence to believe either one. Just because I don't believe that the number is even does not mean that I have to believe that the number is odd. If you say "I know that the number of gumballs is even" then my response is "prove it".

The same is true for the claims:
a. a god exists
b. no god exists

You say a god exists. I say prove it. I am not claiming that no god exists; I'm telling you that I have no reason to accept your claim without evidence.

Quote:Silly ass word games will never adequately supplement simple truth.

Unsubstantiated claims about undetectable things will never be believable. If your god's existence is "simple truth" it should be easy to substantiate it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(16-11-2016 08:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm glad you admit that they are two distinct claims, and that in the lack of knowledge one can only honestly claim agnosticism on some level. I too, even having what I whole hearted believe to be multiple experiences and verifications of GOD, cannot limit GOD to those things and too can technically only claim some sort of agnosticism in that I cannot limit the nature or extents of GOD based on my limited experiences and capacities.

You've already assigned the value of god to your assertions, you aren't agnostic, you're just deluded. Drinking Beverage

Do you remember how we established that your personal experiences are not evidence and can't be relied upon to establish the truth of a claim?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
16-11-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(16-11-2016 08:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm glad you admit that they are two distinct claims, and that in the lack of knowledge one can only honestly claim agnosticism on some level.

Then why did you insist that "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X" are the same thing?

Quote: I too, even having what I whole hearted believe to be multiple experiences and verifications of GOD, cannot limit GOD to those things and too can technically only claim some sort of agnosticism in that I cannot limit the nature or extents of GOD based on my limited experiences and capacities.

Then stop preaching about the nature of this god you believe exists and how we should behave because of it. You are one seriously deluded individual.

Quote:So you're an agnostic on some level as any intellectually honest, logical, perceptive person must be?

I label myself as an agnostic atheist. I do not believe there is any god because I have seen no good evidence to support that claim. I believe that many of the proposed gods... Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, etc do not exist because the evidence for them being human creations is substantial. I do not claim to know that nothing that might deserve the epithet "god" does not exist and am open to evidence of something but that evidence would have to be demonstrable, testable, and pretty damn compelling.

You still have not answered: how can you tell the difference between something that exists but can't be tested or examined and something that you just imagine exists?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 10:26 AM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(13-11-2016 09:01 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Omniscient omnipotent creator of existence can most assuredly cause an earthquake for whatever reason it might seem fit.

Omniscient omnipotent creator of existence can...butter my bread. Now i have buttered bread here on my table. Is that proof of god?

Something omniscient omnipotent can do anything or choose to do nothing at all, thus anything that happened cant be evidence for this specific something. Drinking Beverage

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
16-11-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(11-11-2016 08:45 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Shai-

I actually think that was a pretty fair exchange, except for Purple Guy and the idiot who believes the charlatan "archaeologist" Bryant Wood (director of the "Associates for Biblical Research" ministry, a subset of the Institute for Creation Research group, which claims to have, quote, "reexamined and reevaluated the excavated evidence from Jericho to better correlate that data with the Biblical story" ... no joke) stuff about Jericho. Quite literally, Dr. Wood is the archaeological equivalent of a Creationist.

Worst of all, with those who cite to Woods, is that Woods' analysis has been debunked: his work is primarily a critique of a real archaeologist, Cathleen Kenyon, who did the work that showed Jericho could not have been attacked in the way described in the Old Testament. There was a calibration error in the carbon dating that he relied upon, that totally trashes his argument once the error was corrected. Mainstream (scholarly) archaeology has considered his ideas and flatly rejected them for a number of valid reasons too long to get into, here. The ICR, of course, claims this is a conspiracy.

This is a long but excellent series on the subject. The first video deals with Dr. Wood and his critique of Dr. Kenyon, around 17:14





TL ; dr version - Anyone who cites to archaeological studies of Jericho as evidence for the Bible is either totally ignorant or willfully dishonest.

I'm watching that series RS, this kind of stuff really angers me, this Wood compiled a bunch of evidence and forced it to fit his presuppositions, he engaged in years of tainted confirmation bias and it took a long time to untangle his half-truths as he gallivanted around the US crowing about how archeological evidence supports his presuppositions.

It's too easy to make a false claim, it's much harder to debunk that claim, but they did expose his shoddy work, and those that don't care about the truth will believe the fraud and propagate it. Angry

They exposed Wood for the fraud he is, they should drum these guys out of the archeological field, but those that know who he is won't be fooled, Wood is a laughingstock.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(16-11-2016 08:09 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 08:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm glad you admit that they are two distinct claims, and that in the lack of knowledge one can only honestly claim agnosticism on some level. I too, even having what I whole hearted believe to be multiple experiences and verifications of GOD, cannot limit GOD to those things and too can technically only claim some sort of agnosticism in that I cannot limit the nature or extents of GOD based on my limited experiences and capacities.

You've already assigned the value of god to your assertions, you aren't agnostic, you're just deluded. Drinking Beverage

Do you remember how we established that your personal experiences are not evidence and can't be relied upon to establish the truth of a claim?
Never said it could be considered proof for anyone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 12:18 PM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(16-11-2016 09:55 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 08:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'm glad you admit that they are two distinct claims, and that in the lack of knowledge one can only honestly claim agnosticism on some level.

Then why did you insist that "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X" are the same thing?

Quote: I too, even having what I whole hearted believe to be multiple experiences and verifications of GOD, cannot limit GOD to those things and too can technically only claim some sort of agnosticism in that I cannot limit the nature or extents of GOD based on my limited experiences and capacities.

Then stop preaching about the nature of this god you believe exists and how we should behave because of it. You are one seriously deluded individual.

Quote:So you're an agnostic on some level as any intellectually honest, logical, perceptive person must be?

I label myself as an agnostic atheist. I do not believe there is any god because I have seen no good evidence to support that claim. I believe that many of the proposed gods... Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, etc do not exist because the evidence for them being human creations is substantial. I do not claim to know that nothing that might deserve the epithet "god" does not exist and am open to evidence of something but that evidence would have to be demonstrable, testable, and pretty damn compelling.

You still have not answered: how can you tell the difference between something that exists but can't be tested or examined and something that you just imagine exists?
For it to be a product of ones imagination one would have to have imagined it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 12:19 PM
RE: Doubt Thread in a Group I'm In
(16-11-2016 10:26 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 09:01 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Omniscient omnipotent creator of existence can most assuredly cause an earthquake for whatever reason it might seem fit.

Omniscient omnipotent creator of existence can...butter my bread. Now i have buttered bread here on my table. Is that proof of god?

Something omniscient omnipotent can do anything or choose to do nothing at all, thus anything that happened cant be evidence for this specific something. Drinking Beverage
Once again; didn't say it was evidence, but it cannot be ruled out
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: