Empircal Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2017, 06:26 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
We ask for evidence to get theists to think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
28-04-2017, 07:52 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(28-04-2017 06:26 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  We ask for evidence to get theists to think.

...and shit in the other hand. Which fills up faster?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gawdzilla's post
28-04-2017, 08:43 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 01:14 PM)Walluin Wrote:  I'm not about to google deist, I can probably work it out from analysing language.. but that is irrelevant,
What your not picking up here is BLIND FAITH and the POWER OF GOD.
Now let me give you some examples...
Ok. So lets say we are talking to a new world creationist (is that what they're called I cant remember)
Okay so we go "hey man look at this dinosaur bone, how's that work with your creation story"
And he goes "yeah God made those bones and buried them to try and trick us, hes a tricky God isn't he."
So then we say "He mate, how about this really old rock we carbon dated to being 50000000000 years old?
And he goes "Yeah, God made that rock look really old, hes so tricky hey?"
"He keeps trying to test our faith with these scientific things he made cos he only wants the truly faithful to go to heaven.
....
What I'm saying is.. its stupid and boring to argue with a person who is blinded my faith.

No offense but if you don't even know what "deist" means then you really can't determine if it's "irrelevant" or not.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I already said if they are going to believe no matter what it's a waste of time.

But my point is even those that subscribe to a blind faith that supposedly doesn't care about evidence STILL point to very testable, physical things as proof. They point to the resurrection, miracles, the stories of God in the OT intervening, etc., and at that point it IS fair game to point out to them what the ACTUAL evidence is. Obviously they can still ignore that but it doesn't make it a waste of time to point they can't use that as proof if those things have been proven incorrect.

I've yet to meet ONE Christian who had "blind faith" that still didn't rely on supposdly physical acts as proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
28-04-2017, 05:35 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 01:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(27-04-2017 01:14 PM)Walluin Wrote:  I'm not about to google deist, I can probably work it out from analysing language.. but that is irrelevant,
What your not picking up here is BLIND FAITH and the POWER OF GOD.
Now let me give you some examples...
Ok. So lets say we are talking to a new world creationist (is that what they're called I cant remember)
Okay so we go "hey man look at this dinosaur bone, how's that work with your creation story"
And he goes "yeah God made those bones and buried them to try and trick us, hes a tricky God isn't he."
So then we say "He mate, how about this really old rock we carbon dated to being 50000000000 years old?
And he goes "Yeah, God made that rock look really old, hes so tricky hey?"
"He keeps trying to test our faith with these scientific things he made cos he only wants the truly faithful to go to heaven.
....
What I'm saying is.. its stupid and boring to argue with a person who is blinded my faith.

Well if they're a Christian, they can't have a God that lies. Of course, there's a verse where God does deceive and many Christians try to explain it away. But I don't think God intentionally trying to deceive by placing bones would be compatible with Christianity. But yes arguing with fideists is a waste of time.

But they can (and do) get around that one by claiming that it is the devil who is doing the deceiving, and God allows that (just like he allowed (the) Satan to kill Job's family, etc.). As you say, there's no arguing with them. They have a "yeah. but..." for every objection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2017, 04:18 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(28-04-2017 05:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But they can (and do) get around that one by claiming that it is the devil who is doing the deceiving, and God allows that (just like he allowed (the) Satan to kill Job's family, etc.). As you say, there's no arguing with them. They have a "yeah. but..." for every objection.

That's the Godfather's decree. Satan is just one of his button men.

“I am not responsible for actions of the imaginary version of me you have inside your head.” - John Scalzi

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Norm Deplume's post
29-04-2017, 03:54 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2017 04:00 PM by Cheerful Charlie.)
RE: Empircal Evidence
(28-04-2017 12:48 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It's extremely rare that I can even get a debate started. It typically goes like this:

Me: "Please define God."

Theist: Huge wall of text explaining why they don't need to define God.

How do I tell a god apart from an arbitrarily powerful non-God? I've had almost no answers to this from theists.

It has been a claim for centuries that God is utterly incomprehensible to mere mortals. For example, William of Okham. All we can know about God is derived from revelation, that is, the Bible.

Thus for Christians, God is defined by Biblical claims, and logical claims derived from such basic propositions about the nature of God.

Many Christian denominations have well developed dogmas about the attributes and nature of God derived from the Bible. But when one starts examining these claims, the problems start.

So, there really is no mystery about how God is defined for Christians. Or for that matter, Moslems. Either God can be described logically from first principles (Deism) Or not. If not then revelation defines God. If not either, the theist has nothing worth saying to the atheist.

When asking the theist to define God and the theist plays this game, one lays out this basic logic of the situation and defines God as per William of Okham. Revelation. It the theist objects, fine, let him or her describe how logic and deduction form first principles can do the deed.

In my experience, this cuts through a lot of guff.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
29-04-2017, 05:16 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 08:31 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Going after a Christian and asking them for evidence just doesn't wash with 99% of them. There's even a verse (sure of it) that says without faith it's impossible to please God. Atheists are probably correct in asking for evidence, but it's not going to faze most Christians, not unless they're already questioning that faith.
"Let god be true and every man a liar" -- Romans 3:4

Yes, properly indoctrinated Christians are impervious to a requirement of evidence and are supported by their holy book in opposition to evidence. They are conditioned to see evidence as a vice and credulity as a virtue. That is what sustains religious faith ... mindless credulity.

That does not mean it is beyond question or ridicule. That which is ridiculous is worthy of ridicule. This of course is a fairly new development in their world; the taboo against failing to afford unearned deference and respect to religious ideation is only recently broken.

I really am not trying to get anything to "wash" with staunch Christians; their devotion to intellectual dishonesty would make that a fool's errand. I am simply standing up for reason, logic, evidence, and science. I am speaking the truth that I would have appreciated hearing more of when I was in the process of deconverting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
29-04-2017, 07:56 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
The science clearly points to us being in a larger more complex system. But lets simplify it. The biosphere is life and if you know some basic science you know that the verb is living'. that is empirical and can't be denied using honest logic, reason, and commonsense.

A living biosphere does explain a lot. It matches many observations like people's feeling connect to something, the perfect coincidents of random events, and some people feeling that they felt a infinite thing a ma jig.

Not only that, it offers a mechanism and makes predictions that would support theories like evolution. and others.

about the only thing that doesn't fit the descriptor of a living biosphere is denying that it is. But, it clearly is not non life, so who would even say such a stupid thing like that, maybe a theist to support their god thing.

There is no evidence of the big three's finger pointing omni dad. But we are part of something that seems to be better classified as life. Its empirical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2017, 08:03 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(29-04-2017 07:56 PM)AB517 Wrote:  The science clearly points to us being in a larger more complex system. But lets simplify it. The biosphere is life and if you know some basic science you know that the verb is living'. that is empirical and can't be denied using honest logic, reason, and commonsense.

A living biosphere does explain a lot. It matches many observations like people's feeling connect to something, the perfect coincidents of random events, and some people feeling that they felt a infinite thing a ma jig.

Not only that, it offers a mechanism and makes predictions that would support theories like evolution. and others.

about the only thing that doesn't fit the descriptor of a living biosphere is denying that it is. But, it clearly is not non life, so who would even say such a stupid thing like that, maybe a theist to support their god thing.

There is no evidence of the big three's finger pointing omni dad. But we are part of something that seems to be better classified as life. Its empirical.
We live in a biosphere made up of cooperating and competing living things. That does not mean there is a mystical connection between them on the one hand -- nor on the other does it deny that living creatures interact and influence each other. But one should not commit category errors. Saying that some ineffable feeling of oneness with nature is a result of being part of a larger and entity that is living in its own right, is the same as saying that because the universe contains conscious entities, the universe itself is conscious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
29-04-2017, 08:32 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(29-04-2017 08:03 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(29-04-2017 07:56 PM)AB517 Wrote:  The science clearly points to us being in a larger more complex system. But lets simplify it. The biosphere is life and if you know some basic science you know that the verb is living'. that is empirical and can't be denied using honest logic, reason, and commonsense.

A living biosphere does explain a lot. It matches many observations like people's feeling connect to something, the perfect coincidents of random events, and some people feeling that they felt a infinite thing a ma jig.

Not only that, it offers a mechanism and makes predictions that would support theories like evolution. and others.

about the only thing that doesn't fit the descriptor of a living biosphere is denying that it is. But, it clearly is not non life, so who would even say such a stupid thing like that, maybe a theist to support their god thing.

There is no evidence of the big three's finger pointing omni dad. But we are part of something that seems to be better classified as life. Its empirical.
We live in a biosphere made up of cooperating and competing living things. That does not mean there is a mystical connection between them on the one hand -- nor on the other does it deny that living creatures interact and influence each other. But one should not commit category errors. Saying that some ineffable feeling of oneness with nature is a result of being part of a larger and entity that is living in its own right, is the same as saying that because the universe contains conscious entities, the universe itself is conscious.

Mystical? Na, no magic. at least no more mystical then a mother loving a child. I am only staying with empirical observations, those that any reasonable person can see for themselves.

People are complex proteins. Are we complex enough to feel the interactions with our surroundings? that's simple. Can chemical, visual, and other inputs effect how we perceive the set of events around us? emotional and logical? er, simple again. and its empirical.

Universal consciousness and local consciousness are different notions. I am not talking about universal consciousness. We don't know enough to say yes or no. but, You are conscious so the region of space around you is consciousness. that's empirical. its just a basic understanding. That can be measured.

We can talk what connections to the each other, and the system around us, to decide a volume that would make it more or less reasonable. But to claim "this volume of space is not conscious at all" is just wrong.

And the whole universe having consciousness is unknown. I rather stay with living biosphere instead of aware. What it knows? it knows what we know. I just don't know enough to say its a conscious entity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: