"True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2010, 12:34 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(12-11-2010 11:51 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Forgive me, I think you're both deliberately trying to miss the point here!

We're not. I think that you've missed the point, actually.

Quote:If I ask for a Ferrari, and it doesn't appear... the God's answer to my request is 'no'.

Or there's no one there to answer, but that's beside the point.

Quote:If a Ferrari appears... the answer is 'yes'.

Yes.

Quote:For Christians: prayers must be in line with the directions given. Still then, the most correct prayer may result in a negative answer from God. Why? Because only God knows enough to be just. We can't judge what God decides as we cannot have the information to do so.

This is where you miss the point and start going off on a tangent.

We are not trying to test to see if God is receiving the prayers. We are simply testing to see if he answers "yes" on a reliable basis. What you say his reasoning is is irrelevant. Prayer is only effective if the answer is "yes". Any other answer means that prayer is not effective.

Quote:I know the double blind test very well. Like I said, it commits the most heinous fallacy of studying a false premise: that we can know what an answer from God should be.

No. It doesn't. The double-blind study has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of what the answer "should" be. It simply comments on what the answer is. If it's anything other than "yes", then the result is negative and prayer has been shown not to work in that situation.

Quote:Personally I'm grateful to the test to silence the numbskull Christians who make scientific claims of the supernatural. That's all the test achieves. It has no bearing on what prayer really is.

Exactly! It does not comment on anything other than whether or not the answer is "yes". That's not the point of the study.

Quote:
Believer Wrote:Prayer is only effective if the answer is "yes". Getting any other answer - or no answer at all - gives no evidence for the effectiveness of prayer.

To you maybe

To everyone.

Quote:but to the believer, given the correct approach, it can be indicative of God's will.

That's as may be, but it's beside the point. We aren't looking at what God's will may or may not be. We are simply looking at whether or not the answer is "yes" on a reliable basis. "Being an indication of God's will" is not what "effective" means.

Quote:Do you not get it yet: nothing of God can be empirically known, otherwise how can we call him God?

No, I don't get it, because it's bollocks. If we can never know anything about God that can be empirically verified, then he's nothing more than another imaginary character, like Lucky the Leprechaun or the Trix rabbit. You may as well replace him with any other character or magical force of your choice. If you can never know anything about God, then you can never know that there is a god - which is exactly what it's like if he doesn't exist. What you are saying is that, effectively, God does not exist.

Quote:Prayer isn't a tool like a calculator. Calculators solve problems that are entered into them. That's what they do. There is no magic formula to get what you want from a prayer - the answer is entirely up to God, and we can't know the mind of God. I might want an amputee healed... but if it isn't God's will it's not going to happen... I have no way to force the answer to what I want it to be... God's will is what happens.

That's what we've been trying to explain to you. Prayer studies aren't studies of God's will. They're simply studies of whether or not prayer can be used as a tool. The answer, apparently, is "no", which is what you're saying anyway. What are you arguing against?

Quote:Again, Ghost's logic is impeccable here. 1. "If it were rational, it wouldn't be supernatural." And 2. "Of course there is no evidence. That's the point."

Which, as I explained, is a pointless argument. If there can never be any evidence of the supernatural, then the supernatural does not exist.

Quote:
Unbeliever Wrote:Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. I've heard that from a lot of people, and I've still yet to see any evidence whatsoever in favor of a god's existence.
Well except for illogical objections! Big Grin Wink

Which aren't evidence in favor of God's existence. If I make an illogical objection to Lucky the Leprechaun's existence, is that evidence that Lucky exists?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 12:52 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
OK I think I'm finished. No need to repeat myself.

Unbeliever Wrote:If there can never be any evidence of the supernatural, then the supernatural does not exist naturally.
Fixed it for ya! Wink

Unbeliever Wrote:Which aren't evidence in favor of God's existence. If I make an illogical objection to Lucky the Leprechaun's existence, is that evidence that Lucky exists?
All an illogic objection is is no objection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 02:01 PM
 
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
No...

Whether or not it exists naturally is irrelevant. For it to exist naturally would mean it would be bound by the laws of physics. The supernatural by definition does not exist naturally. However, for it to exist at all, there still must be evidence of its existence.
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 06:32 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(12-11-2010 12:52 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  OK I think I'm finished. No need to repeat myself.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself.

Quote:
Unbeliever Wrote:If there can never be any evidence of the supernatural, then the supernatural does not exist naturally.
Fixed it for ya! Wink

No, you didn't. If there can never be evidence for something, it flat-out does not exist. That is the definition of not existing.

Quote:
Unbeliever Wrote:Which aren't evidence in favor of God's existence. If I make an illogical objection to Lucky the Leprechaun's existence, is that evidence that Lucky exists?
All an illogic objection is is no objection.

That doesn't answer the question. If I make an illogical objection to Lucky the Leprechaun's existence, is that evidence that Lucky exists?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 06:44 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2010 06:49 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Quote:the answer is entirely up to God, and we can't know the mind of God. I might want an amputee healed... but if it isn't God's will it's not going to happen

That answer has always baffled me. If it all comes down to god's will, then what's the point of praying? Seems to me he's going to do what he wants regardless of what you think.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 08:17 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(12-11-2010 02:01 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  No...

Whether or not it exists naturally is irrelevant. For it to exist naturally would mean it would be bound by the laws of physics. The supernatural by definition does not exist naturally. However, for it to exist at all, there still must be evidence of its existence.
Yep. Kudos Smile

@ Unbeliever: The illogical objection is nothing more than that. Enjoyed talkin with ya Wink

@ Buddy Christ: You then assume you can't influence God's decision. According to the xtian model that isn't assumed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 09:40 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(12-11-2010 08:17 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(12-11-2010 02:01 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  No...

Whether or not it exists naturally is irrelevant. For it to exist naturally would mean it would be bound by the laws of physics. The supernatural by definition does not exist naturally. However, for it to exist at all, there still must be evidence of its existence.
Yep. Kudos Smile

Great. Then you agree that the scientific method is applicable.

Quote:@ Unbeliever: The illogical objection is nothing more than that.

Then I take it that you withdraw this statement...

Quote:
Unbeliever Wrote:Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. I've heard that from a lot of people, and I've still yet to see any evidence whatsoever in favor of a god's existence.
Well except for illogical objections!

...as illogical objections are not evidence in favor of God's existence?

Quote:Enjoyed talkin with ya Wink

You, too, but I don't see why you're breaking off the conversation.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 04:39 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Unbeliever Wrote:Great. Then you agree that the scientific method is applicable.

*drags Unbeliever out of the trap and roasts him over an open fire* Big Grin

(hint: no I was saying the opposite Wink )

me Wrote:The illogical objection is nothing more than that
Unbeliever Wrote:...as illogical objections are not evidence in favor of God's existence?
Sorry - don't know where you're going with this. "Yes" ??

I'm breaking off as it seems I've said everything on the subject. Yes you don't seem to understand, but it's been put far more eloquently in my opinion by ghost and I can't understand your objections from your various replies, so I see no point in continuing, as I'd be repeating myself. I'd like to leave it there if that's ok.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 07:16 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Hey, Godless.

Quote:1. Your making an assumption that the supernatural exists. It is highly possible that there is no supernatural. Or if there is one that it does not interact with our reality in any way at all.

I have never, ever, anywhere on this website, said that the supernatural exists. In fact I have spent considerable energy defending my belief that I don't know if it does or not and that until I know, which I never will, it both exists and does not exist simultaneously. The argument that I'm presenting here in no way states that the supernatural exists. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I have only ever asserted that if it does exist, science can't tell.

As for it not interracting with our universe in any way at all, I've never said anything remotely close to that.

Quote:2. We CANNOT count on many of these people's claims for evidence because the claims contradict each other almost each and every time. There are thousands of different church groups that each claim to have a direct communication with God or Jesus.

I agree. Many claims about the supernatural don't amount to anything. But if the number of claims we throw out for whatever reason is anything less than 100% it is not a proof against the existence of God(s) or the supernatural. It's only a proof that (shocker of shockers) people lie.

I also object to your use of the term "evidence" in that sentence.

Lastly, if 99.9% of religious groups have the particulars incorrect, it's irrelevant if just one of them has it right. I've said many times that I could give two shits if the Catholics are right or the Baptists or the Jews or whoever. I'm not interested in any of that. My only question is, is it possible that God(s) exist? Not in what form do they exist, or did they speak to Bill through a pancake, or am I going to hell for thinking my neighbour is smokin hot, but is it possible that God(s) exist?

Quote:Even if science doesn't work there is still reasoning involved. There has never been a group of people touched by the supernatural that have been consistent in their description of events.

This makes the assumption that multiple descriptions of supernatural events or beings SHOULD be consistent. It would be a reasonable expectation if the supernatural obeyed the laws of the natural universe, but to be classified as supernatural they need to be beyond the control or in control of the laws of the natural universe.

Hey, BnW.

Quote:Quote:
We must; however, make a separation between random claims and supernatural claims.

And what is that difference? What is the difference between my leprechaun example and your baseball example? The proof factor? I don't agree that is a difference.

I was pretty clear about what the difference is. The ice is governed by natural laws. The supernatural is not.

Quote:In your example you say something that is easily debunked. In my example I say something that there is no evidence to support at all. None.

But that's the point. The REASON that the ice thing is debunkable is because ice can't form in such heat. Anywhere in the universe. Because that's how ice works. There is nothing (at least that we understand) that governs the supernatural. The only quality we know it must possess is that it must be beyond the control of or in control of the natural universe.

At any given time I can hold a Bic lighter to an ice cube and remind myself about the behaviour of ice in the presence of heat energy. The only thing I can say about the leprechaun is, "I ain't never seen one." Not, "well the Gary Larson experiment from 1950 shows difinitively that leprechauns are flammable."

Quote:So, you're right in saying that it's possible that there are leprechauns living in the sun but absent some evidence of it and given what we know about the sun and leprechauns, we can reasonably infer there are not.

If what we know about Leprechauns is that they have an ignition temperature then we can reasonably infer it. But do they? What do you base that assumption on?

And you're missing the point entirely. What evidence will there be of it?

Quote:You are correct that science can not absolutely prove most things (sometimes we will get lucky on the absolute proof thing) but we can make reasonable inferences based on what we know.

And what is it that we know? And why do we know it?

Quote:Regarding the supernatural, you're correct that I've never seen it but from what we know about the universe we can make reasonable inferences.

What leads to that conclusion? That there's no evidence? If the supernatural leaves evidence everywhere, then I'm with you. But the entire point of my argument is that it doesn't. If that is in fact the case, then there is nothing to base the inference on beyond there being no evidence that can not ever actually be found. So how reasonable is that?

Quote:You're right that we can't say with 100% certainty that the supernatural does not exist but without some credible evidence of its existence and its impact on our universe, we can both assume that it does not and equally just ignore it as a possibility.

Evidence. Doesn't exist. Never will. No but.

Forget what you think you know for a second. Ask yourself this. IF (BIG IF!) the supernatural doesn't leave evidence, then can science determine whether or not it exists?

Here's the deal. If the supernatural DOESN'T leave evidence, then science won't tell us. If it DOES, then that either means that it's really good at avoiding detection or that despite some controversial and contested claims, it doesn't exist. How do you plan to determine whether or not the supernatural leaves evidence?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 10:16 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(13-11-2010 04:39 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
Unbeliever Wrote:Great. Then you agree that the scientific method is applicable.

*drags Unbeliever out of the trap and roasts him over an open fire* Big Grin

(hint: no I was saying the opposite Wink )

Since you apparently agree that there can be evidence of the supernatural, I don't understand what your objection could be unless you don't understand what the scientific method is.

Quote:
me Wrote:The illogical objection is nothing more than that
Unbeliever Wrote:...as illogical objections are not evidence in favor of God's existence?
Sorry - don't know where you're going with this. "Yes" ??

I'm not really going anywhere with it. You made an erroneous statement. I was just pointing it out.

Quote:I'm breaking off as it seems I've said everything on the subject. Yes you don't seem to understand, but it's been put far more eloquently in my opinion by ghost and I can't understand your objections from your various replies, so I see no point in continuing, as I'd be repeating myself. I'd like to leave it there if that's ok.

It's fine with me. I can't force you to continue.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: