What Proof do Theists Want?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2012, 06:24 PM
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
(29-11-2012 12:05 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  I think I speak for most of us when I say if you've got an awesome argument for god, please share it. And don't mind the criticism... this isn't a popularity contest. Even the atheists go after each others ideas... just read the last few pages of "Who was St. Paul" for evidence of that!
Conversations aren't interesting if everyone agrees. "Thank God" that there are different points-of-view (especially from theists).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
29-11-2012, 07:11 PM
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
(28-11-2012 08:43 PM)Logisch Wrote:  No offense ideasonscribe, but your arguments in all of those threads really came down to you referring to your belief as an inference of things based off of you thinking that lack of proof of things, or that unknowns and your observations seem to infer an intelligent/intelligence or intent in the universe and it's existence.

You can argue that all day, but you yourself said it isn't "proof" but is to you an evidence. No one is going to accept that answer because you are using an inference upon your own observation which still at the end of the day has no solid "proof" and only an inference to something you feel makes sense to you. We are skeptics here. We will criticize, tear apart and pick apart things all day long to make sure they are sound and coincide with things.

If you're implying that the only thing you will accept is proof, then yes, I am wasting my time here. Every sane man knows that there is no absolute proof for the existence of God, just as much as there is no absolute proof concerning the Theory of Evolution.

But what do we do as humans to determine the validity of a Theory? We use evidence to make an inference. An Inference is a conclusion that you make by using the evidence at hand.
So please understand where I'm coming from -
I balance the scale of the more logical side of the argument using evidence - Not proof -

I want to know if I am wrong when I say this:

An Evolutionist has made an inference (conclusion) based on -->Evidence<-- ,and not proof, to determine it's validity.
(btw, I do not argue against evolution at all)

Can I not, as a Theist, argue the evidence for Theism? If evidence is what is available, and proof currently is not, then it doesn't seem fair at all to ask me for proof when I cannot give that to you.

Also, I want to just make sure we're on the same page about what proof really means.
As far as I know, proof is something more absolute than evidence. As far as I know, proof is undeniable whereas evidence is broken into pieces to make up a larger picture.
So that's where I'm getting at. In your recent quote it sounds like you are only wanting me to provide "proof" of Gods existence, and are not interested in the evidence (Or what most of you call "not evidence").

You're saying you're a skeptic. Just don't say it like I'm not a skeptic myself. Of all people I know in my life, I'm the biggest skeptic of them all. My family has all but exiled me because of my stubborn skepticism driving them insane. My religious family can't stand the fact that I don't believe what the preacher tells me and they're constantly telling me how rude it is for me to walk up to the pastor after his sermon and ask him the questions I do. The ridiculous answers I get from some of these leaders would make just about any normal person become an instant Atheist.
I don't buy into a lot of religious bull, and I also don't buy into the "it's just us" Theory.
I'm a major skeptic of both sides. I am critical of every single truth claim until it proves to be more true than false. Then I criticize it some more. The only difference between us may be that you no longer question your side (I don't know that for sure though).

Here's the bottom line of this point I'm making. If you no longer want evidence from Theists - Please say so. I would gladly go on playing my video games and getting some good rest instead of stressing over this Forum.
If you are willing to listen to evidence from us Theists (AS I AM ALWAYS DAMN WILLING TO LISTEN TO YOURS FOR F**K SAKE watching your 2 hour long videos and taking notes. Stupid crap I do here.. )


(28-11-2012 08:43 PM)Logisch Wrote:  In short: we care more about what is true, than what sounds good to us.

Bam, nice quote here. This is exactly my life's theme. I care much more about what is true than what sounds good to me.
Guess what, Heaven and Hell actually sound AWFUL to me. I can't STAND the idea of Hell, and the idea of Heaven makes it worse.
[[[I'm sorry if I'm being a bit edgy here - kind of pissed right now.. not necessarily at anyone here.. I just.. well whatever]]]
So am I Atheist now?
No, because Atheism hasn't provided enough to convince me that God does not exist. Check this out Vosur --- Atheism has provided none, zero, nada, niets in terms of any substance showing that believing in God is illogical. So far, every argument for Atheism that I've encountered is nothing but biased arguments against Theism. Most of the material that I come across isn't even against the Theory of God. It's against the Christian God.
It's funny that people have CRITICIZED me for not arguing for the Christian God and instead arguing just for the plausibility of Gods existence to begin with.
This criticism comes from Atheists who say that Christians should only argue for the Christian God. Where the hell does that kind of rule come from? Why should I be restricted to that made-up rule? To me, it only makes sense to start with just God. NOT the Christian, Muslim or Mormon God. It doesn't make sense at all to start in a place that is so much more complicated.

This is the way I see it:
If God does not exist - Just about all major religions are false.
BAM

So, why not start there so you can just skip passed all the other junk if you conclude that God does not exist? It seems like it would make sense to others as well, but I'm guessing not anymore. o.O



(28-11-2012 08:43 PM)Logisch Wrote:  Your reason for believing seems to have a mixture of things that have a "philosophical reason" to believe, or the causation clause, but still have nothing other than that.

At the end of the day, philosophical reasoning, or inferring something appears to have an intelligence behind it still does not necessarily mean it has one.

Of course it does not necessarily mean that.
I don't believe things because I believe it's just necessary that it be this way. I believe things because I have come to that conclusion based on what I've learned.
It's the same with anything else, I build up knowledge on a particular topic - that knowledge directs me to one conclusion or the other. I don't say "Hey, this looks like it has purpose, so therefore there must be a God! derrrr"
No.
I instead say "The evidence at hand directs me more towards the validity of a creator and less towards the absence of a creator."
For me, it's all about which side is more convincing given the evidence.

It may be as simple as: I have come to understand that some things don't require empirical evidence in order to make an inference, but rather, circumstantial evidence can be as valid.


(28-11-2012 08:43 PM)Logisch Wrote:  So you are correct, most of us will never ever ever accept that to be valid, because it is indeed an argument from ignorance. It doesn't mean you are "ignorant" as a human being, it simply means you are taking something and going "how great is this? it's so amazing and these things seem to add up (to me) and make sense (to me) and appear (to me) to have an intelligence, it makes logical sense. Therefore god."

It seems like you are referring to the "Teleological Argument" as something I go by. I don't remember ever using that argument, but I could be wrong. Usually I just stick to something closer to the first cause argument. Sometimes the moral argument.
And the reason I conclude with something like "god" is because the definition of what is required for the arguments to even work is the definition of something intensely powerful. If you would like, I can just say "Something extremely powerful" in substitute for "God".
Now watch this for a moment -
It's easy for me to switch your quote around on you.
"There is nothing great about this. It's not amazing and these things don't add up (to me) or make sense (to me) and don't appear (to me) to have an intelligence, it doesn't make logical sense. Therefore no god."
So I just basically just turned this into a subjective issue. The issue of our conversation may be subjective, but what we are trying to reach by being skeptical is to reach something more objective or solid.
It's quite right that things either make sense or they don't (to me), but that's the point. We are trying to make sense of things. My whole vent is contributed to this. I want to talk to Atheists in order to understand their position better to either - Stay in my position or LEAVE my position -
I am not here to push anyone into my position.
Where you guys see me get mad is when I am having a conversation and the person I am talking to is being irrational or purposely misinterpreting my views to make my views look warped while their own views stand solid.
I don't work that way. I place both views on the table, give them both the same fair criticism, and then place the view that stands the more logical above the other view until the lower view finds better credence.


(28-11-2012 08:43 PM)Logisch Wrote:  It seems you are taking this far too personally. If you are offended by the opinions of atheists, the critique, the manner in which you are criticized and logically argued with, then perhaps you are in the wrong place. This is not a place for us to "teach those stupid theists" - you came here. To an atheist forum, full of atheists, as a theist or deist or whatever position you may reconcile yourself with. Do not be surprised that you receive harsh opinions and debate.

I do take things personally. A lot more so lately. Lately I've been emotionally driven and I've been going through some sort of crises for the last year.
It's not easy being a skeptic of everything while others you're close to and love will all but spit in your face because of it. I'm also in the middle of a lot of marriage problems in the midst of questions about my purpose.
Whatever I say, just pretend I'm saying it nicely if that makes you feel better.
I've never went swimming in a pool full of irrational humans before. So my level of patience has been murdered.
I'm not surprised by harsh opinions or rash people in the world of Atheism. I am surprised by the lack of civil usage of arguments. Instead of responding in terms of learning experience, it's been mostly in terms of me being ignorant for believing it, and so on unto infinity. What a great response to my argument Dodgy
Yes, I came here, as a Theist wanting to chat with Atheists.
You also came here as an Atheist to do whatever it is you want to do in this Forum. The forum, as far as I know, has no rules of the beliefs of it's residents. So just as much as I need to expect what I have coming, anyone else here should also not be surprised when someone of a different belief comes in to either learn, or to blab about repentance and what not.

(28-11-2012 08:43 PM)Logisch Wrote:  That said, even though you probably (still) don't remember me, I did enjoy the few conversations we had over skype. You're a nice guy and I can tell that you get rather annoyed with some of the critique you receive from people (and people seemed to love to bombard you with stuff, so I can't blame you).

I am glad that you think of me as a nice guy. And I'm sorry if I am altering that view presently. I am not in a very pleasant mood lately. So I am not exactly that nice guy anymore.
My tolerance levels just left and I don't know how to get them back.

(28-11-2012 08:43 PM)Logisch Wrote:  So either you are here because you feel you "want to teach us something", or you want to learn something about yourself and your beliefs, or you want to know more about atheists. I can't think of any other reasons a theist would join here unless you have other reasons. But again, people here can be blunt, very edged on their points. Do not take it personally as it is not directed to be personal at you, but the belief and the things we hear on a very regular basis.

Alright, well I can tell you that I am not here to teach you anything. I am here to gain knowledge and test my belief against it's opposite.

And look, I know that you are blunt sometimes and sometimes can be harsh as well. Just like Chas or DLJ, but you also have tenderness and understanding. Vosur doesn't have a nice bone in his body for me.
And if he does, it's only for a second before he smashes me again.
-_-

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
29-11-2012, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2012 07:28 PM by Vosur.)
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Check this out Vosur --- Atheism has provided none, zero, nada, niets in terms of any substance showing that believing in God is illogical.
Probably not illogical, but most definitely irrational, as a belief in god(s) is not based on evidence, but on faith alone. Feel free to show me that I'm wrong.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Vosur doesn't have a nice bone in his body for me.
And if he does, it's only for a second before he smashes me again.
-_-
Have I ever been disrespectful to you when we talked to each other on Skype (i.e. more personally)? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 07:25 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2012 07:34 PM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
(29-11-2012 07:24 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Check this out Vosur --- Atheism has provided none, zero, nada, niets in terms of any substance showing that believing in God is illogical.
Probably not illogical, but most definitely irrational, as a belief in god(s) is not based on evidence, but on faith alone. Feel free to show me that I'm wrong.
no

(29-11-2012 07:24 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Have I ever been disrespectful to you when we talked to each other on Skype (i.e. more personally)?

That's good that you're respectful on Skype. All that means is that you are different when you type stuff.
So what's your point?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 07:47 PM
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
(29-11-2012 07:25 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  no
I rest my case.

(29-11-2012 07:25 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  That's good that you're respectful on Skype. All that means is that you are different when you type stuff.
Likewise. I don't engage in a "live" conversation with peeps when I'm in a bad mood. When I'm posting on a forum, however, this is no hindrance for me. Just like for you. What happens when both of us meet on the forums while in a bad mood has been obvious in the past. A solution to this problem would be to restrain oneself from posting until one has cooled down enough to keep a civil tone. That's what I've learned from our previous encounters and that's what I've been doing ever since last time. It helps a lot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-11-2012, 07:55 PM
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
(29-11-2012 07:24 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Check this out Vosur --- Atheism has provided none, zero, nada, niets in terms of any substance showing that believing in God is illogical.
Probably not illogical, but most definitely irrational, as a belief in god(s) is not based on evidence, but on faith alone. Feel free to show me that I'm wrong.


Frankly Vosur, I would contend that it is illogical and irrational.


The idea of a god (specifically theistic) is not consistent with any evidence (not supported) and, I'd say it becomes a non-sequitur when compared with what we do know about the universe (unless you are one of those "God of the Gaps" kinds of people), and thus is illogical. And the belief of said without evidence is irrational.

Then again, I might be missing out on some final piece of the puzzle that I've not been shown as of yet which would make it all logically consistent.... But I'm not one to rely on internal consistency.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 08:23 PM
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
(28-11-2012 05:15 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:None of that is the same as proving nonexistence.

I didn't say non-existence, I said negative. The line is you can't prove a negative.

Also, this has nothing to do with burden of proof and I couldn't tell you why it's difficult to accept.
But the line is used to talk about being unable to disprove deities and their existence, so you're changing the subject. I'm not talk about John's bathtub defying the laws of physics. I'm talking about whether or not something exists at all. That's not at all the same thing as saying "My pet tree frog can't tow four lawnmowers, therefore God exists." I'm not asking "Can [X] do something?" I'm asking "Does [X] exist?"

The phrase "proving a negative" is not used to refer to ability/inability to do something, it's about disproving existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of...egative.22
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
29-11-2012, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2012 09:49 PM by Logisch.)
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
I wanted to make sure I took the time to go through your post and respond you to in a respectful manner as you did the same for me and I appreciate that.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  If you're implying that the only thing you will accept is proof, then yes, I am wasting my time here. Every sane man knows that there is no absolute proof for the existence of God, just as much as there is no absolute proof concerning the Theory of Evolution.

Empirical evidence and proof of a good sound argument are the only things that I personally am willing to accept. I do not see philosophical arguments as proof or evidence of an entity. If there is nothing empirical to back it up then yes, I personally am unwilling to accept it.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  But what do we do as humans to determine the validity of a Theory? We use evidence to make an inference. An Inference is a conclusion that you make by using the evidence at hand.
So please understand where I'm coming from -
I balance the scale of the more logical side of the argument using evidence - Not proof -

I want to know if I am wrong when I say this:

An Evolutionist has made an inference (conclusion) based on -->Evidence<-- ,and not proof, to determine it's validity.
(btw, I do not argue against evolution at all)

Yes, evolution is based off of evidence that supports the theory, empirical evidence. But we have a theory in place to support the argument and the evidence which explains it. If a person is to propose an entity of sorts it should be defined and well explained how any evidence or proof would fit in to actually prove that said entity exists. If it cannot and cannot be empirically verified, then that does not count in my book and would still be something along god of the gaps or trying to fit something with another thing.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Can I not, as a Theist, argue the evidence for Theism? If evidence is what is available, and proof currently is not, then it doesn't seem fair at all to ask me for proof when I cannot give that to you.

Also, I want to just make sure we're on the same page about what proof really means.
As far as I know, proof is something more absolute than evidence. As far as I know, proof is undeniable whereas evidence is broken into pieces to make up a larger picture.
So that's where I'm getting at. In your recent quote it sounds like you are only wanting me to provide "proof" of Gods existence, and are not interested in the evidence (Or what most of you call "not evidence").

Correct, proof is defined as something that clearly demonstrates or shows something that removes all doubt. Evidence is defined as things we can use that are available indicating something is true. I still do not see either in a field of suggestions that would indicate an entity or said god being aside from philosophical arguments. But again, I would want empirical evidence and something to show definitive proof that said entity exists.

Your evolution example is a good example. For instance, we can use the theory as the example of an explanation and then we have fossil evidence, dna evidence, and biological examples as evidence.

For someone to propose the existence of a god or gods, one would need to define what it is and have a theory to fit along with evidence (which so far the only "evidences" proposed that I've seen that call themselves a theory are usually creationists that avoid all of the rest of science to come up with them, which is something I'm not willing to disregard since they are good examples already).

This is where Occam's Razor comes into play for me. I can already explain the universe just fine with the tools and theories we have in place. A god being does not help me explain it any better. Therefore, I see no reason to believe otherwise. If someone proposed one, I would expect it to help me explain the universe better while being capable of adopting all the things we already have in place (since we already can explain them).

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You're saying you're a skeptic. Just don't say it like I'm not a skeptic myself. Of all people I know in my life, I'm the biggest skeptic of them all. My family has all but exiled me because of my stubborn skepticism driving them insane. My religious family can't stand the fact that I don't believe what the preacher tells me and they're constantly telling me how rude it is for me to walk up to the pastor after his sermon and ask him the questions I do. The ridiculous answers I get from some of these leaders would make just about any normal person become an instant Atheist.
I don't buy into a lot of religious bull, and I also don't buy into the "it's just us" Theory.
I'm a major skeptic of both sides. I am critical of every single truth claim until it proves to be more true than false. Then I criticize it some more. The only difference between us may be that you no longer question your side (I don't know that for sure though).

I apologize if you took my post that way but I was not trying to say that you are not a skeptic. I think it's fantastic that you are willing to ask those questions. The fact that you care enough to even ask means you care about what you believe rather than just being another sheeple. There's plenty of them. Many people will accept something from anyone who they see as a point of authority without ever asking or blinking an eye. So hats off to you. I did not do that for a long time in my life, when I did is when things finally started making more sense to me.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Here's the bottom line of this point I'm making. If you no longer want evidence from Theists - Please say so. I would gladly go on playing my video games and getting some good rest instead of stressing over this Forum.
If you are willing to listen to evidence from us Theists (AS I AM ALWAYS DAMN WILLING TO LISTEN TO YOURS FOR F**K SAKE watching your 2 hour long videos and taking notes. Stupid crap I do here.. )

Depends on what people see as evidence.

To me it should be something that can stand up to scrutiny, does not currently have to "explain away" science already in place (since current science has been empirically verified, unless other science replaces it).

I am always willing to entertain ideas and hear out arguments and proposals. After all, I'm a skeptic, not a hard ass. Anyone with an open mind should be willing to listen. If you want, you're always free to drop me a pm and we can talk. I won't insult you, I'll never resort to ad hominems to you and I'm more than happy to talk to you about stuff.

Regarding videos. I try rarely to use them as a "response" to people unless I feel I've already addressed it in an argument and maybe someone wants to see the source. But I do not like using them as an "answer" since pointing someone to something and saying, "Here just watch this and you'll understand" is not necessarily a fair answer.

"If one cannot explain it simply, one does not understand it well enough in the first place."

I assume you're referring to others though and not me.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Bam, nice quote here. This is exactly my life's theme. I care much more about what is true than what sounds good to me.
Guess what, Heaven and Hell actually sound AWFUL to me. I can't STAND the idea of Hell, and the idea of Heaven makes it worse.
[[[I'm sorry if I'm being a bit edgy here - kind of pissed right now.. not necessarily at anyone here.. I just.. well whatever]]]
So am I Atheist now?
No, because Atheism hasn't provided enough to convince me that God does not exist. Check this out Vosur --- Atheism has provided none, zero, nada, niets in terms of any substance showing that believing in God is illogical. So far, every argument for Atheism that I've encountered is nothing but biased arguments against Theism. Most of the material that I come across isn't even against the Theory of God. It's against the Christian God.
It's funny that people have CRITICIZED me for not arguing for the Christian God and instead arguing just for the plausibility of Gods existence to begin with.
This criticism comes from Atheists who say that Christians should only argue for the Christian God. Where the hell does that kind of rule come from? Why should I be restricted to that made-up rule? To me, it only makes sense to start with just God. NOT the Christian, Muslim or Mormon God. It doesn't make sense at all to start in a place that is so much more complicated.

No worries. Again, I can understand where you are coming from. Keep in mind a lot of people on these forums were atheists their whole life and cannot put themselves in your shoes. I cannot specifically since I am not you, but some of us (such as myself) were previous christians, or previously religious. It is very difficult to attempt to really consider being an atheist if you are still holding onto the idea of a god. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it, but especially for some of us who perhaps were raised with it our whole lives, the idea of letting go is not only terrifying but scary and difficult to fathom.

Your goal should also not be to find out "what it is you need to become an atheist" but to care enough about what is true (and I think you're on a good path to do so, you are where you are right now and that is fine) as to be willing to decide if you can accept the answers.

You have already dove into more than most theists that come here. I think that says a lot about your character and willingness to search. That is important, so do not let those who are perhaps blunt or critical of you deter you or feel bad. Remember that it is very easy for many of us (myself included, I am no exception) to become just as pissed off, or frustrated or roll our eyes or just simply disregard and push things aside because we hear much of the same arguments very often and sometimes it just gets frustrating. It's nothing personal against you.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  This is the way I see it:
If God does not exist - Just about all major religions are false.
BAM

Yep. That pretty much sums it up. To boot, so far everything I've seen points to the fact that it's all manmade. What's wrong with that? Is what it is in my opinion. The fact is that it's now the 21st century and people are just now figuring it out on a larger scale than prior.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So, why not start there so you can just skip passed all the other junk if you conclude that God does not exist? It seems like it would make sense to others as well, but I'm guessing not anymore. o.O

Not sure what you mean skip past all the other junk? If you mean arguing with theists.... I really don't worry about the bible anymore. I can't even remember the last time I picked mine up, even for purposes of debate. I'll google a phrase now and then for a debate, but really, I just don't care because I think it's all garbage anyway. But that's just me.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Of course it does not necessarily mean that.
I don't believe things because I believe it's just necessary that it be this way. I believe things because I have come to that conclusion based on what I've learned.
It's the same with anything else, I build up knowledge on a particular topic - that knowledge directs me to one conclusion or the other. I don't say "Hey, this looks like it has purpose, so therefore there must be a God! derrrr"
No.
I instead say "The evidence at hand directs me more towards the validity of a creator and less towards the absence of a creator."
For me, it's all about which side is more convincing given the evidence.

It may be as simple as: I have come to understand that some things don't require empirical evidence in order to make an inference, but rather, circumstantial evidence can be as valid.

My largest issue with circumstantial evidence is that many people can translate things many ways. One person could pick up an object and infer one thing, while another may view it as a piece of the puzzle to another. The question is, "How do we know?" and how does it fit in and why?

I'm not sure which specifics you're referring to, but if you want, feel free to pm me and perhaps we can discuss instead of 2 page long replies over this thread (since it's easier than copying and pasting lots of quotes).


(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It seems like you are referring to the "Teleological Argument" as something I go by. I don't remember ever using that argument, but I could be wrong. Usually I just stick to something closer to the first cause argument. Sometimes the moral argument.
And the reason I conclude with something like "god" is because the definition of what is required for the arguments to even work is the definition of something intensely powerful. If you would like, I can just say "Something extremely powerful" in substitute for "God".
Now watch this for a moment -
It's easy for me to switch your quote around on you.
"There is nothing great about this. It's not amazing and these things don't add up (to me) or make sense (to me) and don't appear (to me) to have an intelligence, it doesn't make logical sense. Therefore no god."
So I just basically just turned this into a subjective issue. The issue of our conversation may be subjective, but what we are trying to reach by being skeptical is to reach something more objective or solid.
It's quite right that things either make sense or they don't (to me), but that's the point. We are trying to make sense of things. My whole vent is contributed to this. I want to talk to Atheists in order to understand their position better to either - Stay in my position or LEAVE my position -
I am not here to push anyone into my position.
Where you guys see me get mad is when I am having a conversation and the person I am talking to is being irrational or purposely misinterpreting my views to make my views look warped while their own views stand solid.
I don't work that way. I place both views on the table, give them both the same fair criticism, and then place the view that stands the more logical above the other view until the lower view finds better credence.

I try not to misinterpret or dishonestly represent someone's question. If someone asks a question I at least try to entertain it and answer it, unless the person is asking a question to be passive aggressive or purposely trolling, in which case they get what they give. I understand you've received a fair bit of criticism on here, but I think it's easy for people to become frustrated when they want to see someone "see things their way" but cannot put themselves in your shoes. As I said before, you are where you are. Regardless of whether or not you remain a theist, or are agnostic, or atheist or whatever, it is irrelevant. Taking the first steps to give a shit about what is true, to ask questions and at least probe far more than sheeple do is a great first step.

I never stated a specific argument you went by, just observations from what I read in the threads that you linked. Some people do stick to one argument. But especially with newer generations of today's people, I find there is a lot of people who have multiple ideas and multiple arguments and perhaps their own interpretation full of smaller puzzle pieces of things that piece together their belief.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I do take things personally. A lot more so lately. Lately I've been emotionally driven and I've been going through some sort of crises for the last year.
It's not easy being a skeptic of everything while others you're close to and love will all but spit in your face because of it. I'm also in the middle of a lot of marriage problems in the midst of questions about my purpose.
Whatever I say, just pretend I'm saying it nicely if that makes you feel better.
I've never went swimming in a pool full of irrational humans before. So my level of patience has been murdered.
I'm not surprised by harsh opinions or rash people in the world of Atheism. I am surprised by the lack of civil usage of arguments. Instead of responding in terms of learning experience, it's been mostly in terms of me being ignorant for believing it, and so on unto infinity. What a great response to my argument Dodgy
Yes, I came here, as a Theist wanting to chat with Atheists.
You also came here as an Atheist to do whatever it is you want to do in this Forum. The forum, as far as I know, has no rules of the beliefs of it's residents. So just as much as I need to expect what I have coming, anyone else here should also not be surprised when someone of a different belief comes in to either learn, or to blab about repentance and what not.

I think you'll find there are far more civil arguments here than on many other forums. I joined many atheist forums prior to coming here and the vast majority were filled with a lot of trolls, no moderation at all and on many, theists got banned all the time. Here people are allowed to entertain ideas freely.

A lot of the response you will receive will highly depend on your response to others. Get upset and throw out emotional responses and people will smell it threads away and come running.

Someone who can compose things, ignore the trolls, know when it is necessary to ignore someone and know when it is necessary to justify yourself is the person who has control of their actions. My best advice would be to not take things so personally. Many are not attacking personally the things you propose, and more the idea or things. Some may even read only a glimpse and assume (I cannot say that for all, but some, it is to statistically be expected on a large forum) and others may simply just get tired of hearing about it.

That said you are correct, we have no rules about who joins. But you are statistically vastly surrounded by atheists, so expect atheists, is mostly what I'm saying Tongue

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I am glad that you think of me as a nice guy. And I'm sorry if I am altering that view presently. I am not in a very pleasant mood lately. So I am not exactly that nice guy anymore.
My tolerance levels just left and I don't know how to get them back.

Not altered at all. You responded to me respectfully, I take that and assume that respectfully.

(29-11-2012 07:11 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Alright, well I can tell you that I am not here to teach you anything. I am here to gain knowledge and test my belief against it's opposite.

And look, I know that you are blunt sometimes and sometimes can be harsh as well. Just like Chas or DLJ, but you also have tenderness and understanding. Vosur doesn't have a nice bone in his body for me.
And if he does, it's only for a second before he smashes me again.
-_-

Why assume there are opposites? You see, this is something I find interesting. People view theism or atheism as light or dark. Day or night. Sides. I do not see any sides.

I see a universe, reality and the way we can understand them with our senses. There is how you simply see it, explain it, experience it. Atheism is one stance on one subject about one thing, a god or no god. Theism is one stance of one thing, a god or gods.

A better way to think about it is... are you testing your belief in your religion? Or are you testing your belief in a god?

Are you testing your beliefs in how you see and explain the universe or are you trying to confirm them?

As you can see, the questions just proposed are more than just a god. They are multiple things about multiple things.

I try to be blunt and to the point because that is the kind of person that I am. That aside I still try to be a nice person. If I'm harsh or come across as an asshole, it's usually with someone who is insulting others or who doesn't seem interested in being respectful to others on here, therefore as I said... a person gets what they give. But largely, I try to contribute and help and try to be respectful if a person is willing to return in kind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Logisch's post
22-12-2012, 10:53 PM
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
I just want to say, as a believer, I find this one of the best questions I've ever been posed with by an atheist. I've had a long exhausting day, and so just want to commit in writing to attempting a response worthy of the question. I'm thinking about it. Maybe for the first time.

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rjminns's post
22-12-2012, 11:28 PM
RE: What Proof do Theists Want?
In my honest opinion, no offence to anyone that fits this description but I don't think they actually care for the other side. They may act like it, argue, read a science article or two but when they constantly seem to bounce back with bullshit do they really care? There are members on this form (Richard, Bucky, to name a few on top of my head) that have destroyed any arguments that God exists on this forum.

I've noticed a few people (on this forum and in other places) that just keep arguing, debating. I don't think they really care, if they did they'd be seemingly smarter. If people that claim they want proof actually want it, then the arguments that are usually made will make a dent. If not, well then I wouldn't waste my time with them. They can pretend they care to be smarter about the subject, to learn but when there isn't any product then you can tell they don't really give a fuck.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: