Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

Again it is ridiculous to say on one hand that explanation X is implausible because of these natural rules (people tend not to die for a lie, groups of people tend not to see similar illusions etc) and then on the other hand throw natural law out the window and embrace a supernatural explanation.

If standards of adhering to nature don't apply for one explanation why are they expected to apply for others?

Well, I think you've really got the nail on the head right there. This entire thread from Jackass has shown me nothing but desperation to cling onto his faith. I wonder if Jackass was born into a different religious community would he still hold all the same views an beliefs, since he considers them all perfectly reasonable...

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

pwnd!

Don't know why believers keep referencing C.S Lewis. Some of the arguments in Mere Christianity are beyond dumb, particularly with a modern understanding of evolution of human behaviour. I can't stand the argument that the existence of human morality and a notion of right or wrong is evidence for God. It is cyclical reasoning of the highest order.

Its like Wolfsbane sending everyone to Answers in Genesis to "back up" his points.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Plus his accusation of an argument from authority was directed at Russell's Teapot... as if we were accepting the concept because Ol' Bertrand said it rather than because it's self-bloody-evident.

Yeah was thinking that myself, neither of these are examples of arguments from authority.

Argument from authority is not the same as saying "Bob explains it better than I could"

An argument from authority is "Bob says it is true and he is a scientist"

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah was thinking that myself, neither of these are examples of arguments from authority.

That was my point. That he falsely claimed someone was using "Argument from Authority", then proceeds to commit the same action, unwittingly not seeing that he can be equally mislabeled with the same logical fallacy by himself.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

This entire thread from Jackass has shown me nothing but desperation to cling onto his faith.

Well in fairness he doesn't have to be posting here, and I sincerely doubt his faith hinges on him convince the rest of us he is correct.

It might be helpful if everyone toned down the attacks over motivation or position. I certainly find it annoying when I'm in the Christian forum and people start attacking why I'm there. Point out the problems or flaws in what he is saying, but leave out the speculation as to why he is saying.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah was thinking that myself, neither of these are examples of arguments from authority.

Argument from authority is not the same as saying "Bob explains it better than I could"

An argument from authority is "Bob says it is true and he is a scientist"

Wicknight explains arguments from authority better than I could.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wicknight explains arguments from authority better than I could.

:pac::cool:

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, one minute you are agreeing with me and now you are indignant?

I'm not resorting to personal attacks. This is not ad hominem. It is directly related to the discussion. You simply won't allow the discussion to go anywhere because you keep shifting the goalposts, changing the subject, stating unreasonable claims, backed by little or no evidence, ignoring points that are crippling to your argument and when people call you on this charade of yours, you throw your hands up and start playing victim.

Pathetic.

Actually, I said "as a mule " because I was thinking to myself. Do I really want to get into a huge argument about who is more stubborn than who? I then thought, no, probably not, it's a futile argument to make as one does. So I decided to take what I thought to be a humorous approach. I don't believe myself to be more stubborn than anyone else for insisting I need good reason if I am to discount what I believe. I'm no more stubborn than you are. I never agreed with you. As such I think arguments concerning what I am like, are irrelevant to the discussion. You have never met me, you don't know what I am like. Infact if you want to know who I am, or what I am like, next time there is an A&A beers, I might come. I can't help but be fed up at the amount of dryness about this forum. I generally come here for a bit of interesting discussion, that's all I come here for. I don't have any alterior motive. I assumed the welcome to the A&A forum was extended to me, just as much as the welcome on the Christianity forum is extended to the atheists and agnostics who are here.

I'm not a victim of anything, nor do I claim to be, however, I merely pointed out that it may be better to discuss the actual topic, rather than "what I am like", or "what my motivation is". It's quite frankly irrelevant.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness he doesn't have to be posting here, and I sincerely doubt his faith hinges on him convince the rest of us he is correct.

It might be helpful if everyone toned down the attacks over motivation or position. I certainly find it annoying when I'm in the Christian forum and people start attacking why I'm there. Point out the problems or flaws in what he is saying, but leave out the speculation as to why he is saying.

Thank you Wicknight. As I said above, I think it is good that there are atheists on the A&A forum, and I welcome it infact. Discussions may get deep, and disagreements may arise. However, this is the case with all discussion that gets somewhat controversial. Infact I even commented of the positive influence that atheists on boards.ie have had on my faith:

Jakkass wrote: »

Thank God that you are a believer in Him. However, from a believer to another, I think that questioning is entirely healthy in the development of faith. Questioning, and dialogue with other people should encourage you to seek the answers, to read the Bible, to find out what you actually believe for yourself. I'm actually thankful for my encounters with atheists and I'm better off for them. I still believe that Jesus Christ is the truth, although I have found some questions challenging they have encouraged me to reason them out for myself. As such JC 2K3, JammyDodger, Wicknight, robindch and others I've had the ability to speak to on boards, are deserving of thanks.

And yes, you are all deserving of thanks, and most certainly all deserving of my respect. I believe every man should have a cause, and I admire your conviction even if I don't share your atheism in any shape or form.

I am willing to recognise some of the encounters I have had as being thought provoking. However, I don't know if any of you will say the same for me. I really don't care.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah was thinking that myself, neither of these are examples of arguments from authority.

Argument from authority is not the same as saying "Bob explains it better than I could"

An argument from authority is "Bob says it is true and he is a scientist"

Thanks again. Useful stuff.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't know man you and your Christian brethen proclaim some pretty crazy **** all the time.

I clearly don't consider it crazy.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You're just as guilty as he is man. In fact I think you come here for that very purpose but hey I could be wrong. I apologise if I am.

No, I actually come in here because I am interested in reasonable calm discussion. I'm not able to get that here anymore so it seems. It also seems that I have overstayed my welcome on the A&A forum. I come in here because I appreciate some of the points that people make here, and I come here because I like to hear other peoples views on it. I've said before there is no guarantee that I will subscribe to any of these viewpoints. However, I most certainly do not come in here to start drama, and I most certainly aim to keep things peaceable with all here.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But yet that is all you come here for.

I come on the A&A forum, if I find something interesting and something I feel I can comment on. Simple as. No alterior motives involved.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How could there be going on what you claim about it? Christianity counts for everything the way you talk. Apparently you'd have no actual life without Christianity.

It counts for a good bit of who I am, but most certainly not all. I'd have a life without Christianity, I'd prefer to have a life with it though. I think that's the choice of every human being to make.

Kipperhell

Jakkass wrote: »

And yes, you are all deserving of thanks, and most certainly all deserving of my respect. I believe every man should have a cause, and I admire your conviction even if I don't share your atheism in any shape or form.

I find that hard to believe as it appears from this thread you have stated a load of religious "facts" and when confronted with definitive statements of why they aren't facts you seem to fail to address them. That isn't respect or any form of logical discussion IMHO.

philologos

Kipperhell wrote: »

I find that hard to believe as it appears from this thread you have stated a load of religious "facts" and when confronted with definitive statements of why they aren't facts you seem to fail to address them. That isn't respect or any form of logical discussion IMHO.

I haven't stated that these are "facts" at all for a start.

Secondly, "definitive statements of why they aren't facts". Well. If I never claimed them to be facts, but rather indications, a statement of why they aren't facts wouldn't be relevant considering I didn't say anything of the sort, would it?

As for "logical discussion". I can't help but think that by this you are automatically assuming that the atheist argument is logical to me. It certainly isn't to me. My argument mightn't make sense to you logically, but that doesn't mean that it is universal that an argument makes sense just because you believe it to make sense. If we didn't deal with absolutes on what is logical or what is not, it would be a lot easier for us to actually dialogue as equals.

However, let me deal with the main point here. As to whether or not I do respect atheists. There are quite a few examples, if we go back down the somewhat long history of my involvement with atheists on boards.ie, and since my acceptance of Christianity (prior to this I rarely got involved in religion debates, well, because I wasn't sure of what I believed, therefore it would have been pointless, wouldn't it?) of me conceding, and even accepting the advice of an atheist to the benefit for my faith. Infact Wicknight has influenced my faith even to the extent of what Bible translation I commonly use. Heres an interesting thread from past events (I'm much more critical of Scientology in this thread than I am now, but the discussion eventually digressed until the point when Wicknight corrected me on my use of the Good News Translation of the Bible after an dispute concerning the rendering of Luke 14 in my Bible).

I'll even quote the dialogue for your benefit:

The thread is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055099581&page=5

The relevant posts:

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you have any sources that suggest that the Good News Translation is inaccurate, or are you just going to continue making assumptions?

Wicknight wrote: »

Its quite common knowledge. I think it is even written in the back of some of the editions that it isn't a literal translation.

A very quick Google produced the following -

http://www.prayerfoundation.org/bible_translations_comparison.htm

The easiest Versions to read and understand are the Living Bible (actually a paraphrase) and the Good News Bible (Today's English Version). But neither of these versions are considered to be as accurate as either the King James Version or two other very popular versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Bible

The GNT has been challenged as to the degree of accuracy one of the translators maintained to the Greek texts.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-News-Bible-English-Version/dp/customer-reviews/0840712677

The claim to fame for Today's English Version (TEV), previously known as the Good News Bible, is that it was the first dynamic-equivalence translation. Its editors did not try translating what was literally written; they instead tried translating meaning ... In accuracy, Today' English Version is aoubt as bad as it gets!

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ I must admit. Good job Wicknight. I'll be off to get the Anglicized NRSV translation so.

robindch wrote: »

As Wicknight has carefully pointed out, all he has done is to provide an interpretation which competes with yours.

And with respect to different interpretations, well, years ago, I read much of the gospels in Ancient Greek and was surprised, even then (when I was a church-going catholic), with how many possible reasonable translations there were of these, something which seemed to have been rarely noticed, and certainly never highlighted, by religious translators with one religion, and one point of view, to uphold. It never ceases to amaze me how people can place such amounts of uncritical trust in something that they cannot even read in the original.

And I mustn't forget to pass on sincere kudos to Jakkass, for being honest enough to say 'ok, I didn't know that -- thanks'. I believe that's the first time in two years or so around this forum that I've seen a religious person saying to an irreligious one, that their knowledge of some aspect of their religion might need updating. Makes all the discussion worthwhile, imho.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well if I'm wrong, I generally admit I am wrong, theres no point making everyone annoyed over nothing

If only we could get that well humoured form of discussion back on here eh? Clean, no personal attacks, no drama, no people going off cursing because I don't agree with them. That's what we should be aiming for, maybe we could all do with a trip down memory lane?

However, Kipperhell, do you not think it's slightly petty to go down the road of whether I am lying when I am saying I respect atheists on boards.ie or not? Probably a better question. Do we really want to go down that road?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass, the reason that exchange worked out so well is because you changed your debating tactics.

Gone is the goalpost shifting, the missing of context, the impossible-to-meet standards of acceptable evidence, etc, etc, etc.

Well done. I hope you can maintain this level and I guarantee you that no one will have a problem.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Jakkass, the reason that exchange worked out so well is because you changed your debating tactics.

I think it is more the change in how people are tolerating other peoples views here. I think we can be more open, and more friendly in exchange. I think that is reasonable to ask. I really do not think it is just me, and I'm willing to accept that I may be partially responsible.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Gone is the goalpost shifting, the missing of context, the impossible-to-meet standards of acceptable evidence, etc, etc, etc.

I haven't been shifting the goalposts at all. I'm merely saying that it's probably unlikely that I will change my views concerning the Resurrection unless there is a very very good reason to. MrPudding at the start of this thread implied that there was a large mass of evidence against the Resurrection event. This is simply not true.

As for the "impossible-to-meet" standards of evidence. On Youtube, our atheist - theist brethren have been arguing this, except from the other side. TogetherForPeace, argued that atheists, when one gets into dialogue with them raise the bar higher and higher, so that a theist cannot reach their standards of evidence, or that they have a mental barrier in discourse. I'm sure that is the case too.

However, to insist that I have some form of argument that is low handed, or sneaky, compared to anyone on this thread, I would really say that that really isn't the case ultimately.

As I say, I am willing to accept your objections. However, this is not my problem alone if it is a problem we have been having in discussion. Please don't fool yourself.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well done. I hope you can maintain this level and I guarantee you that no one will have a problem.

I hope I can too, I'm fed up of these dry arguments that we constantly have here. I hope we can both recognise whatever faults in argumentation may arise.

Peace be with you. I doubt I'll be contributing any more to this thread concerning the actual topic of the Ressurection. I consider it a primary indication for my faith, and infact it is a crucial pillar of Christianity (see 1 Corinthians 15:14 which I quoted earlier).

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Peace be with you. I doubt I'll be contributing any more to this thread concerning the actual topic of the Ressurection. I consider it a primary indication for my faith, and infact it is a crucial pillar of Christianity (see 1 Corinthians 15:14 which I quoted earlier).

I realise that. I know some serious Christians very well, so I get why it is significant. What I really couldn't get was why you were so unwilling to listen to other views. You may deny this charge all you want, but there were quite a number of occasions above where you made statements such as:

How can planets simply form out of nothing? (or whatever), you were then given a perfectly good explanation, sometimes with diagrams or links to evidence and what was your response?

To ignore them and carry on with your incredulity. That was highly frustrating to those who had taken the time to address your concerns, but my suspicion was that your ignorance was/is wilful. I found the same with those Christians I know, and it was the reason why I quickly dropped trying to explain these things to them and started to treat them like the way I would protect a child from hearing sexual references.

Perhaps I should do the same on here.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I realise that. I know some serious Christians very well, so I get why it is significant. What I really couldn't get was why you were so unwilling to listen to other views. You may deny this charge all you want, but there were quite a number of occasions above where you made statements such as:

I'm not unwilling to listen. I'm unwilling to accept things that I find to be unconvincing.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

How can planets simply form out of nothing? (or whatever), you were then given a perfectly good explanation, sometimes with diagrams or links to evidence and what was your response?

The evidence that I was provided, by Wicknight and another poster, was that the world is so large, and so expansive that the Big Bang would have had to happen eventually of it's own accord. However, this really doesn't deal with the question. I had thought the Big Bang started the expansion of the universe as we know it. Therefore the universe cannot be infinite if it has been spreading for a finite amount of time. That was my main objection. I must remind you Flamed Diving, if I do not find something convincing, I'm not going to accept it blindly. I'm going to hold the skepticism that atheists so often advocate if I don't find that the case holds up. That's reasonable, I find that reasonable anyway. I will be thinking of these examples I have been provided, and I will research it for myself in the next few days. I just think you are being unfair to me by saying that I am just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I amn't really at all.

Remember: What you consider to be a good explanation, does not make it a good explanation as an absolute. It is a subjective opinion. It by no means means that I should consider it a good explanation if I don't find it to be so. As I explained in the post I made to Kipperhell, if we removed the absolutes on "logic", and "sense" and realised that what makes sense to one may not make sense to another. We'd be going along on a much easier path. I do not have to accept anything, if I do not find it convincing. Neither do you. That is the main point that needs to be got across.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

To ignore them and carry on with your incredulity. That was highly frustrating to those who had taken the time to address your concerns, but my suspicion was that your ignorance was/is wilful. I found the same with those Christians I know, and it was the reason why I quickly dropped trying to explain these things to them and started to treat them like the way I would protect a child from hearing sexual references.

I didn't ignore them. I've considered them all. I even acknowledged that DeVores attempt at explaining infinity was a good one, I even agreed with some of what Galvasean said at the start of the post. Infact I think I am more open minded than many of the atheists who have spoken in this thread. If it is highly frustrating to those atheists who had attempted to explain that I don't find them convincing. Tough, I'm under no coercion to automatically accept what people say without thinking about it for myself.

I'm no more ignorant than you are. I take a different view than you. It is merely a problem of your attitude and the attitude of other atheist posters here. If people simply took to heart what I have left in bold on this post we'd be getting along much easier here.

Kipperhell

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't stated that these are "facts" at all for a start.

Read your own posts because it is clear that you have stated certain things are fact. No need to literally repeat yourself, you have stated your beliefs as fact.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, Kipperhell, do you not think it's slightly petty to go down the road of whether I am lying when I am saying I respect atheists on boards.ie or not? Probably a better question. Do we really want to go down that road?

I never said you were lying I said your statement was not true based on how you have approached the argument so no it is not petty. Anybody can say they "respect" something but it doesn't make it fact their actions and words are a better indicator. Now the cynic in me would say that making some statements and then behaving differently is intentional deception but it could be equally the inability to comprehend through ignorance or a dogmatic view.
However it seems intentional to label my disbelief in your statement as an accusation of lying when it clearly wasn't just your statement is disingenuous .
Other people have pointed out that you have avoided answers and you have made statements suggesting everybody else is changing and logic is some how changeable dependent on belief. It is not logical to assume the bible is correct it is a faith that it is correct. You have said "why would they lie?" and have been given answers and then ignored them.
That is faith not logic you are welcome to it but it doesn't make it logic no matter how you protest it is an interpretation of logic.
People lost patience with discussions where somebody refuses to discuss the points and just repeats them self.

This may appear to be personal at first glance but I am talking specifically about the method or discussion you have chosen and the method of engagement/avoidance. Your belief are yours to play around with but you are claiming to be in an open discussion when it appears to me that one side of the discussion is selective and quote mining which makes little difference or contribution.

philologos

Kipperhell: I must admit I am dissapointed to see this post, especially after I have explained my motivations in a crystal manner. No I have never said that my beliefs were absolute fact, I do however believe them to be the truth. I would have thought that was clear given what I said to CerebralCortex earlier on in the thread. I shouldn't have to do this, and I think you know that I shouldn't have to explain my intentions to you. They should be clear. If you want to theorise aboute what hidden intentions you think I have, there is a forum for that. I don't think I should have to do that here however.

I've given you a crystal clear example of how I have been able to benefit from the input of atheists. I have to say that you are truly without excuse now. On your use of "ignorance". You have no proper reason to see me as being any more "ignorant" than you are. Such is merely rhethoric that isn't really useful in discussion if you aim to gain an understanding from another point of view.

You really should have read my posts to Flamed Diving before you have responded on me ignoring the posts. That's nothing but nonsense either, I did consider them, and I will be considering them more when I look up this stuff for myself when I get the time to do so. (I have exams coming up in a few weeks time).

kdak

Ok at the risk of sounding like a spammer i'm gonna tell you about two things that changed my whole belief system!
I used to be a practicing catholic and would attend church every sunday and not question one thing about the bible, or should I say I was afraid to question it cause I knew that common sense contradicts it.
so my partner (who hates religion) was determined to make me just open my mind a little and prove it right or wrong on my own terms so i started doing some research and one thing that swayed my faith was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

its a popular video so most of you have probably seen it already but its worth a look if you haven't. its very matter of fact and not pratonising at all. i dont agree with some parts of it but the majority of it is spot on.

the deal breaker for me was a book called "In God We Doubt" by John Humphrys. it takes neither an atheist or religous approach- he just has an open mind about the whole thing and discusses different theories and different philosophers in a simple way, including richard dawkins who I refuse to actually read as I find him to be extremely arrogant but thats just my opinion!

Anyway, now I'm a true atheist! so they may be worth a look if you're questioning your faith! or if you have some questions about inconsistencies.

Flamed Diving

kdak wrote: »

Ok at the risk of sounding like a spammer i'm gonna tell you about two things that changed my whole belief system!
I used to be a practicing catholic and would attend church every sunday and not question one thing about the bible, or should I say I was afraid to question it cause I knew that common sense contradicts it.
so my partner (who hates religion) was determined to make me just open my mind a little and prove it right or wrong on my own terms so i started doing some research and one thing that swayed my faith was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

its a popular video so most of you have probably seen it already but its worth a look if you haven't. its very matter of fact and not pratonising at all. i dont agree with some parts of it but the majority of it is spot on.

the deal breaker for me was a book called "In God We Doubt" by John Humphrys. it takes neither an atheist or religous approach- he just has an open mind about the whole thing and discusses different theories and different philosophers in a simple way, including richard dawkins who I refuse to actually read as I find him to be extremely arrogant but thats just my opinion!

Anyway, now I'm a true atheist! so they may be worth a look if you're questioning your faith! or if you have some questions about inconsistencies.

Conspiracy lolz.

philologos

kdac: Unfortunately you've allowed yourself to be lied to. Zeitgeist has long been refuted.
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Zeitgeist+refuted

This doesn't mean that you weren't right to search, it merely means that what you were convinced by has been dealt with extensively since it was produced.

kdak

well i did say it only swayed me. but thanks for letting me know!
the book was the deal breaker, so give that a go!

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

... No I have never said that my beliefs were absolute fact, I do however believe them to be the truth. ...

Many people often mix up 'truth' and 'fact'...
And sometimes people don't mix them up enough. :-)
For example, you believe that "Jesus was resurrected" is a truthful statement... but you know it's not a fact...
This can be confusing for some people...

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not unwilling to listen.

Well, as you would say. Let's agree to disagree.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't been shifting the goalposts at all. I'm merely saying that it's probably unlikely that I will change my views concerning the Resurrection unless there is a very very good reason to.

I really don't get this. Why can't you take a step back and look at both sides of the argument and then decide which is more reasonable and probable?
Why does the fact you already believe in the Resurrection, or whatever you have been taught through religion, hold any more weight?

kdak

jsut a point on the whole 'proving things' to back it up aspect.
you cant 'prove' emotions but they are there. and on the whole 'miracle' thing- love could then be considered a miracle. like just cause you cant prove miracles doesnt mean they dont happen. and im not some bible basher hippy it was just a very hippyish way of trying to get my point across! :pac:

philologos

liamw wrote: »

I really don't get this. Why can't you take a step back and look at both sides of the argument and then decide which is more reasonable and probable?

liamw, what you aren't understanding is merely because you don't think I have done this already. You can't see how someone could ever become a Christian. It's almost offensive to your mind that someone could become a Christian really isn't it? I was an agnostic before I decided to seriously commit myself to Christian faith. Why is it offensive to the mind though? You assume that every intelligent person is to come to atheism right? Perhaps you don't think I have any form of reasonable intelligence at all, by which point you've already answered your question haven't you?

I've already told you on this thread already that I didn't start posting on the Christian / Atheist dialogue here until 2007. As you can see I registered in 2005. You will find very very few posts before 2007 with me discussing religion if anything at all. From 2007 to 2008 I read the Bible including the Catholic and Greek Orthodox apocryphas this was the point when I was starting to think about it the most. I posted here, and I was challenged by various atheists, I moulded my positions on theology during this time.

As for the Resurrection, I believe it to be probable, because I looked at the Christian text, and then I read Christian apologists explain the position of the Resurrection and how it is reasonable to believe in a Resurrection event. If you haven't done this, you should really do this at some point.

liamw wrote: »

Why does the fact you already believe in the Resurrection, or whatever you have been taught through religion, hold any more weight?

You're making the assumption that I haven't thought about this at all. You're also making the assumption that I have been taught everything I know about Christianity by listening from one person to another in church, or in school. Again this isn't the truth of how I received Christianity either. I may have heard some things about Christianity in school, but to be honest with you, I was amazed when I read the Bible first. Actually amazed at how little of what was in there was actually imparted to us through the schools, or how little I would have understood from church.

I'm not going to get into any more discussion concerning the Resurrection and my reasoning for holding it on these threads for obvious reasons. However, I can give you some references that might be useful for you to think about if you want, or if you have any further questions about Christianity, or about my faith in particular, feel free to PM.

LookingFor

Jakkass, are you still accepting challenges to your '7 reasons'?

I didn't read the thread they arose in initially until now..I think there's challenges to be made on all of them with regard to their ability to confirm or persuade of the 'validity' or truth of the religion.

This is probably OT though, I don't know if we should engage in this here..

philologos

I'd be glad to discuss with you in private message format.

GothPunk

kdak wrote: »

you cant 'prove' emotions but they are there. and on the whole 'miracle' thing- love could then be considered a miracle.

There are brilliant scientific explanations for emotions, including love. For example, the hormone oxytocin is released during/after sex and encourages strong attachments to the person you're having sex with. Sadness and happiness can be related to dopamine levels, and aggression/anger can be linked to testosterone. It's all in our heads! :pac:

So love, as an emotion, isn't a miracle. It's a perfectly natural biological normal regular occurance. However, you could argue that the liklihood of you meeting your partner was so small that it's a personal miracle or something like that, but wouldn't that be just confusing the unlikely or coincidental with miracle?

DeVore

Jak, Kdak etc

Could you do me a favour. Could you list these things in order of "proven-ness" in your opinion: (from "most proven" in your opinion, to "least" proven)

1. The Resurrection
2. Relativity
3. Scientology's writings of L Ron Hubard

Just trying to get to the bottom of something...

DeV.

Kipperhell

Jakkass wrote: »

Kipperhell: I must admit I am dissapointed to see this post, especially after I have explained my motivations in a crystal manner. No I have never said that my beliefs were absolute fact etc...

I stupidly went to the hassle of reading the entire post again to see what you were talking about when you said you answered questions. The simple answer is you haven't and avoided many. You definitely have an issue understanding statements as fact or "truth". You stating your intentions doesn't make it so, it doesn't take a complicated conspiracy to suspect you of doing this intentionally. There are two other options of why you are doing this
It is pretty effective way to argue but not to discuss a point. There has been blame on others for their methods of argument yet why do you think so many posters are only accusing you of ignoring information/questions? That is closer to a conspiracy than anything I have said. I don't care about your intentions other than your method of discussion or lack of.
There are a few techniques one can use to prolong an argument and not enter a discussion
1) Ignore what the other person says and repeat yourself
2) Listen to what they say selectively ignore parts of what they say and respond to only those portions you want/can reply to
3) Make an accusation of what the other person said by either exaggeration or misrepresentation
4) Belittle the person at any given opportunity

If you want to look back at the thread and look at the questions and statements I put to you and answer them that is fine.

I suspect there will be a long winded response that doesn't answer the questions and a series of the above 4 methods of arguing. I have barely discussed points with you and I see this behaviour in your responses to others. Using the befit of doubt I am allowing for you to be oblivious to this and point it out as a flawed method of discussion.


I will say earlier you did state your belief is not fact but as the discussion continues you use the word true or truth. Here is an explanation of what you are doing there.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/03/29/faith/
Now if you want to claim that you believe the bible is actually fact and contains no false information that is fine but it would be nice to know what the basis is. Most people here appear to be simply saying this is unlikely and requires faith and not evidence where there is this other voice that states it is believed based on logic yet there hasn't been logical explanation. There been an answer and then when that was said to be invalid there was no response.