PDN wrote: » I don't think I'm being needlessly argumentative. I think I'm holding a mirror up to some rather strange posting styles and debating tricks and you guys don't llike what you see in the mirror.
PDN wrote: » You managed to ignore the first relevant phrase (I've put it in red type to make it impossible for you to pretend you didn't see it this time).
PDN wrote: » As for the second relevant phrase, you (quite accidentally and innocently I'm sure) selectively edited Soul Winner's quote so as to omit it altogether
PDN wrote: » You managed to ignore the first relevant phrase (I've put it in red type to make it impossible for you to pretend you didn't see it this time). ... As for the second relevant phrase, you (quite accidentally and innocently I'm sure)
robindch wrote: » Without needing to put anything into red, I'm still wondering about this, and this and this
PDN wrote: » All I have done in this thread is to point out the difference between two very different positions - while explicitly stating, in my initial post, that neither position proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs.
Nevertheless my attempts to help some posters improve their debating skills has, quite inexplicably, stirred up a lot of hostility and petty name-calling.
robindch wrote: » Calm down + direct your ire towards ideas, not people.
monosharp wrote: » You also claimed that Soul Winners argument was an atheist strawman.
What proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs then ?
Unless I missed it, your the only one who did any name-calling.
But I'm open to correction.
PDN wrote: » I pointed out the difference between what Soul Winner said (that people are unlikely to die for something that they know to be fictional) and an atheist strawman (that people dying for what they believe to be true in any way validates their beliefs).
I would be amazed if you reached any other conclusion.
Now that is wonderful news. In these current economic circumstances we all need to develop some new skills. Well done!
monosharp wrote: » Ok then. Do you think 'thats' a good argument ? I hope not, because its nonsense logic. People aren't willing to die for fiction = the disciples died for the truth. I know its not your argument, thats why its a question.
I got told to 'shut up' 5 times in a post in your forum, is that acceptable now ?
Sarcasm doesn't suit you.
PDN wrote: » I do think that it increases the likelihood that the disciples were tellling the truth, but that falls a long way short of proof.
monosharp wrote: » Why would it ? People die for stuff they believe in all the time. No offence to the people who've done it but look through history, its riddled with people dying for one cause or another. Look at our own island in the last 50 years. Bobby Sands certainly died for what he believed to be true, and died painfully and horribly for it. Hardly makes the Provos right does it ? Honestly asking, not taking the mick.
Sam Vimes wrote: » So god tricks people into being atheists by creating misleading evidence that only the saved can bring themselves to ignore?
Right so, just wanted to what type of believer I was dealing with.
antiskeptic wrote: » Like I say, God appears to equip unbelievers with a means to sustain their unbelief.
antiskeptic wrote: » Well now you know. One who considers the dilemma rationally
Wicknight wrote: » But God isn't an explanation. It doesn't explain anything, leaving aside the issue that you have no way to find out if it is an accurate explanation (ie Did God actually do anything or not)
It isn't an explanation. It isn't an answer. "God did it" is simply a reason to stop asking the question.
antiskeptic wrote: » Whilst there are many questions one can have that find answers, I'd agree that they all terminate eventually in something like "That's the nature of God". But can't it only be the same with a materialist system? That you end up at "it is just because it is"
Dades wrote: » Just like those tricksy unicorns. The conspicuous lack of evidence for their existence hasn't got me fooled.
King Mob wrote: » If we where to stop at "god did it" we wouldn't have medicine or any other kind of scientific advance. Simple as that. Can you point to one advance ever made that was based on divine revelation? Can you show one falsifiable prediction based on "God Did It?"
antiskeptic wrote: » You seem to have a rather utilitarian view of reality King Mob. Not all share it.
antiskeptic wrote: » God explains the reason why the world is the way it is: why there is sickness and death, why there is so much greed, why folk do good and evil.
antiskeptic wrote: » These conversations always terminate in the question: "can God (if he exists) let someone know he exists?" To which the answer must be yes.
PDN wrote: » All I have done in this thread is to point out the difference between two very different positions - while explicitly stating, in my initial post, that neither position proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs
PDN wrote: » That might be a discussion that would be interesting if we could find a suitable forum where both Christians and atheists are welcome.
Wicknight wrote: » No it doesn't since the Bible doesn't explain why God did this as opposed to anything else. It just says he did. So it doesn't actually explain the reason why, nor does it explain the how. It explains nothing.
That is irrelevant to this issue. Knowing God exists and did something is not an explanation of what he did or why he did it. It is just a reason to stop asking for an explanation.
A lot of people are happy not knowing so long as they think God did something, anything, because all they care about is knowing that a loving God exists who loves them and promises them an after life. Everything about science and understanding is then directed to this question alone and they don't care about not understanding anything else, all that become secondary
Possibly, but I would rather get to that answer properly rather than just accepting the first comforting answer that comes along and stop altogether which is what "God did it" basically is.
You are a perfect example of this, you are convinced God has let himself be known to you and you are happy with this so you stop any further exploration of this, including other possible explanations for why you think this. You dazzle us with circular logic justifying this position and then simply say you don't actually need to justify this position, you are happy with it.[/qutoe] Again, when you strip back the sneering and the assumed higher ground, the philosophy that suggests destinations cannot be arrived at - without saying how you yourself arrived at that destination, is revealed. Along with your unspoken allegience to an undemonstrable worldview: empiricism uber alles. At least I've the good sense to admit such discussions can only end in stalemate - once you've taken the time to step down of the pedestal of your own undemonstrabel assumptions. You stop at the first comforting answer without caring about attempting to determine if this answer is actually accurate or not. Which is your right of course if you want to but if everyone did that we would still be living in caves, so naturally I'm not a fan of the promotion of such a view point. As per above: unsupportable philosophy undergirding your position
You stop at the first comforting answer without caring about attempting to determine if this answer is actually accurate or not. Which is your right of course if you want to but if everyone did that we would still be living in caves, so naturally I'm not a fan of the promotion of such a view point.
antiskeptic wrote: » Why are the laws of nature as they are? Does the fact that you don't know mean the mechanics of things downstream from the unknowable can't be examined? See above. This is general rant. You say God doesn't explain anything. It turns out God does - it's just that a point comes where God is like the laws of nature: they just are. Teasing out the substance here we see simply that you look in different places to me. And seem to take the attitude that arrival at a destination is something to be sneered at. Again, when you strip back the sneering and the assumed higher ground, the philosophy that suggests destinations cannot be arrived at - without saying how you yourself arrived at that destination, is revealed. Along with your unspoken allegience to an undemonstrable worldview: empiricism uber alles. At least I've the good sense to admit such discussions can only end in stalemate - once you've taken the time to step down of the pedestal of your own undemonstrabel assumptions. As per above: unsupportable philosophy undergirding your position
King Mob wrote: » So no, no and no? Why is it so hard for you to give straight answers? It's like you're trying to avoid them...
Now it's not a matter of utility, it's a matter of demonstrating understanding of the world. The simple fact the science directly lead to actual tangible advance shows it works and accurately describes reality.
Your way of knowledge does not as it is indistinguishable from total fiction and leads to no testable insights into reality.
King Mob wrote: » If empiricism is so undemonstrable, how do you explain scientific advances and theoretical models leading to experimental evidence?
antiskeptic wrote: » It's because the challenge is framed so badly. You hold up one tool (science) and demand that another tool (religion/philosophy) suit the purpose of the first tool.
antiskeptic wrote: » I'm not denying that science leads to understanding of the world. I'm just saying that I don't align myself with the view that science is necessarily close to accurately describing reality all of the time.
antiskeptic wrote: » Coming from an unbeliever I can't but agree that's how you'd view it. But you should agree that a blind person (assuming you are blind) can't be expected to see very much. The question is: are you blind or not. And how would you know if you were?
antiskeptic wrote: » Which is why I suggest that all such discussion naturally end in stalemate - there is no resolution to it. It's a quicker option than faffing around assuming the higher ground.
antiskeptic wrote: » By empiricism I mean the philosophy that says (in simple terms) that the only things we can know must be 5 sense detectable. That's a philosophy that can't demonstrate itself to be the case. Many here have the view: if it's not tangible, if it's not subject to the empirical investigation then it can't be knowledge.
King Mob wrote: » You're holding up your makey uppy stuff as equal to science. The point of science is to lead to better insights of the world. If your nonsense leads to better understanding of reality then it should by necessity be able to make testable predictions. Otherwise it is indistinguishable from delusion/fiction, and therefore cannot lead to better understanding of anything.
Can you provide some examples?
Metaphysical waffle pure and simple.
Well it generally is a stalemate when one of the players refuses to actually answer some of the questions...
King Mob wrote: » Einstein predicted in 1905 that light is bend by gravity as it passes a massive object. This very phenomena was experimentally observed during a solar eclipse in 1919. Gravity isn't detectable by our five senses. (In fact most modern physics doesn't rely on our senses at all.)
antiskeptic wrote: » Why are the laws of nature as they are?
antiskeptic wrote: » Does the fact that you don't know mean the mechanics of things downstream from the unknowable can't be examined?
antiskeptic wrote: » See above.
antiskeptic wrote: » This is general rant. You say God doesn't explain anything. It turns out God does - it's just that a point comes where God is like the laws of nature: they just are.
antiskeptic wrote: » Teasing out the substance here we see simply that you look in different places to me. And seem to take the attitude that arrival at a destination is something to be sneered at.
antiskeptic wrote: » Again, when you strip back the sneering and the assumed higher ground, the philosophy that suggests destinations cannot be arrived at - without saying how you yourself arrived at that destination, is revealed. Along with your unspoken allegience to an undemonstrable worldview: empiricism uber alles. At least I've the good sense to admit such discussions can only end in stalemate - once you've taken the time to step down of the pedestal of your own undemonstrabel assumptions.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
