Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

1…7576788081…141

Comments

  • #2312
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Can you deal with the posts I've clearly reported please. Why is this being dealt with in thread ?

    *Sits back and grabs a bucket of popcorn, chuckling all the while*
    Clearly you haven't learned the first lesson of The Internet - never annoy the Mods.


  • #2313
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    SW wrote: »
    I wasn't posting as a moderator, but as a regular user. You claimed someone had used an ad hominem in the post you quoted.

    I asked could you cite where the ad hom. There could well be an ad hom in the post, but some of us can't see it. Not unreasonable to ask you to point it out.

    Would you care to do so now?

    Suggestion - you could say in the future whether or not you're speaking as a mod. I read that post from you, looked to the left, saw you're the mod for christianity and assumed that you were wearing your mod hat for that post.


  • #2314
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Can you deal with the posts I've clearly reported please. Why is this being dealt with in thread ?

    :confused:

    I'm not moderating your use of the ad hominem term. I'm trying to understand where the poster used an ad hom in the post you quoted.

    It's within the scope of the discussion, so why not show where they used an ad hom (and maybe explain your thinking on why it is one)?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2315
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Suggestion - you could say in the future whether or not you're speaking as a mod. I read that post from you, looked to the left, saw you're the mod for christianity and assumed that you were wearing your mod hat for that post.

    I usually post in bold, but can in future add "MOD NOTE" to posts to make it clearer.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2316
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Cen Taurus, I'll leave this link here
    http://howgodworks.com/understand-that-the-bibles-ambiguity-makes-the-bible-meaningless/

    It sums up why I don't operate under the same assumption as you (that J C is in a position to know). That link talks about the bible being so ambiguous that it's pointless for either you or me to try and say definitely what it means.
    Where it any other book we were discussing, and we were coming to opposite conclusions, I would be the first person to suggest contacting the author, to get a clear answer as to just what the author meant.
    However, we can't do that with the bible. From where I'm sitting, you're speaking for a man who died 2,000 years ago (who may not have even existed, I'm not sure one way or the other) who himself claimed to speak for/be a divine being who is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent (from my point of view). I have, literally and I am not lying here, in the past prayed to this being to answer my questions, to provide me answers.
    Nothing happened. If you say you prayed and got answers that back up your views (whatever they may be), why should I believe you? Why should I or anyone else believe that you had the equivalent of a phone call with God when there's no evidence of this symbolic phone at all?


  • Advertisement
  • #2317
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    SW wrote: »
    :confused:

    I'm not moderating your use of the ad hominem term. I'm trying to understand where the poster used an ad hom in the post you quoted.

    It's within the scope of the discussion, so why not show where they used an ad hom (and maybe explain your thinking on why it is one)?

    In addition to that, I've reported the posts to you, on several occasions, including this one, so I don't know why you're asking for the reports again in thread, and making pronouncements on them in thread, or what is going on here exactly, or at this stage, who is the moderator, yourself or the other atheists, and what seats they are in, why this discussion is being held in thread, and what it has to do with the subject at hand.


  • #2318
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    I've reported the posts to you, on several occasions, including this one, so I don't know why you're asking for the reports again in thread, and making pronouncements on them in thread, or what is going on here exactly, or at this stage, who is the moderator, yourself or the other atheists, and what seats they are in.

    Couple of things.

    1. I was asking for you to point to the use of an ad hom in a post, not to point to the post itself.
    2. I haven't made any pronouncements on them in thread. I asked for an example in the post you quoted.
    3. The moderators are listed at the bottom of the forum page. Link here


    Anyways, the question looks like it will go unanswered so I'll leave it at that.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2319
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    SW wrote: »
    Couple of things.

    1. I was asking for you to point to the use of an ad hom in a post, not to point to the post itself.
    2. I haven't made any pronouncements on them in thread. I asked for an example in the post you quoted.
    3. The moderators are listed at the bottom of the forum page. Link here


    Anyways, the question looks like it will go unanswered so I'll leave it at that.

    I've already told you I had reported the posts, and you as a moderator should know what has been reported.
    You then sought in thread reports.
    I then gave you the most recent example in thread, in post # 2304
    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Are posts not supposed to be reported using the report function, instead of asking in thread for them ?
    Well I have reported it.
    Well here's one simple example. There's many more in the thread.
    (Which as you know have been reported)

    QUOTE=TheLurker "Again I'm asking wondering if there is anyone serious who wants to debate this stuff properly. Cause you seem anything but serious. Or maybe just way out of your league."


    What I am or not, or what intellectual "league" I'm allegedly in, has nothing whatsoever to do with the points in the post. Either the poster is capable of addressing them without making it personal, and continually changing the goal posts, or they are not. God exists or does not exist, regardless of any individual.

    You've ignored the reports, and you've ignored the example in thread.
    That's your prerogative, but to then pretend in thread, that I have not reported them, or that I have not given you examples in this very thread is at the very least disingenuous.
    Whether I exist or not, or anything about me, or commentary on me, or allegations about me, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non existence of God or any points regarding same.
    So as I said earlier, get on with it, and ban me.


  • #2320
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    In addition to that, I've reported the posts to you, on several occasions, including this one, so I don't know why you're asking for the reports again in thread, and making pronouncements on them in thread, or what is going on here exactly, or at this stage, who is the moderator, yourself or the other atheists, and what seats they are in, why this discussion is being held in thread, and what it has to do with the subject at hand.

    Cen Taurus,

    You do have a pretty great understanding of how to debate and how to get your point across. You do this very well and I like reading your posts.

    On some occasions though you take the approach of trying to "invalidate" the arguments and points made by others. When you do this you frequently use phrases like "strawman" or "ad hominem" as a way to say that the posters point is invalid and so not worthy of response or recognition.

    I would suggest that if you feel that a poster is making an ad hominem argument then you should clearly explain WHY this argument is not valid.


  • #2321
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    orubiru wrote: »
    Cen Taurus,

    You do have a pretty great understanding of how to debate and how to get your point across. You do this very well and I like reading your posts.

    On some occasions though you take the approach of trying to "invalidate" the arguments and points made by others. When you do this you frequently use phrases like "strawman" or "ad hominem" as a way to say that the posters point is invalid and so not worthy of response or recognition.

    I would suggest that if you feel that a poster is making an ad hominem argument then you should clearly explain WHY this argument is not valid.

    If you make it about the poster instead of the points in the post and the actual subject, it's a fallacious argument, I can't make it any clearer than that. Pretending otherwise and repeatedly making it about the person, as this post does, won't change it.


  • Advertisement
  • #2322
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    If you make it about the poster instead of the points in the post and the actual subject, it's a fallacious argument, I can't make it any clearer than that. Pretending otherwise won't change it.

    That's not what was happening here though.

    TheLurker was pointing out that you were trying to twist the meaning of "evidence", "claim" and "belief" to make the points made seem more vague or flexible than they really should be.

    If you said "There is evidence of Jesus' miracles" and my response was "whatever, you have a Richard Dawkins voodoo doll at home so you are talking nonsense" then that would indeed be an invalid argument as I was not addressing your point at all.

    If you were misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence" or "Atheism" then I think it's fair enough to try and address that before getting into the points to be made.

    I might even speculate on whether or not you were intentionally "misunderstanding" things.

    These are not really ad hominem arguments as we are simply trying to build the foundation on which an actual conversation can take place.

    We can't continue a conversation in an "Atheism" thread if people are (these are just arbitrary examples) saying things like "what is the proof for Atheism" and talking about "the doctrines of Atheism" or implying that Atheism is faith or whatever.

    Correcting these errors is not ad hominem argument.


  • #2323
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    orubiru wrote: »
    Cen Taurus,

    You do have a pretty great understanding of how to debate and how to get your point across. You do this very well and I like reading your posts.

    On some occasions though you take the approach of trying to "invalidate" the arguments and points made by others. When you do this you frequently use phrases like "strawman" or "ad hominem" as a way to say that the posters point is invalid and so not worthy of response or recognition.

    I would suggest that if you feel that a poster is making an ad hominem argument then you should clearly explain WHY this argument is not valid.

    Seconded (except for your first paragraph there, I don't agree with you on it). I like debating. I like improving my debate skills. If I actually am using logical fallacies, I would be quite pleased to have such things pointed out to me, so that I can know not to use such things in the future.
    Simply saying "Ad hom!" with no details means nothing to me, or to anyone else reading this thread.

    Cen Taurus, think about this way. Imagine this debate is a court case. Do you think the judge would allow you to just shout "Ad hom! Fallacy! Strawman!" as you do with no follow-up? In real court cases, a lawyer will say "Objection!" and then give his reasons (such as "Leading the witness"). You though, you just shout the equivalent of "Objection!" and leave it at that.


  • #2324
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    If you make it about the poster instead of the points in the post and the actual subject, it's a fallacious argument, I can't make it any clearer than that.

    Which no one has done other than yourself.

    While you are arguing about us and our imagined fallacies you are ignoring the actual posts that dealt with the actual points, such as this one

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94795560&postcount=2306

    we are over a page away from the original posts and you are trying to drag this out even longer hoping that no one will notice that you completely skipped over the rebuttal to your nonsense about beliefs and claims.

    You just pull out your 'fallacy! fallacy! you made a fallacy!' card when you get stuck or embarrassed and cannot deal with the points being put to you. We spend an age both asking you to point out the fallacy (you never do) and then we spend an age explaining to you that it wasn't a fallacy (which you ignore). And then you mumble something about how you have responded to all posts you saw. Because you purposefully dragged the topic away from the inconvenient posts you couldn't deal with.

    You did exactly the same thing a few pages back over the discussion of Christianity being anti-science. You just stopped responding to the points about accuracy and the scientific method and started attacking posters for imagined fallacies in fractions.

    The topic in case you forgot is that you made a claim about Jesus

    Care to support that claim? Or explain why you feel you don't have to in order to believe it as accurate? And why if you cannot support it you aren't being anti-scientific?


  • #2325
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    TheLurker wrote: »
    Which no one has done other than yourself.

    While you are arguing about us and our imagined fallacies you are ignoring the actual posts that dealt with the actual points, such as this one

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94795560&postcount=2306

    we are over a page away from the original posts and you are trying to drag this out even longer hoping that no one will notice that you completely skipped over the rebuttal to your nonsense about beliefs and claims.

    You just pull out your 'fallacy! fallacy! you made a fallacy!' card when you get stuck or embarrassed and cannot deal with the points being put to you.

    You did exactly the same thing a few pages back over the discussion of Christianity being anti-science. You just stopped responding to the points about accuracy and the scientific method and started attacking posters for imagined fallacies in fractions.

    More about me again.

    You claimed Christianity is anti-science and then proceeded to rant on about me and believers, not once did you show where Christianity is anti science as you claimed.

    Here's a diagram to help you. Note where making it about the poster, or other people lies.

    Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg


  • #2326
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    More about me again.

    That might be because YOU'RE the person we're talking to, the person we're debating. We can't debate "Christianity", since Christianity is not a thinking entity that can sit down opposite us and talk to us. For this debate, YOU, Cen Taurus, are standing in for Christianity. You are, for all intents and purposes, Christianity. So when you make claims like "J C is in the position to know" (don't bother trying to deny that that is a claim), you are saying that that is something Christianity claims is true about reality.
    Looking at your pyramid, I can recall many instances of myself and others here doing the top 3. Look at the Ad Hom part, I can sorta see you imagining us questioning the authority of Jesus as being an Ad Hom, but remember, that's the very point of this debate! To question such assumptions.
    As for responding to tone, you can only actually accuse us of doing that if you yourself HAVE made arguments. But how can that be? According to you...you've never made claims. You just have beliefs. You haven't made arguments. This would be a kin to saying "Person A is guilty of aiding with committing Crime X" without ever establishing that Crime X was ever committed at all.


    If something like this is a fallacy
    You just pull out your 'fallacy! fallacy! you made a fallacy!' card when you get stuck or embarrassed and cannot deal with the points being put to you. We spend an age both asking you to point out the fallacy (you never do) and then we spend an age explaining to you that it wasn't a fallacy (which you ignore). And then you mumble something about how you have responded to all posts you saw. Because you purposefully dragged the topic away from the inconvenient posts you couldn't deal with.
    then it should be trivial for you to prove it false, to prove that that is in and of itself a fallacy. If Lurker (or my) claiming that your tactic of crying "fallacy!" is false, then prove us wrong. Show us where, upon crying "fallacy!", you elaborated.


  • #2327
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,232 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    TheLurker wrote: »
    . . . The topic in case you forgot is that you made a claim about Jesus

    Care to support that claim? Or explain why you feel you don't have to in order to believe it as accurate? And why if you cannot support it you aren't being anti-scientific?
    Surely he's only being unscientific if the claim that he makes but does not support is a scientific claim?

    It's a long thread, and I'm afraid at this point I'm not sure what claim Cen is being asked to support. But unless the claim is scientific in nature, whatever other criticism you can make of a failure to support the claim, it can hardly be said to be unscientific.

    While some claims typically advanced about Jesus lend themselves - at least in principle - to scientific scrutiny (e.g. that Jesus was born, that Jesus was crucified, that Jesus rose from the dead) others definitely do not (e.g. that Jesus was the incarnation of God, that Jesus is the saviour of the world). It seems to me that if somebody is demanding scientific verification of a claim in the latter class, he's the one being unscientific, no?

    So, can somebody point me to the claim in question?


  • #2328
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    More about me again.

    You claimed Christianity is anti-science and then proceeded to rant on about me and believers, not once did you show where Christianity is anti science as you claimed.

    Here's a diagram to help you. Note where making it about the poster, or other people lies.

    And this is what puts me off posting on the thread sometimes because I feel like it comes across like you are being bullied by other posters or that some of the posters are ganging up on others.

    I don't like the fact that it's you on your own against 3 or 4 other posters (I am really not comfortable with it) but it doesn't help your cause when you avoid points that are being made or try to draw out arguments so that they span many pages.

    TheLurker has made more than one excellent post that explains what is unscientific about Christianity.

    #2213, #2225 and #2236 make pretty good points.

    RikuoAmero makes a whole bunch of good points over the past few pages.

    I just don't really see you doing anything other than trying to "invalidate" their posts when they are actually making some pretty good points.

    When you do that it's so difficult for the posts to not be about you because your character and your thought process is bigger and more interesting than the points you are making.


  • #2329
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    That might be because YOU'RE the person we're talking to, the person we're debating. We can't debate "Christianity", since Christianity is not a thinking entity that can sit down opposite us and talk to us. For this debate, YOU, Cen Taurus, are standing in for Christianity. You are, for all intents and purposes, Christianity.

    The forum charter is quite clear about what is Christianity.
    You'll note no where does the forum charter refer to me.
    Whether Christianity is true or not, does not depend in the slightest on my existence, or yours, never mind anything else about me, or any other believer / non believer.


  • #2330
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    More about me again.

    Yes YOU. You are the one derailing this thread, complaining about fallacies and other posters and mod actions, basically anything other than responding to the points being put to you

    And you are doing it again this this post, what a surprise :rolleyes:
    Cen taurus wrote: »
    You claimed Christianity is anti-science and then proceeded to rant on about me and believers, not once did you show where Christianity is anti science as you claimed.

    Actually I showed it 3 times.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94758957&postcount=2157
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94770938&postcount=2178
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94782689&postcount=2205

    you clearly either had no come back or didn't understand what the heck I was talking about because you ignore all of that and proceeded to try and trap me with a 'gotcha' under the idea that I had claimed Christianity had failed a scientific test.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94782775&postcount=2209

    Only problem? You had read my post wrong. I had actually said that Christianity had failed the scientific test, not that a Christian test had failed.

    When I pointed this out to you changed the subject to start talking about atheists

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94782905&postcount=2219

    and how 'interesting' it is that some of us ask for evidence and some of us say there cannot be any. I explained why there is no conflict between those two positions.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94782961&postcount=2225

    and presumable because you were even more stuck you then proceed to ignore me completely and just badger other posters by asking them over and over what test could prove Christianity to them.

    You never once dealt with any of my posts about Christianity being anti-science, never once dealt with the requirement of science to have support for claims as to the accuracy of statements about reality.

    When you eventually came back to responding to me you were now arguing that Christianity doesn't make claims, it is about belief.

    When that was shown to be nonsense (with you yourself making a claim about Jesus), you started arguing about fallacies.

    And now you are arguing that I never put forward anything to support my claim that Christianity is anti-science.

    You are a piece of work.

    Deal with these posts please

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94758957&postcount=2157
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94770938&postcount=2178
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94782689&postcount=2205


  • #2331
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Surely he's only being unscientific if the claim that he makes but does not support is a scientific claim?

    It's a long thread, and I'm afraid at this point I'm not sure what claim Cen is being asked to support. But unless the claim is scientific in nature, whatever other criticism you can make of a failure to support the claim, it can hardly be said to be unscientific.

    While some claims typically advanced about Jesus lend themselves - at least in principle - to scientific scrutiny (e.g. that Jesus was born, that Jesus was crucified, that Jesus rose from the dead) others definitely do not (e.g. that Jesus was the incarnation of God, that Jesus is the saviour of the world). It seems to me that if somebody is demanding scientific verification of a claim in the latter class, he's the one being unscientific, no?

    So, can somebody point me to the claim in question?

    The claim made by Cen Taurus is that "J C is in a position to know" (I can't be bothered at this point to go backwards in posts to try to find it), and as far as I can recall, I'm 99% sure those were Cen Taurus's words.
    The context of that phrase/claim is that J C (Jesus Christ) is the only being who is in the position to know things such as how the universe came into existence etc.
    This to me reads like a claim about reality. Cen is saying that this other guy, J C, knows some things that no-one else does, and as a result, he believes him. However, no evidence is ever forthcoming supporting what J C claims to know.
    This is like if Cen says "J C has a treasure map showing where there definitely is a treasure chest containing billions of euros". When we challenge that, neither the person said to possess the treasure map, or the treasure map itself, or the treasure chest, are ever shown. "It's just a belief" is supposed to be some sort of tactic to wave away the burden of proof.

    EDIT - Here's Cen Taurus's words, thanks Lurker for giving me the quote!
    Cen Taurus wrote:
    Christ is in the position to know, we are not. Therefore I can choose to believe Christ, or not to believe Christ, it's very simple.


  • Advertisement
  • #2332
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    TheLurker wrote: »
    Yes YOU. You are the one derailing this thread, complaining about fallacies and other posters and mod actions, basically anything other than responding to the points being put to you

    And you are doing it again this this post, what a surprise :rolleyes:


    Nice piece of work there. Will you marry me?:D


  • #2333
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Surely he's only being unscientific if the claim that he makes but does not support is a scientific claim?

    It's a long thread, and I'm afraid at this point I'm not sure what claim Cen is being asked to support. But unless the claim is scientific in nature, whatever other criticism you can make of a failure to support the claim, it can hardly be said to be unscientific.

    While some claims typically advanced about Jesus lend themselves - at least in principle - to scientific scrutiny (e.g. that Jesus was born, that Jesus was crucified, that Jesus rose from the dead) others definitely do not (e.g. that Jesus was the incarnation of God, that Jesus is the saviour of the world). It seems to me that if somebody is demanding scientific verification of a claim in the latter class, he's the one being unscientific, no?

    So, can somebody point me to the claim in question?

    In a nutshell, the latest attempt seems to be "I believe God exists" is the same as scientifically claiming "God exists", yet they seem able to distinguish between saying "I don't believe God exists, and scientifically claiming "God does not exist".

    Oh, we also we have another poster claiming he has proved Christianity is anti-science, but I've seen nothing that proves it. I think the Nobel prize is safe enough this year.

    The rest is just bottom of triangle stuff, that is not worth wasting your time on.


  • #2334
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Surely he's only being unscientific if the claim that he makes but does not support is a scientific claim?

    Any claim about the correct/factual/true/accurate nature of reality falls into the scientific realm.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It's a long thread, and I'm afraid at this point I'm not sure what claim Cen is being asked to support. But unless the claim is scientific in nature, whatever other criticism you can make of a failure to support the claim, it can hardly be said to be unscientific.

    While some claims typically advanced about Jesus lend themselves - at least in principle - to scientific scrutiny (e.g. that Jesus was born, that Jesus was crucified, that Jesus rose from the dead) others definitely do not (e.g. that Jesus was the incarnation of God, that Jesus is the saviour of the world).

    All of those are scientific claims. Science is merely a methodology for building confidence in the accuracies about claims made about the true nature of reality. Any claim that can be true or false about reality falls with into the realm of science.

    I think you are confusing the difference between a scientific claim and a claim science cannot answer. There are plenty of scientific claims that science cannot answer (are we in a multiverse, is string theory real, what happened before the big bang)

    Recognising that a claim is unanswerable is in fact an important part of science and evaluating claims. Ignoring that is anti-science.

    Holding that a claim is accurate without supporting that in the fashion that science says is required, is anti-science. It is essentially saying that science is wrong. Christians do this all the time.


  • #2335
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    In a nutshell, the latest attempt seems to be "I believe God exists" is the same as scientifically claiming "God exists", yet they seem able to distinguish between saying "I don't believe God exists, and scientifically claiming "God does not exist".

    Oh, we also we have another poster claiming he has proved Christianity is anti-science, but I've seen nothing that proves it.

    Here is the claim you made.
    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Christ is in the position to know, we are not. Therefore I can choose to believe Christ, or not to believe Christ, it's very simple.


  • #2336
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    TheLurker wrote: »
    .

    You are a piece of work.

    MOD NOTE

    less of the personal comments.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2337
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Surely he's only being unscientific if the claim that he makes but does not support is a scientific claim?

    It's a long thread, and I'm afraid at this point I'm not sure what claim Cen is being asked to support. But unless the claim is scientific in nature, whatever other criticism you can make of a failure to support the claim, it can hardly be said to be unscientific.

    While some claims typically advanced about Jesus lend themselves - at least in principle - to scientific scrutiny (e.g. that Jesus was born, that Jesus was crucified, that Jesus rose from the dead) others definitely do not (e.g. that Jesus was the incarnation of God, that Jesus is the saviour of the world). It seems to me that if somebody is demanding scientific verification of a claim in the latter class, he's the one being unscientific, no?

    So, can somebody point me to the claim in question?

    I think that the problem with that is we are starting to be quite flexible for how we define reality.

    Jesus and God are "real" to me in the same sense that Master Yoda or Gandalf the Grey are "real". I can internalize their teachings and maybe even recognize some truth in there. Or not. It's up to me.

    I agree that we can't really demand scientific proof for Jesus in the same way that we wouldn't demand scientific proof for Harry Potter. The problem arises when the other side would take that and use it in a way that implies that Jesus really IS the savior of the world and not a fictional character in a story about the world.

    If my kid really, REALLY, loves Spiderman then I am OK with them believing in the "reality" of Spiderman up to a point. I would try to be responsible with it and would try to reel them in if that belief was getting a little out of hand.

    It is my opinion that belief in Religion has been out of hand for quite some time and someone has to step in and do something. Demanding proof is a good way to show people that all this stuff is just fictional stories.

    If you want to tell me that I am a fallen man and need to accept Jesus or I will be judged harshly when I die... then yes you need to come up with some kind of substance for that. They should be able to provide the proof that what they claim is factual is indeed factual.

    Responsible adults should be able to differentiate between fictional tales (that may suggest, reveal, or deal with spiritual truth) and historical facts.


  • #2338
    MaxWig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    orubiru wrote: »

    It is my opinion that belief in Religion has been out of hand for quite some time and someone has to step in and do something.

    Can you elaborate?

    You mean it causes problems?


  • #2339
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    ""I don't believe God exists, and scientifically claiming "God does not exist"."

    Yes, those are two very different statements.
    "I don't believe God exists" can be read as "I lack belief in the claim (made by someone else) that God exists/I'm not convinced of the claim (made by someone else) that God exists"
    Scientifically claiming "God does not exist" means someone has gone through a rigourous process. It means they come up with a definition for God (what does the word God mean exactly? is what they do), they come up with a hypothesis, they test it out, repeat it, then come to a conclusion. There may or may not be sharing of this information involved, and other people repeating the experiment.

    Now, where we anywhere else, I would say "No one has to justify belief" BUT we are on this thread. Saying "I believe God exists" is something that ought to be questioned and criticised.
    However, the same thing cannot be applied to "I lack belief...", what I wrote up there. How can you demand that someone "prove" they lack belief? or prove that they're not convinced? Either the person is or they're isn't.
    "I believe God exists" is a belief about reality, a claim that this thing X is true about reality. Such a thing REQUIRES substantiation, to ensure that what we believe is correct. To do that, we turn to the scientific process.
    "I don't believe Claim X/I'm not convinced of Claim X" is NOT a belief statement about reality. It is a response to a claim. Nothing more, nothing less.


  • #2340
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.".

    Is what he said a fact ? Not just that he said it but the actual process ?


  • Advertisement
  • #2341
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    MaxWig wrote: »
    Can you elaborate?

    You mean it causes problems?

    I believe that Religion causes problems, yes.

    I think that maybe it's not a point to make in this thread though so I am happy to edit my post to remove that part if you think I should?


Advertisement