XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:37:48 -0400, August Rode wrote:
>On 15/10/2014 7:36 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:50:31 -0400, August Rode wrote:
>> .
>>> On 13/10/2014 7:06 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:33:49 -0400, August Rode
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> That's correct but that isn't an answer to my question. Not even
>>>>> remotely. Here it is again in a slightly different form:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does belief in the truth of a claim mean that
>>>>> the claim is true?
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you
>>>>>> demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll say the same thing to you that I've told others, that I'd accept a
>>>>> sound argument in place of natural explanations.
>>>>
>>>> What arguments would you accept? What arguments do you reject?
>>>
>>> I accept sound arguments. I reject arguments which have undecidable or
>>> false premises or which have logical fallacies, i.e. unsound arguments.
>>> Is that too hard for you?
>>
>> You didn't give examples, so a person must try to read your mind for
you and
>> try to figure out what you think you're trying to talk about. What sort of
sound
>> arguments are you imagining?
>
>Inasmuch as it isn't my responsibility to say what evidence
Whether or not it's your responsibility to have any idea, you've shown that
you have no idea what you're trying to talk about.
>might be
>presented, it also isn't my responsibility to say what arguments you
>might put forward. Put forward an argument that you think convincing and
>let me evaluate it for myself.
>
>> Is it "too hard for" me to try to figure it out FOR
>> YOU and explain it TO YOU when you apparently can't do it for yourself? It
seems
>> it's "to hard for" both of us.
>
>I'm not claiming to be a believer. If you are a believer but you don't
>care what anyone else believes, then we have nothing to discuss. If
>you're a believer and you *do* care what others believe, then you ought
>to know what kind of argument should be convincing.
But neither of us can imagine what you think would be convincing. There is
no such argument you've ever heard, and you can't imagine what would be, so
nothing could be convincing for you afawk.
>>>>>>>>>> In my view, It's strictly an anti-religious
>>>>>>>>>> proclivity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the same way that continuing to claim that God exists is a
religious
>>>>>>>>> proclivity?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who is this in reference to? Who _claims_ that God exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless I miss my guess, *all* Christians do. There's really not much
>>>>>>> reason to be a Christian if God doesn't exist, is there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christians _believe_ God exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of them _claim_ that God exists. However, for those that don't make
>>>>> such a claim overtly, believing that God exists is identical to
>>>>> believing that the claim "God exists" is true. No matter which way you
>>>>> cut it, Christians hold a definite position on the claim that God
>>>>> exists. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see much difference between
>>>>> making a claim and believing a claim to be true.
>>>>
>>>> So the same can be said for atheists.
>>>
>>> By definition, atheists reject the claim that God exists.
>>
>> Are you ashamed to admit some atheists believe God does not exist? Are
you
>> ashamed to admit you believe God does not exist?
>
>I am not ashamed to admit to either of those. I believe that God most
>likely does not exist but I cannot claim that he does not.
Do you see much difference between making that claim and believing that
claim to be true?
>>>>>> They cannot prove he does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. That doesn't seem to stop many of them from trying, though.
>>>>> Some of them brandish the argument from design as if it was intended to
>>>>> demonstrate something.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly atheists brandish...uh...nothing as if it was intended to
>>>> demonstrate something.
>>>
>>> Hunh??
>>
>> Atheists have no real argument much less anything to back it up, which
is
>> why I pointed out what I did.
>
>As an atheist, I do *not* make the claim that God does not exist. I
>therefore have no need to back up any such claim.
What I pointed out remains true and would remain equally true if you *did*
make the claim.
>>>>>> It's a matter
>>>>>> primarily of faith.
>>>>
>>>> Again the same is true of atheists. All they have is their own faith that
>>>> there is no God associated with this planet, and some that there is no God
>>>> associated with any planet anywhere in the universe.
>>>
>>> If that is a claim that you support, i.e. that God or gods exist, I
>>> invite you to make the argument for it.
>>
>> I don't claim that Gods exist. I'm a weak agnostic. I will say I
believe
>> it's much more likely that in some places there are beings in the universe
who
>> can be considered Gods than that there are not any anywhere. I'll also say
that
>> so far from my pov it seems more likely than not that there is a God or/and
gods
>> associated with Earth.
>
>Okay. So go ahead and make the argument for that. That *is* what I asked
>for.
The only "arguments" I'm aware of are the evidence. The fact that there are
no living examples of animals in transition between reptiles and birds etc is
evidence. The fact that there are not lots of fossil examples is evidence. The
fact that humans can't produce living organisms from non-living material is
evidence. Accepted medical miracles and other accepted miracles are evidence.
In
large part because of them the written examples of the miracles Jesus performed
are evidence. All saints are evidence. Those things are all evidence regardless
of who tries to deny them. The fact that atheists desperately WANT TO deny them
is evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan's influence on human
minds.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
