• "Try God" billboard vandalized
    184 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41991790]but the thing is you're misrepresenting what naturalism is anyways even if I'm not one to make your argument seem stronger. it's not correct. you've misconstrued plenty of information for your own purpose. this is what I mean by building your claims into evidence, rather than building evidence into claims. One requires you to know what you want, the result you want, and then you put the evidence together, and you've got it. The other way around is not the same at all no matter how many times you say it is.[/QUOTE] Naturalism is defined as: "a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance" (Mirriam-Webster) "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." (Oxford Dictionary) A naturalist will disregard anything supernatural for the simple fact that their worldview doesn't allow it. The evidence is irrelevant to a naturalist because they presuppose that everything must be physical.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41993573]Naturalism is defined as: "a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance" (Mirriam-Webster) "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." (Oxford Dictionary) A naturalist will disregard anything supernatural for the simple fact that their worldview doesn't allow it. The evidence is irrelevant to a naturalist because they presuppose that everything must be physical.[/QUOTE] "Supernatural" basically means "Stuff that is questionable whether it exists and we have no idea how it would work if it did". It makes a lot of fucking sense not to believe in that without very sufficient evidence. A smart person will disregard anything "supernatural" unless they have very strong evidence for it, simply because something has to be so unexplainable and bizarre to even be categorized as supernatural in the first place. There are a lot of smart Christians but most of them have a cognitive dissonance where they keep scientific reality and faith separate. Claiming that it's "reasonable" or "logical" to believe that God created the universe is when that gap starts to be bridged and that's when things get really stupid.
[QUOTE=sgman91;41993573]Naturalism is defined as: "a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance" (Mirriam-Webster) "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." (Oxford Dictionary) A naturalist will disregard anything supernatural for the simple fact that their worldview doesn't allow it. The evidence is irrelevant to a naturalist because they presuppose that everything must be physical.[/QUOTE] I'll believe anything that can be proven to happen. Supernatural accounts don't have evidence. "Super"natural or "un"natural doesn't exist. If it were either of those things, it wouldn't exist. If you proved a unicorn, I'd believe it, until you do, I'm going to remain pretty defiant in the idea that it's there somewhere. [editline]28th August 2013[/editline] you make it seem like discounting things on a lack of evidence is wrong
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41994261]I'll believe anything that can be proven to happen. Supernatural accounts don't have evidence. "Super"natural or "un"natural doesn't exist. If it were either of those things, it wouldn't exist. If you proved a unicorn, I'd believe it, until you do, I'm going to remain pretty defiant in the idea that it's there somewhere. [editline]28th August 2013[/editline] you make it seem like discounting things on a lack of evidence is wrong[/QUOTE] Making it your entire world view is wrong because I have stated, strict evidentialism is utterly useless. The fact that you hold such strong atheistic opinions means that you cannot be an evidentialist, not truly at least. [QUOTE=1legmidget;41990982]That article doesn't even come close to what you think it says. You're largely misrepresenting current scientific knowledge in the fields of chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and geology to start. If you really want to get into some of the chemical theory behind several of the models of for abiogenesis, this is a pretty comprehensive paper from 2006: [URL="http://www.oup.com/us/pdf/Rigoutsos/I-SampleChap.pdf"]http://www.oup.com/us/pdf/Rigoutsos/I-SampleChap.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] The article I posted literally states that contemporary scientists do not believe the Mill-Urey experiment to have simulated accurate conditions: [QUOTE]But is the “prebiotic soup” theory a reasonable explanation for the emergence of life? Contemporary geoscientists tend to doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition used by Miller in 1953. [/QUOTE] Then it goes on to mention panspermia, which is just a temporary solution to the problem because it's just throwing already functioning life into the equation without stating its origin. Regardless of how accurate the atmospheric conditions in the Miller-Urey experiment were, it still required intelligent purposeful intervention for the amino acids to even make it through, that's more supporting of my position than yours.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41994850]Making it your entire world view is wrong because I have stated, strict evidentialism is utterly useless. The fact that you hold such strong atheistic opinions means that you cannot be an evidentialist, not truly at least. The article I posted literally states that contemporary scientists do not believe the Mill-Urey experiment to have simulated accurate conditions: Then it goes on to mention panspermia, which is just a temporary solution to the problem because it's just throwing already functioning life into the equation without stating its origin. Regardless of how accurate the atmospheric conditions in the Miller-Urey experiment were, it still required intelligent purposeful intervention for the amino acids to even make it through, that's more supporting of my position than yours.[/QUOTE] what about you stating that makes that a true statement? seriously you're acting so high and mighty with shit like that.
So much hate towards christians nowadays
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;42000218]So much hate towards christians nowadays[/QUOTE] the billboard thing isn't hate at all that's ridiciulous the debate isn't hate at all either
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;42000218]So much hate towards christians nowadays[/QUOTE] If it was really hate we would be pushing to get back at christianity for all the innocent people murdered in the name of god, for the simple reason that they werent christians.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41998325]what about you stating that makes that a true statement? seriously you're acting so high and mighty with shit like that.[/QUOTE] Well think of it this way, evidentialism requires evidence to support everything, aka a true evidentialist accepts nothing without evidence to support it. The issue is though, evidence is just like any other belief, so you need to provide evidence for the evidence. So essentially, all evidence that you can conjure up for anything is invalid since at some point in the chain you cannot provide evidence to support that evidence. This is a very serious problem with the evidentialist perspective, that's why I kept on bringing up the whole thing about me only being able to confirm that I can think and that I exist through an evidentialist perspective.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42001491]Well think of it this way, evidentialism requires evidence to support everything, aka a true evidentialist accepts nothing without evidence to support it. The issue is though, evidence is just like any other belief, so you need to provide evidence for the evidence. So essentially, all evidence that you can conjure up for anything is invalid since at some point in the chain you cannot provide evidence to support that evidence. This is a very serious problem with the evidentialist perspective, that's why I kept on bringing up the whole thing about me only being able to confirm that I can think and that I exist through an evidentialist perspective.[/QUOTE] how do you survive in the world seriously this is what you think people think? how are you able to go through a normal day when you yourself act like causality, evidence, proof, facts, logic, reason, expectations that are backed through study and research are all worthless? Evidence doesn't work like that, and if you take the belief you hold about evidence seriously, the modern world literally falls apart. i haven't called you dumb yet, but now is about the time where i do so "evidence isn't evidence, it's just faith in a costume"
[QUOTE=The Worm;41984440]Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation. Catholicism believed that the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ. Protestantism got rid of that idea and made it how they believe it was meant to be interpreted, that the two are merely symbolic and aren't actually the flesh and blood.[/QUOTE] Metaphorical cannibalism is still funny. :<
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42001806]how do you survive in the world seriously this is what you think people think? how are you able to go through a normal day when you yourself act like causality, evidence, proof, facts, logic, reason, expectations that are backed through study and research are all worthless? Evidence doesn't work like that, and if you take the belief you hold about evidence seriously, the modern world literally falls apart. i haven't called you dumb yet, but now is about the time where i do so "evidence isn't evidence, it's just faith in a costume"[/QUOTE] Well, you're the one who's been professing that you rely solely on evidence, my whole point in that post is to show that you actually don't, neither do I, really nobody truly is an evidentialist. I don't claim to be logical in my thought process, but neither should anyone else, purely logical thinking brings nothing useful. It's not about orders of magnitude either, whether you're logical or illogical, it's a binary decision.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42002480]Well, you're the one who's been professing that you rely solely on evidence, my whole point in that post is to show that you actually don't, neither do I, really nobody truly is an evidentialist. I don't claim to be logical in my thought process, but neither should anyone else, purely logical thinking brings nothing useful. It's not about orders of magnitude either, whether you're logical or illogical, it's a binary decision.[/QUOTE] So the world around you that has been constructed by finely tuned logic and understanding based on finely tuned evidence are all bullshit(I refer to technology which requires an adept and complex understanding of many things based on evidence), and it's all not really real and not worth studying or learning about cause hey, it's not really real cause you can't really know This is the most useless line of thinking and you're right, it's down right illogical. it's entirely counter productive and entirely useless as a longer, more intense line of thought. well, have fun with that, you'll find it's quite hard to go about day to day life when you doubt the very reality of the world in front of you on an active basis. Yeah, I get the whole descartes bit "I think therefore I am" or more accurately "I doubt therefore I am" but even he didn't take that as a serious reason to discount all sorts of evidence based discussions.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42002856]So the world around you that has been constructed by finely tuned logic and understanding based on finely tuned evidence are all bullshit(I refer to technology which requires an adept and complex understanding of many things based on evidence), and it's all not really real and not worth studying or learning about cause hey, it's not really real cause you can't really know This is the most useless line of thinking and you're right, it's down right illogical. it's entirely counter productive and entirely useless as a longer, more intense line of thought. well, have fun with that, you'll find it's quite hard to go about day to day life when you doubt the very reality of the world in front of you on an active basis. Yeah, I get the whole descartes bit "I think therefore I am" or more accurately "I doubt therefore I am" but even he didn't take that as a serious reason to discount all sorts of evidence based discussions.[/QUOTE] Dude, I'm not trying to discount anything, I'm directing this at you because you claimed to go strictly off of facts, I'm just showing you that you clearly aren't and that nobody really does.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42004075]Dude, I'm not trying to discount anything, I'm directing this at you because you claimed to go strictly off of facts, I'm just showing you that you clearly aren't and that nobody really does.[/QUOTE]So you're trying to be incessantly pedantic hoping it'll make your point seem somehow more valid?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42004075]Dude, I'm not trying to discount anything, I'm directing this at you because you[B] claimed to go strictly off of facts,[/B] I'm just showing you that you clearly aren't and that nobody really does.[/QUOTE] more words in my mouth and more pointless excuses for the wholesale dismal of science
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42004075]Dude, I'm not trying to discount anything, I'm directing this at you because you claimed to go strictly off of facts, I'm just showing you that you clearly aren't and that nobody really does.[/QUOTE] Even if no one can base all of their opinions off of facts all of the time, I'm not convinced attempting to base more of your opinions on facts than not is a bad thing. Until you can come up with a system that has a better track record of making predictions and is more useful on a day to day basis, especially for my field of work (chemical research), I think I'm going to stick with something other than your "christian" mysticism. I put christian in quotes because earlier in this thread, and in other threads, you've dictated what christians do or don't believe as if you're the head of all christianity. I'm not sure what gives you the right to dictate what others should or shouldn't believe, especially when it is pretty obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;42004224]So you're trying to be incessantly pedantic hoping it'll make your point seem somehow more valid?[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that he actually doesn't base his world view on fact, instead it's just as much a belief as my world view. This has nothing to do with making my point more valid, I'm just showing how claiming that "logic" and "rationality" are on your side is not actually true. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42005880]more words in my mouth and more pointless excuses for the wholesale dismal of science[/QUOTE] So you're saying that you have not claimed to "go strictly off of facts"? That's the claim you seem to think I'm putting in your mouth, so that would imply that your beliefs are then no better than faith in a religion. [QUOTE=1legmidget;42006804]Even if no one can base all of their opinions off of facts all of the time, I'm not convinced attempting to base more of your opinions on facts than not is a bad thing. Until you can come up with a system that has a better track record of making predictions and is more useful on a day to day basis, especially for my field of work (chemical research), I think I'm going to stick with something other than your "christian" mysticism. I put christian in quotes because earlier in this thread, and in other threads, you've dictated what christians do or don't believe as if you're the head of all christianity. I'm not sure what gives you the right to dictate what others should or shouldn't believe, especially when it is pretty obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Well, being an atheist or a naturalist is no more based on fact than Christianity, it's just that the atheist/naturalist claim a different origin to life and the universe. Also I've never claimed that someone should base their opinions LESS on fact. You're world view isn't science and it isn't in opposition to Christianity anyway, so it's not like one has to choose Christianity or science. Christianity has a set series of core doctrines, if you do not believe those doctrines, then you are simply not a Christian. Just like how the National Socialists were not actually socialists, they just slapped the name on without really expressing much socialism at all. If you do not belief that the Christ Jesus was fully God and fully man and that he payed the price of our sins for us as long as we're willing to accept that he did, then what you are are believing is not Christianity. Nearly two millennia of biblical scholars have devoted their lives to studying scriptures and reaffirmed this to be their message. I don't dictate what people can and cannot believe, I respect people's freedom to believe what they want, but that doesn't mean people can inject whatever kind of ideas they have into Christianity without biblical support.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42008057]Well, being an atheist or a naturalist is no more based on fact than Christianity, it's just that the atheist/naturalist claim a different origin to life and the universe.[/QUOTE] Sorry, what? Do you understand the concept of, in the absence of having precise evidence, at least subscribing to the answer that makes the least unwarranted assumptions? That is to say, not believing in God ([I]NOT[/I] 'believing there is no god') makes less unwarranted assumptions than Christianity when it comes to the origin of the universe and the things in it. How anyone can say 'belief in facts is the same as religion' with a straight face is beyond me.
[QUOTE=Megafan;42008874]Sorry, what? Do you understand the concept of, in the absence of having precise evidence, at least subscribing to the answer that makes the least unwarranted assumptions? That is to say, not believing in God ([I]NOT[/I] 'believing there is no god') makes less unwarranted assumptions than Christianity when it comes to the origin of the universe and the things in it. How anyone can say 'belief in facts is the same as religion' with a straight face is beyond me.[/QUOTE] As I've stated earlier in this thread, there is no actual naturalistic explanation for the origins of life or the universe, so bringing up Occam's Razor is useless because there's no theory to compare. This is all getting back to how naturalists think their view point is default for some reason when there isn't any reason for that to be the case. I can say belief in facts is the same as religion because it's just that, belief. As stated before, no matter how much one may try to pose their view as perfectly rational, it really isn't. Evidentialism doesn't work and the fact that you hold any convictions about the world around you proves that you are not an evidentialist.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42008057] Well, being an atheist or a naturalist is no more based on fact than Christianity, it's just that the atheist/naturalist claim a different origin to life and the universe.[/QUOTE] Someone that doesn't make a claim about something unknown is in a better position than someone that makes a claim either way. The fact that we have abiotic synthesis pathways for biologically active and essential molecules in a variety of potential early earth settings isn't disputed. What is disputed is whether such pathways were actually involved in the origins of life, and if they were solely responsible for such. Given that there are a variety of theologically inclined proposed systems, some of which contradict, and all of which have yet to make any useful or accurate predictions on the nature of the universe on a scale that we can measure, I'd put money on the variety of proposed abiotic synthetic pathways. However, I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have an explanation for the origins of life, let alone the universe. I'm comfortable with not knowing at the moment, and eagerly await the day when we might know the answer. That to me seems like the most reasonable answer. If you have some reproducible evidence or model that makes more accurate predictions than those that have been proposed in this thread or elsewhere, and reasonably explains the observations and models everyone else has proposed, then that might be worth talking about. Simply stating that the universe and life have mysterious origins equates to evidence for the divine doesn't cut it. That doesn't show anything either way, other than its a disputed claim. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42008057] Also I've never claimed that someone should base their opinions LESS on fact.[/QUOTE] Maybe not explicitly, but you've certainly implied it. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42008057] You're world view isn't science and it isn't in opposition to Christianity anyway, so it's not like one has to choose Christianity or science.[/QUOTE] Before now you didn't even know my world view, so I'm not even sure how you can comfortably make a claim about what I think. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42008057] Christianity has a set series of core doctrines, if you do not believe those doctrines, then you are simply not a Christian. Just like how the National Socialists were not actually socialists, they just slapped the name on without really expressing much socialism at all. If you do not belief that the Christ Jesus was fully God and fully man and that he payed the price of our sins for us as long as we're willing to accept that he did, then what you are are believing is not Christianity. Nearly two millennia of biblical scholars have devoted their lives to studying scriptures and reaffirmed this to be their message.[/QUOTE] That's nice and all, but I'm willing to bet you aren't a biblical scholar, and it isn't like there's a single set of scripture to pull from anyway. If I remember right there's something of a 20 canonical book range even among common sects. Furthermore, some of the "essential beliefs" you've listed aren't even present in certain modern gnostic christian sects, further complicating your position. Essentially, you can't tell people what to identify as. If they identify as christian even though their beliefs and practices are radically different, you really have no business telling them that they're wrong or that they aren't christians. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42008057] I don't dictate what people can and cannot believe, I respect people's freedom to believe what they want, but that doesn't mean people can inject whatever kind of ideas they have into Christianity without biblical support.[/QUOTE] A perfect example of this popped up earlier in this thread in regards to christian symbolism. Rainbows might not be religiously significant to you personally, but you aren't in a position to make the claim that they aren't significant for all christians simply because they aren't significant for you, even if you have good reason to think that they aren't significant in a religious/spiritual sense. I don't really care what you think when it comes to spirituality and all that. I get that you're proud of your identity and seem pretty heavily invested in it. The only thing that irks me is that you're coming in here presenting your opinion as fact and being pretty hypocritical about the way you're conducting your arguments. It isn't cool to come in swinging when someone doesn't back up their claim with evidence and then to go on and not provide evidence for your claims, or to exclude evidence that refutes your claims, or to completely ignore contradictory evidence provided by someone else or to simply dismiss it as a matter of epistemological differences. Least cool of all is attempting to use scientific terms and studies incorrectly as supporting evidence. If you're curious about abiotic synthesis pathways or other things relating to chemistry or biology I'd be more than willing to answer your questions to the best of my abilities, but we probably shouldn't do that in this thread. I think we've bumped this thing for far too long with quite a few off topic posts with what has more or less been philosophical dick waving.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;42009831]Someone that doesn't make a claim about something unknown is in a better position than someone that makes a claim either way. The fact that we have abiotic synthesis pathways for biologically active and essential molecules in a variety of potential early earth settings isn't disputed. What is disputed is whether such pathways were actually involved in the origins of life, and if they were solely responsible for such. Given that there are a variety of theologically inclined proposed systems, some of which contradict, and all of which have yet to make any useful or accurate predictions on the nature of the universe on a scale that we can measure, I'd put money on the variety of proposed abiotic synthetic pathways. However, I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have an explanation for the origins of life, let alone the universe. I'm comfortable with not knowing at the moment, and eagerly await the day when we might know the answer. That to me seems like the most reasonable answer. If you have some reproducible evidence or model that makes more accurate predictions than those that have been proposed in this thread or elsewhere, and reasonably explains the observations and models everyone else has proposed, then that might be worth talking about. Simply stating that the universe and life have mysterious origins equates to evidence for the divine doesn't cut it. That doesn't show anything either way, other than its a disputed claim.[/QUOTE] You're are making a claim about something that's unknown though, you're claiming that there is no God. Unless you don't claim there's no God, judging by your past posts though, you seem to hold naturalistic opinions. If it's really predictions you want, look at early Judaism; one of the only ancient religions that didn't actually mystify the stars, moon, earth or water with gods or spirits, instead it simply says they are what they are. Of course that's only one example(there's more to list from the biblical text, but there's a lot of things that Christianity does not mystify), but my point is that everyone seems to be lumping Christianity together with other forms of ancient spiritualism when it really isn't similar at all. [QUOTE]Maybe not explicitly, but you've certainly implied it.[/QUOTE] There's no where in my posts that I have consciously implied it, I only take issue with people who claim to only rely on facts, pointing out that they actually don't and that it's pretty much impossible to. [QUOTE]Before now you didn't even know my world view, so I'm not even sure how you can comfortably make a claim about what I think.[/QUOTE] The issue is that Science isn't a world view, that's not to say you can't have faith in it, but it doesn't give you any real opinion on humanity and the world around you. Naturalism and Atheism have been popularly connected with science over the past 100 years or so, but that doesn't make them the same. [QUOTE]That's nice and all, but I'm willing to bet you aren't a biblical scholar, and it isn't like there's a single set of scripture to pull from anyway. If I remember right there's something of a 20 canonical book range even among common sects. Furthermore, some of the "essential beliefs" you've listed aren't even present in certain modern gnostic christian sects, further complicating your position.[/QUOTE] Well, Gnosticism was long ago deemed apart from Christianity specifically because of it's views on the Christ and his Resurrection. the Gnostics are just another heretical cult, like the Judaizers, the Arians or Socinians. This was all determined in the earlier history of the church, it's just these cults keep popping up again under knew names or even mix together. Modern examples would be the Jehovah's Witness, the Mormons or the Emergant Church. While some claim to be, the reality is that they aren't as they fail to follow some of the most fundamental Christian Doctrines(which have remained constant in the historical Church since Christianity's conception). As for the supposedly canonical books that come in addition to the historical bible, there are many, yes. In historic Christianity these are referred to the Apocryphal scriptures because of how historically unreliable they are, especially due to the fact that they were written much later than any of the Christian gospels. I'd also like to note that Gnosticism is heavily based on a few of these unreliable books. [QUOTE]Essentially, you can't tell people what to identify as. If they identify as christian even though their beliefs and practices are radically different, you really have no business telling them that they're wrong or that they aren't christians.[/QUOTE] I have every business to say that someone who claims to be Christian but holds distinctively unchristian beliefs is not in fact a Christian. Just like a feminist has every right to say that someone who wants to castrate all men and calls themselves a feminist has every right to refute them. Christianity has a set doctrine and if you don't follow it, you're not Christian. [QUOTE]A perfect example of this popped up earlier in this thread in regards to christian symbolism. Rainbows might not be religiously significant to you personally, but you aren't in a position to make the claim that they aren't significant for all christians simply because they aren't significant for you, even if you have good reason to think that they aren't significant in a religious/spiritual sense.[/QUOTE] Well rainbows are significant to me in a religious sense, that doesn't necessarily mean I think they have any sort of mystical factor to them. Not to mention they are simply displayed as a sign in a scriptural sense, not as a god or a sky spirit, just a sign. If a Christian believes there's something spiritual about rainbows, I can tell them that there's no scriptural support for such a belief, but as long as said belief does not conflict with core Christian values that doesn't mean that they are no longer Christian. [QUOTE]I don't really care what you think when it comes to spirituality and all that. I get that you're proud of your identity and seem pretty heavily invested in it. The only thing that irks me is that you're coming in here presenting your opinion as fact and being pretty hypocritical about the way you're conducting your arguments. It isn't cool to come in swinging when someone doesn't back up their claim with evidence and then to go on and not provide evidence for your claims, or to exclude evidence that refutes your claims, or to completely ignore contradictory evidence provided by someone else or to simply dismiss it as a matter of epistemological differences. Least cool of all is attempting to use scientific terms and studies incorrectly as supporting evidence.[/QUOTE] Well I believe my opinion to be fact and a lot of atheists/naturalists believe there's to be fact too. If I came off as too aggressive at points I apologize for that, I didn't mean any harm. As for my use of scientific data for evidence though, I don't know where I misused any papers or studies to support my beliefs(though I believe I had made a few mistakes in my terminology). Also, so far the evidence used against me is only significant in a naturalistic mind set, that's what sparked this whole discussion about world views. Besides, all of the evidence provided against me doesn't really conflict at all with my claims.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42008057]No, I'm saying that he actually doesn't base his world view on fact, instead it's just as much a belief as my world view. This has nothing to do with making my point more valid, I'm just showing how claiming that "logic" and "rationality" are on your side is not actually true. so you're point is basing it on anything is as valid as facts, okay please go try and construct something made of electronics and tell me how that works for you So you're saying that you have not claimed to "go strictly off of facts"? That's the claim you seem to think I'm putting in your mouth, so that would imply that your beliefs are then no better than faith in a religion. Because I literally never said "I base all my opinions solely on facts" so you're putting words in my mouth to say such a thing. Well, being an atheist or a naturalist is no more based on fact than Christianity, it's just that the atheist/naturalist claim a different origin to life and the universe. Also I've never claimed that someone should base their opinions LESS on fact. You're world view isn't science and it isn't in opposition to Christianity anyway, so it's not like one has to choose Christianity or science. Christianity has a set series of core doctrines, if you do not believe those doctrines, then you are simply not a Christian. Just like how the National Socialists were not actually socialists, they just slapped the name on without really expressing much socialism at all. If you do not belief that the Christ Jesus was fully God and fully man and that he payed the price of our sins for us as long as we're willing to accept that he did, then what you are are believing is not Christianity. Nearly two millennia of biblical scholars have devoted their lives to studying scriptures and reaffirmed this to be their message. I don't dictate what people can and cannot believe, I respect people's freedom to believe what they want, but that doesn't mean people can inject whatever kind of ideas they have into Christianity without biblical support.[/QUOTE] So biblical ideas need support, but fact's and evidence simply aren't enough in the modern world? what the fuck.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42011653]So biblical ideas need support, but fact's and evidence simply aren't enough in the modern world? what the fuck.[/QUOTE] I've made it evident that I am not an evidentialist and than no one is. Evidence is very important in any belief, but you can't sustain yourself solely on evidence, that was my point. I wasn't using my statements about evidentialism to discredit the evidence you put forward against my view, I was simply responding to your claims that you only relied on evidence. I've said this so many times and yet you keep on acting as if I'm an evidentialist, I'm not and neither are you.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42009213]As I've stated earlier in this thread, there is no actual naturalistic explanation for the origins of life or the universe, so bringing up Occam's Razor is useless because there's no theory to compare. This is all getting back to how naturalists think their view point is default for some reason when there isn't any reason for that to be the case. I can say belief in facts is the same as religion because it's just that, belief. As stated before, no matter how much one may try to pose their view as perfectly rational, it really isn't. Evidentialism doesn't work and the fact that you hold any convictions about the world around you proves that you are not an evidentialist.[/QUOTE] i don't think anyone will ever agree that the default point of view should be serious doubt of all facts and evidence so replace it all with faith yes there's always going to be a certain amount of belief in "evidence" but as evidence and what most people call facts are repeatable and observable things about the universe, there's no problem being certain of those things, understanding those things and explaining them as best as the events and understandings of those events allow us to. The amount of "faith" to reason is a lot less than you imply. Your view seems to be, entirely faith based. [editline]29th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42012022]I've made it evident that I am not an evidentialist and than no one is. Evidence is very important in any belief, but you can't sustain yourself solely on evidence, that was my point. I wasn't using my statements about evidentialism to discredit the evidence you put forward against my view, I was simply responding to your claims that you only relied on evidence. I've said this so many times and yet you keep on acting as if I'm an evidentialist, I'm not and neither are you.[/QUOTE] Because not being one is dumb and I've acknowledged aspects of faults with evidence, but you're acting like basing your views on nothing is as valid as something observable and repeatable. Everything you say makes me think very strongly you just don't understand how evidence, facts, science, or any of that works. I can't know anything but "I think therefore I am". I've stated this for you. You don't read it. I've also told you pretty implicitly belief in such a notion is not gainful or useful thus dealing with the world and all philosophical views from such a point is not an exercise in anything but futility. The world we live in today, would literally not work with your view point as a more common one.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502]You're are making a claim about something that's unknown though, you're claiming that there is no God. Unless you don't claim there's no God, judging by your past posts though, you seem to hold naturalistic opinions.[/QUOTE] I didn't make a claim either way. I just said that there's not enough evidence to say there is or isn't a god. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] If it's really predictions you want, look at early Judaism; one of the only ancient religions that didn't actually mystify the stars, moon, earth or water with gods or spirits, instead it simply says they are what they are. Of course that's only one example(there's more to list from the biblical text, but there's a lot of things that Christianity does not mystify), but my point is that everyone seems to be lumping Christianity together with other forms of ancient spiritualism when it really isn't similar at all. [/QUOTE] Those predictions aren't more accurate than modern predictions made by other scientific models though. It isn't enough that predictions are made, you have to explain it better than everyone else and still make sense of everyone else's data. If you're going to throw out data you have to have a really convincing reason to do so. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] There's no where in my posts that I have consciously implied it, I only take issue with people who claim to only rely on facts, pointing out that they actually don't and that it's pretty much impossible to. [/QUOTE] Except you haven't addressed the solutions to the problem presented by "naturalism" or "evidentialism". You're just acting like no one has ever proposed a solution to problems such as infinite regression and what not and expecting everyone to take it as fact. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] The issue is that Science isn't a world view, that's not to say you can't have faith in it, but it doesn't give you any real opinion on humanity and the world around you.[/QUOTE] I'm not even sure what the point of this bit here is. I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you time to rethink it before I comment on it. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] Well, Gnosticism was long ago deemed apart from Christianity specifically because of it's views on the Christ and his Resurrection. the Gnostics are just another heretical cult, like the Judaizers, the Arians or Socinians. This was all determined in the earlier history of the church, it's just these cults keep popping up again under knew names or even mix together. Modern examples would be the Jehovah's Witness, the Mormons or the Emergant Church. While some claim to be, the reality is that they aren't as they fail to follow some of the most fundamental Christian Doctrines(which have remained constant in the historical Church since Christianity's conception).[/QUOTE] Unfortunately for you, the catholic church isn't the end-all-be-all for determining what is or isn't christian. Modern gnostic christians exist, and I don't think you'll find much support in classifying mormons, jehovah's witnesses, or followers of the emergent church as non christian. Catholic spiritual leaders and scholars can make claims as to what it is to be catholic, but ultimately they can't even prevent people from identifying as catholic. Religious identity is as much a cultural identity as it is an ideological one. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] As for the supposedly canonical books that come in addition to the historical bible, there are many, yes. In historic Christianity these are referred to the Apocryphal scriptures because of how historically unreliable they are, especially due to the fact that they were written much later than any of the Christian gospels. I'd also like to note that Gnosticism is heavily based on a few of these unreliable books.[/QUOTE] Like I said, you don't get to dictate what is reliable or canonical and what isn't for christianity as a whole. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] I have every business to say that someone who claims to be Christian but holds distinctively unchristian beliefs is not in fact a Christian. Just like a feminist has every right to say that someone who wants to castrate all men and calls themselves a feminist has every right to refute them. Christianity has a set doctrine and if you don't follow it, you're not Christian.[/QUOTE] A feminist in that situation can state that they have ideological differences and that they might not be the same sort of feminist, but they can't exclude each other from their chosen identity. It just doesn't work that way. It isn't like there's some international panel on what it is to be a feminist or christian. Ideologies are extremely hard to measure. There aren't really tests you can take for them like you can for certifying that you have the qualifications you have for a particular profession. Measuring matters of opinion is much more difficult than measuring skill sets. Loads of cultures didn't even make a distinction of orthodoxy (or correct thinking) for determining religious identity. Religious identity was more or less a matter of orthopraxy (correct practice). [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] Well rainbows are significant to me in a religious sense, that doesn't necessarily mean I think they have any sort of mystical factor to them. Not to mention they are simply displayed as a sign in a scriptural sense, not as a god or a sky spirit, just a sign. If a Christian believes there's something spiritual about rainbows, I can tell them that there's no scriptural support for such a belief, but as long as said belief does not conflict with core Christian values that doesn't mean that they are no longer Christian. [/QUOTE] Your interpretation of biblical scripture isn't the only one, or even necessarily the correct one universally. I'm not sure how this is a difficult concept. You can surely argue with someone over the matter of which interpretation is probably more correct, but you're ultimately arguing over the correct way to interpret poetry. Telling someone else that their interpretation over this sort of information is absolutely wrong is just a dick thing to do, and you're going to have a hard time justifying it to others. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] Well I believe my opinion to be fact and a lot of atheists/naturalists believe there's to be fact too. If I came off as too aggressive at points I apologize for that, I didn't mean any harm. As for my use of scientific data for evidence though, I don't know where I misused any papers or studies to support my beliefs(though I believe I had made a few mistakes in my terminology).[/QUOTE] We can start with all of your claims about abiogenesis. You right out dismissed the possibility of such on account of there being multiple pathways, thinking that multiple pathways involving various conditions indicates a lower probability of that outcome. That is entirely, completely backwards. If I can make one compound only one way, and another compound six different ways each in six different environmental conditions, that second compound is probably easier to make and is more likely to have a higher natural abundance. This isn't even going into your inaccurate criticisms of the Miller-Urey experiment. While there are some valid criticisms of that particular experiment, the ones you provided are not. Whether this is an issue of terminology, an issue of comprehension, or a deliberate action I'm not sure. Regardless of intention, you alone are responsible for the accuracy of your claims. Claiming ignorance doesn't dismiss you from being wrong. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] Also, so far the evidence used against me is only significant in a naturalistic mind set, that's what sparked this whole discussion about world views. Besides, all of the evidence provided against me doesn't really conflict at all with my claims.[/QUOTE] If the implication that there exists multiple energetically favorable explanations for the origin of life without the need for supernatural involvement isn't significant in your world view then there really isn't any need to discuss any of this. That implication is obviously important to a number of people on this forum and elsewhere. It's probably best to live and let live. If you don't want to hold your views to the same level of scrutiny as you do others that's probably the best thing to do at the moment. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42010502] Besides, all of the evidence provided against me doesn't really conflict at all with my claims.[/QUOTE] Except for all of the qualitative/quantitative based claims concerning scientific data, or the claims involving philosophical ideologies and empistemological systems. Plenty of people have provided plenty of plausible explanations for various issues you've brought up, and have supplied counter evidence to your counter claims. You can't honestly expect people to take you seriously when you go about claiming naturalism and evidentialism are wrong because argument x exists when there are proposed solutions 1,2,3 and 4 to argument x. You'd have to refute those proposed solutions before you can declare that your statement is true. At the very least hold your own views and belief systems up to the same level of scrutiny as you do others if you want to start criticizing people. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest and generally regarded as poor conduct in these sorts of discussions. If you're going to make the claim that other people's views are only right under certain epistemological systems and use that as a criticism of their views, don't expect people to let you dismiss similar criticisms of your views. Doing so doesn't leave any room for any discussion. I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons why people are looking at your posts as more of a broadcast than an invitation to discussion.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;42012092]Those predictions aren't more accurate than modern predictions made by other scientific models though. It isn't enough that predictions are made, you have to explain it better than everyone else and still make sense of everyone else's data. If you're going to throw out data you have to have a really convincing reason to do so.[/QUOTE] There were enormously more accurate than the ones that were prevalent during the time they were written. [QUOTE]Except you haven't addressed the solutions to the problem presented by "naturalism" or "evidentialism". You're just acting like no one has ever proposed a solution to problems such as infinite regression and what not and expecting everyone to take it as fact.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that there's a logical solution to the infinite regress? Also I never said naturalism is the same as evidentialism, in fact I've said exactly the opposite. [QUOTE]I'm not even sure what the point of this bit here is. I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you time to rethink it before I comment on it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1legmidget;42012092]Until you can come up with a system that has a better track record of making predictions and is more useful on a day to day basis, especially for my field of work (chemical research), I think I'm going to stick with something other than your "christian" mysticism.[/QUOTE] In retrospect you didn't imply that your world view is science, instead you're claiming that Christianity somehow would keep you from doing scientific research properly if you ascribed to it(which frankly makes no sense). [QUOTE]Unfortunately for you, the catholic church isn't the end-all-be-all for determining what is or isn't christian. Modern gnostic christians exist, and I don't think you'll find much support in classifying mormons, jehovah's witnesses, or followers of the emergent church as non christian. Catholic spiritual leaders and scholars can make claims as to what it is to be catholic, but ultimately they can't even prevent people from identifying as catholic. Religious identity is as much a cultural identity as it is an ideological one.[/QUOTE] It isn't the Catholic Church that I'm citing, I'm instead referring to the multitudes of devoted biblical scholars that have repeatedly, over a period of nearly 2000 year, come to the conclusion that Christianity is centered around the Christ's death and resurrection. The earlier ones were Catholics, but the Catholic Church was the only one back then. I'm not even Catholic, but the importance of the historical Church is not to be ignored when it comes to biblical doctrine. There are different Christian Groups that do fit under Christianity; Catholicism, Lutheranism, Russian Orthodox, Roman Orthodox, Evangelical, or Coptic Christianity. While I disagree with many of the claims of some of these denominations, they all hold the Christ , the Resurrection and God's gift of Grace at their core, thus putting them in accordance with what is Christianity. As for the different cults that claim to be Christian, the heresies that they push were proven to not be in accordance with scripture long ago. Your interpretation of biblical scripture isn't the only one, or even necessarily the correct one universally. I'm not sure how this is a difficult concept. You can surely argue with someone over the matter of which interpretation is probably more correct, but you're ultimately arguing over the correct way to interpret poetry. Telling someone else that their interpretation over this sort of information is absolutely wrong is just a dick thing to do, and you're going to have a hard time justifying it to others.[/QUOTE] when it comes to the creation accounts, the apocalyptic accounts, or anything similar you cannot get dogmatic about specifically because there is no exact doctrine implied. In terms of the gospel message, the nature of God and the Christ or divine law though, you'll find the scriptures are not nearly so vague in what they say. The scholars of the historical Church were able to find exactly what was taught in these core scriptures, there's really no way of interpreting outside of what they found without contradicting another pert of scripture. [QUOTE]We can start with all of your claims about abiogenesis. You right out dismissed the possibility of such on account of there being multiple pathways, thinking that multiple pathways involving various conditions indicates a lower probability of that outcome.[/QUOTE] I dismissed it because all research into it is far from conclusive, it doesn't really contribute anything to your point, it simply allows for a hypothetical. [QUOTE]This isn't even going into your inaccurate criticisms of the Miller-Urey experiment. While there are some valid criticisms of that particular experiment, the ones you provided are not. Whether this is an issue of terminology, an issue of comprehension, or a deliberate action I'm not sure. Regardless of intention, you alone are responsible for the accuracy of your claims. Claiming ignorance doesn't dismiss you from being wrong.[/QUOTE] My statements on the Mill-Urey experiment are taken from science articles published by reliable sources, the very article you claimed I misinterpreted clearly stated that modern geoscientists tend to doubt the experiments simulated atmosphere. [QUOTE]If the implication that there exists multiple energetically favorable explanations for the origin of life without the need for supernatural involvement isn't significant in your world view then there really isn't any need to discuss any of this. That implication is obviously important to a number of people on this forum and elsewhere. It's probably best to live and let live. If you don't want to hold your views to the same level of scrutiny as you do others that's probably the best thing to do at the moment.[/QUOTE] It isn't significant to me because it doesn't really challenge my beliefs on the origin of life at all, it just means that we can create life in a lab through intelligent and purposeful actions. [QUOTE]Plenty of people have provided plenty of plausible explanations for various issues you've brought up, and have supplied counter evidence to your counter claims. You can't honestly expect people to take you seriously when you go about claiming naturalism and evidentialism are wrong because argument x exists when there are proposed solutions 1,2,3 and 4 to argument x. You'd have to refute those proposed solutions before you can declare that your statement is true.[/QUOTE] I have seen no arguments against the deep issues in evidentialism, all people have done in regards to my posts on the subject is repeatedly mistake them to imply that I'm an evidentialist, which I have repeatedly refuted. As for naturalism, I have made no direct arguments against, I've only defended my own position and explained why Occam's razor does not work when comparing Christianity to naturalism. [QUOTE]At the very least hold your own views and belief systems up to the same level of scrutiny as you do others if you want to start criticizing people. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest and generally regarded as poor conduct in these sorts of discussions. If you're going to make the claim that other people's views are only right under certain epistemological systems and use that as a criticism of their views, don't expect people to let you dismiss similar criticisms of your views. Doing so doesn't leave any room for any discussion. I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons why people are looking at your posts as more of a broadcast than an invitation to discussion.[/QUOTE] If you're asking me to be perfectly objective, I can assure you that I nor anyone else is perfectly objective. I've only brought up the issue of world view validating people's arguments when said arguments have been used against my own. I have yet to see an argument for naturalism that is just taking natural events observations and claiming that those validate naturalism.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42013476]There were enormously more accurate than the ones that were prevalent during the time they were written.[/QUOTE] So this means they're more accurate and more correct than current ones because current ones base themselves off of evidence...? No. [QUOTE] Are you implying that there's a logical solution to the infinite regress? Also I never said naturalism is the same as evidentialism, in fact I've said exactly the opposite.[/QUOTE] Are you implying there's a logical solution to a timeless, ageless, infinite being of all power and no explanation? [QUOTE]In retrospect you didn't imply that your world view is science, instead you're claiming that Christianity somehow would keep you from doing scientific research properly if you ascribed to it(which frankly makes no sense). [/QUOTE] Well if you're main view points in life centre around events that aren't really possible, likely, proven, or realistic then yeah, it might conflict with science and the research there in. [QUOTE]when it comes to the creation accounts, the apocalyptic accounts, or anything similar you cannot get dogmatic about specifically because there is no exact doctrine implied. In terms of the gospel message, the nature of God and the Christ or divine law though, you'll find the scriptures are not nearly so vague in what they say. The scholars of the historical Church were able to find exactly what was taught in these core scriptures, there's really no way of interpreting outside of what they found without contradicting another pert of scripture. I dismissed it because all research into it is far from conclusive, it doesn't really contribute anything to your point, it simply allows for a hypothetical. [/QUOTE] So your view points are more conclusive? Not so much, not even close. Yes it does, but you say it doesn't so you discount and you ignore it from then on. [QUOTE]My statements on the Mill-Urey experiment are taken from science articles published by reliable sources, the very article you claimed I misinterpreted clearly stated that modern geoscientists tend to doubt the experiments simulated atmosphere. [/QUOTE] The point is you can't "you have no answers and no ability to answer this question from your view point, so you can't be right at all" [QUOTE]It isn't significant to me because it doesn't really challenge my beliefs on the origin of life at all, it just means that we can create life in a lab through intelligent and purposeful actions.[/QUOTE] Well then you're more shallow minded than you want to appear. You can't seriously dismiss that kind of level of discovery and intellect with "nah, doesn't apply to me" [QUOTE]I have seen no arguments against the deep issues in evidentialism, all people have done in regards to my posts on the subject is repeatedly mistake them to imply that I'm an evidentialist, which I have repeatedly refuted. As for naturalism, I have made no direct arguments against, I've only defended my own position and explained why Occam's razor does not work when comparing Christianity to naturalism. [/QUOTE] No ones cares if you say you're not one. No one cares if you say you're a Christian and you say Occams Razor is bullshit on christianity because those are statements you haven't backed up. Just ones you feel are true. Why can't the simpler answer be the more likely answer? [QUOTE]If you're asking me to be perfectly objective, I can assure you that I nor anyone else is perfectly objective. I've only brought up the issue of world view validating people's arguments when said arguments have been used against my own. I have yet to see an argument for naturalism that is just taking natural events observations and claiming that those validate naturalism.[/QUOTE] You don't understand naturalism. you can quote a dictionary definition but I really don't think that makes you qualified to say you understand the concept at all.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;41974624]You speak as if Atheism is a religious denomina- *stars and Stripes* *stops trying to reason*[/QUOTE] You speak as if us Americans are all awful people who won't listen to and sort of reason at all. *You're a dumbass* *stops giving a shit* [editline]l[/editline] Oh my white meat, the posts above this are long
[QUOTE=supersnail11;41974441]Someone was dedicated.[/QUOTE] Do to it's stature, you'd have to be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.