Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HoosierGuy28 · 10-23-2002, 08:56 AM

Buffman,

Quote:

I'm sorry Joel. That is where your formal education is rather incomplete. There is an extremely effective methodology for reducing to an absolute minimum, if not totally eliminating, subjective interpretations of verifiable evidence. Personal interpretations play only an initial role. They are called a hypotheses. All you are offering is just one more "He said, she said," type hypothesis. That is a totally worthless approach to revealing accurate knowledge. I have heard theists making that same argument for decades. Christian vs Muslim, Jew vs Christian, Hindu vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, on, and on, and on. All subjective arguments because they have no verifiable evidence or standardized methodology used to arrive at the most objective conclusions available at that time.

Sorry, I'm not here to deal with personal attacks. Your comments are merely speculative because you do not know the extent of my "formal education". Furthermore, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but the fact that people refuse to see what they don't want to see.

Quote:

Matthew 13:14
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

If you intentionally blind yourself from God, you will never find Him.

Quote:

Once again you are offering subjective observations that no one can confirm other than you. Thus you are now saying that you are incapable of interpretational error. That your senses and intellect can never be fooled or in error. That your knowledge of the universe is so extensive and complete that you must be correct about everything? Don't you see or comprehend that that is what you have just indirectly alleged?

I never claimed that I have complete knowledge of the universe, so please don't make false accusations at me.

Quote:

OK! Fine. Then you must have some verifiable evidence arising from those supernatural experiences. Please present it. I am very anxious to have you share it with me. However, if you have no verifiable evidence, then you have only another subjective (personal) interpretation of whatever it was you believe you experienced. I have seen many devoutly religious people have very dramatic experiences that they described as supernatural. I have also had some very practical experiences with folks who have ingested artificial drugs who also claimed to have had supernatural experiences. Neither group is lying. They sincerely and adamantly believe what they are relating. For them, it was as real as real can be. However, my formal education, training and experiences have taught me otherwise.

Well, I don't do drugs, so I don't have that to worry about distorting my reality and I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional. Billions of people acknowledge that God exists, so that in itself should be an indictator of His existence, or at the bare minimum that should tell you that some supernatural deity or deities exist.

Quote:

Of course it does...when there is no verifiable evidence in the case. Then we return right back to the "He said, she said" situation and who the jury believes. That's why innocent people can get convicted of crimes they did not commit...and why DNA evidence has become such a major player in criminal cases.

How sure are you that there is no evidence? How sure are you that God does not exist? Even if you had an amazing 1% of all the knowledge in the universe, is it possible that in that other 99% that there is adequate evidence for God's existence? And if that is possible, then is it possible that billions of people, including myself, have experienced this evidence first-hand?

Quote:

I appreciate and understand that. However, you came here claiming to be able to answer questions about Christianity for folks who appear to know far more about it than you do. In my "Welcome" I cautioned you about that. Evidently you choose not to heed that caution. Thus, you can not expect me to heed yours about identifying the failings of your belief system. It is only fair play.

I am failing to see how you could've possibly measured my understanding of Christianity. I am sure there are people in this world with more of an understanding than me, but my grasp on Christianity is fairly strong, and when I am unsure about something, I am more than capable of finding the answers I need.

Quote:

So when are you going to begin providing verifiable answers rather than quotes from your flawed sacred textbook...and it is very flawed... whether you wish to believe that or not.

I have yet to see a flaw. Insulting a book won't help you understand it.

Quote:

My question dealt exclusively with the Christian faith belief system. No other system was mentioned. If, as you claim, you have studied these other Christian Sects, then you know that they consider their holy books to be just as inerrant as you consider yours to be. So why are they wrong and you right? You still have not been able to explain how those so-called sacred texts were assembled and why the differences. The objective answer is not complex. The subjective one is. Additionally, either you do or you don't except the entire Judeo-Christian Protestant Bible as inerrant. You don't have the luxury of only claiming the Gospels as inerrant.

I know what your question was, and I have no reason to attack other Christians beliefs. I understand the canonicity of the Protestant Bible and I understand why it contains the 66 books that it does and no others.

Quote:

I'm afraid that it doesn't even come close to answer any of my posts. However, I completely appreciate the problems you face while attempting to accomplish your "stated" goal. Belief in the supernatural is based on faith, not fact. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will actually be more comfortable with your own faith beliefs. Verifiable evidence is not required for faith. It is required for fact.

Belief in God is based on both faith and fact, but facts will not do you any good if you refuse to acknowledge them. I also can assure you that I am extremely comfortable in my faith. If not, I would certainly not have subjected myself to this forum.

Now I will apologize if I seemed to have come across rather harsh in this post, but I fail to see the logic in your posts. If I know God exists, there is no reason for me to deny that. Personally, I don't see why people are so resistant to acknowledging God's existence.

Quote:

Thank you for your contributions; but I must follow Ronin's wise decision and allow you to continue along the journey you have chosen for yourself without any further input from me. Please be happy, healthy and always learning new and exciting things. I wish you well in your studies.

I wish you happiness and health also and I hope you realize that my posts to you have had good intentions even though we have disagreed on things.

Joel

Stephen T-B · 10-23-2002, 09:05 AM

"Christianity stands on the doctrine and merit of Christ, not on anything else."

So what puzzles me, Joel, is why you should give credence to the WHOLE Bible, especially in view of the fact that the god described in it is so variable. In the NT he is our loving father; in the Old he is a frightful tyrant. Both testaments have stories which are hard to believe, but many of the OT stories - Creation, the Flood, Jonah and so on - aren't even worth trying to believe.
If you demonstrated an ability to be even a little bit realistic, some of us might have more sympathy with your position.
(I think, however, that you do exercise some judgment as to what is credible, and I base this conclusion on the fact that you reject the various passages which make it perfectly clear that the Earth is flat. If you doubt me, look at <a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)" target="_blank">http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)</a>
best wishes - Stephen

HoosierGuy28 · 10-23-2002, 09:09 AM

Stephen,

Quote:

Joel, I think you would understand better what�s going on here if you could come to terms with the fact that many of those who visit this forum are not seeking faith; we are interested in knowledge.

Thanks for your input. I understand people aren't necessarily looking for faith here, but if they're going to ask me questions, I'm sure they realize, or at least they should, that they are going to get a Christian perspective. I am a Christian and my faith in unshakable. My intention is not to come here as an adversary to those who don't believe in God, but hopefully as a friend. We do not have to share the same belief to get along, and I will respect people's beliefs and in exchange I would ask that they show respect to mine.

Quote:

Faith does not require facts; faith requires belief.
When facts are supplied, faith is supplanted by knowledge, and while possessing knowledge is useful, faith is the key to everlasting life.
This seems perfectly clear to me; I wonder why it isn�t perfectly clear to Christians who are forever seeking evidence that would replace their faith with knowledge.

I definitely see truth to this. Personally, knowledge is supplemental to my faith. Part of my faith requires me to share my knowledge of God with others. This also requires me to obtain knowledge, so that I can meet people where they are at. If I don't understand the common perspectives of atheists, agnostics, mormons, buddhists, muslims, etc., then it just makes it a lot harder to communicate with them.

I thank you for your feedback.

Joel

Mageth · 10-23-2002, 09:17 AM

Furthermore, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but the fact that people refuse to see what they don't want to see.

Bible quotes don't establish anything as "fact" around here.

I've examined the "evidence," and actually wish it would point to God; it doesn't. I'd like to live forever in bliss, just like everyone else, I suspect.

I'd say that the problem is that people see things (e.g. god, and the "evidence" for god) that aren't really there because they want to. The assertion that "if only you believed, you would see" backs that up.

Belief in God is based on both faith and fact, but facts will not do you any good if you refuse to acknowledge them.

What facts?

And if that is possible, then is it possible that billions of people, including myself, have experienced this evidence first-hand?

What evidence have you experienced first-hand?

Well, I don't do drugs, so I don't have that to worry about distorting my reality and I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional. Billions of people acknowledge that God exists, so that in itself should be an indictator of His existence, or at the bare minimum that should tell you that some supernatural deity or deities exist.

Congratulations, you've just committed a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum.

What god(s) do they acknowledge? Not the same one, I'm guessing.

Now I will apologize if I seemed to have come across rather harsh in this post, but I fail to see the logic in your posts.

I see no logic at all in your post. Logical fallacies, yes, but no logic.

If I know God exists, there is no reason for me to deny that. Personally, I don't see why people are so resistant to acknowledging God's existence.

Perhaps it's because we see no evidence that god exists.

Got any?

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth · 10-23-2002, 09:21 AM

We do not have to share the same belief to get along, and I will respect people's beliefs and in exchange I would ask that they show respect to mine.

How do the following statements respect our beliefs?

Personally, I don't see why people are so resistant to acknowledging God's existence.
...
Furthermore, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but the fact that people refuse to see what they don't want to see.

HoosierGuy28 · 10-23-2002, 09:21 AM

Kosh

Quote:

Yes Joel, we are quite familiar with Josh McDowell. Apparently you haven't perused OUR library for 6 hours a day yet. Allow me to provide a link which contains a thorough trashing of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", as well as Lee Strobels work, and many others. I do hope you'll read it!

I started to read the critique, but it didn't seem to be making a legitmate case against McDowell's book. Someone writing a critique of something doesn't validate what they had to write about it. Personal attacks are not hard to come up with, but they are typically rather meaningless. I would recommend that you actually read McDowell's book, and then come back and give me your honest impression.

Respectfully,

Joel

Mageth · 10-23-2002, 09:25 AM

If I don't understand the common perspectives of atheists, agnostics, mormons, buddhists, muslims, etc., then it just makes it a lot harder to communicate with them.

I may seem to be harping on this, but if you want to understand atheists and agnostics, you need to learn that the followiing statement is false:

Furthermore, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but the fact that people refuse to see what they don't want to see.

Ronin · 10-23-2002, 09:37 AM

Actually, I can't even recall what your question was.

This is a weak excuse as my posts still stand as a part of the record of this thread subject to your review at any time, Joel.

But, if this is the type of Christian character you desire to portray, then so be it.

It is a thoroughly familiar one to me.

I am here to have serious discussions with people about Christianity, and the initial impression I got from you was that you are just here to engage in personal attacks on people, so you must excuse me if I ignore some (if not all) of your posts.

This is a further weak attempt at diffusing the potency of my questions in order to further divert attention away from your inability to directly answer them openly and honestly.

Merely because I propose that Christianity is fallacious, inconsistent with critical thinking and limiting to real human compassion and understanding of the universe, does not mean I am engaging in a personal attack upon you as a human.

I do attack and expose fraud and deceit.

The questions stand and I will once again state them here for you to address at your leisure ~

1. Is God in my pants right now? (I am currently wearing pants).

2. Even if this divine Being 'willed' the most horrendous tragedies in the world by act or ommission to act, can you still love God unconditionally?

3. Is God blessing America?

4. Are we 'under' God?

Thank you in advance for your simple and direct answers.

~ I remain and await.

Mageth · 10-23-2002, 09:41 AM

I posted this in my above post, but I'd like to make it a direct, clear question to HoosierGuy28.

Belief in God is based on both faith and fact, but facts will not do you any good if you refuse to acknowledge them.
...
And if that is possible, then is it possible that billions of people, including myself, have experienced this evidence first-hand?

What facts? What evidence have you experienced first-hand?

Will you be the next in a long line of Christians on this board to stumble over, evade, or flat-out refuse to answer (aka Vanderzyden) these questions directed at your assertions?

HoosierGuy28 · 10-23-2002, 09:42 AM

Mageth,

You are a rather confusing individual, and hardly in a position to accuse me of any logical fallacies.

Quote:

Congratulations, you've just committed a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum.

What god(s) do they acknowledge? Not the same one, I'm guessing.

That in itself is a logical fallacy because the topic of discussion was not what God or gods are acknowledged, but the fact that billions of people acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being or beings.

Quote:

Bible quotes don't establish anything as "fact" around here.

Facts are dependent on reality, not acknowledgment. If you don't accept that grass is green, it doesn't negate the fact that the grass is green.

Quote:

I may seem to be harping on this, but if you want to understand atheists and agnostics, you need to learn that the followiing statement is false:

Not at all, I have lots of friends who are atheists and agnostics and we communicate just fine. Furthermore, if you are determined to disregard evidence just because it doesn't fit what you want to believe, then you are blinding yourself to truth. This is testable too. Why don't you try to prove to me that George Washington existed, and I'll see how long I can run around in circles and deny any facts you use to support it. I bet I could argue against it indefinitely.

Joel

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2002, 09:05 AM	#142
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	"Christianity stands on the doctrine and merit of Christ, not on anything else." So what puzzles me, Joel, is why you should give credence to the WHOLE Bible, especially in view of the fact that the god described in it is so variable. In the NT he is our loving father; in the Old he is a frightful tyrant. Both testaments have stories which are hard to believe, but many of the OT stories - Creation, the Flood, Jonah and so on - aren't even worth trying to believe. If you demonstrated an ability to be even a little bit realistic, some of us might have more sympathy with your position. (I think, however, that you do exercise some judgment as to what is credible, and I base this conclusion on the fact that you reject the various passages which make it perfectly clear that the Earth is flat. If you doubt me, look at <a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)" target="_blank">http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)</a> best wishes - Stephen

10-23-2002, 09:17 AM	#144
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Furthermore, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but the fact that people refuse to see what they don't want to see. Bible quotes don't establish anything as "fact" around here. I've examined the "evidence," and actually wish it would point to God; it doesn't. I'd like to live forever in bliss, just like everyone else, I suspect. I'd say that the problem is that people see things (e.g. god, and the "evidence" for god) that aren't really there because they want to. The assertion that "if only you believed, you would see" backs that up. Belief in God is based on both faith and fact, but facts will not do you any good if you refuse to acknowledge them. What facts? And if that is possible, then is it possible that billions of people, including myself, have experienced this evidence first-hand? What evidence have you experienced first-hand? Well, I don't do drugs, so I don't have that to worry about distorting my reality and I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional. Billions of people acknowledge that God exists, so that in itself should be an indictator of His existence, or at the bare minimum that should tell you that some supernatural deity or deities exist. Congratulations, you've just committed a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum. What god(s) do they acknowledge? Not the same one, I'm guessing. Now I will apologize if I seemed to have come across rather harsh in this post, but I fail to see the logic in your posts. I see no logic at all in your post. Logical fallacies, yes, but no logic. If I know God exists, there is no reason for me to deny that. Personally, I don't see why people are so resistant to acknowledging God's existence. Perhaps it's because we see no evidence that god exists. Got any? [ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

10-23-2002, 09:21 AM	#145
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	We do not have to share the same belief to get along, and I will respect people's beliefs and in exchange I would ask that they show respect to mine. How do the following statements respect our beliefs? Personally, I don't see why people are so resistant to acknowledging God's existence. ... Furthermore, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but the fact that people refuse to see what they don't want to see.

10-23-2002, 09:25 AM	#147
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	If I don't understand the common perspectives of atheists, agnostics, mormons, buddhists, muslims, etc., then it just makes it a lot harder to communicate with them. I may seem to be harping on this, but if you want to understand atheists and agnostics, you need to learn that the followiing statement is false: Furthermore, the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but the fact that people refuse to see what they don't want to see.

10-23-2002, 09:37 AM	#148
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	Actually, I can't even recall what your question was. This is a weak excuse as my posts still stand as a part of the record of this thread subject to your review at any time, Joel. But, if this is the type of Christian character you desire to portray, then so be it. It is a thoroughly familiar one to me. I am here to have serious discussions with people about Christianity, and the initial impression I got from you was that you are just here to engage in personal attacks on people, so you must excuse me if I ignore some (if not all) of your posts. This is a further weak attempt at diffusing the potency of my questions in order to further divert attention away from your inability to directly answer them openly and honestly. Merely because I propose that Christianity is fallacious, inconsistent with critical thinking and limiting to real human compassion and understanding of the universe, does not mean I am engaging in a personal attack upon you as a human. I do attack and expose fraud and deceit. The questions stand and I will once again state them here for you to address at your leisure ~ 1. Is God in my pants right now? (I am currently wearing pants). 2. Even if this divine Being 'willed' the most horrendous tragedies in the world by act or ommission to act, can you still love God unconditionally? 3. Is God blessing America? 4. Are we 'under' God? Thank you in advance for your simple and direct answers. ~ I remain and await.

10-23-2002, 09:41 AM	#149
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I posted this in my above post, but I'd like to make it a direct, clear question to HoosierGuy28. Belief in God is based on both faith and fact, but facts will not do you any good if you refuse to acknowledge them. ... And if that is possible, then is it possible that billions of people, including myself, have experienced this evidence first-hand? What facts? What evidence have you experienced first-hand? Will you be the next in a long line of Christians on this board to stumble over, evade, or flat-out refuse to answer (aka Vanderzyden) these questions directed at your assertions?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.