Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 10-16-2002, 07:50 AM

In several recent posts, Vanderzyden has alluded to "overwhelming evidence" for the existence of the (Biblical) God:

Quote:

If you (1) reject him on the basis of a quick survey of "religious sayings", or (2) flatly deny his existence despite overwhelming evidence, then of course there is no way you will find him wonderful.

If, on the other hand, you were to take a genuine interest in seeking the truth about the way the world IS--instead of how you prefer it to be--then perhaps you would discover something about the Creator and what he is like. Then you could make an [/i]informed[/i] decision.

(My emphasis in bold)

This evidence is apparently so convincing that no reasonable person who has studied it is likely to conclude that God does not exist:

Quote:

Which is it, do your deny or reject God? There is a difference.

If it is denial, then I find it far more amazing that you deny God. I can understand why you would reject him, but not why you would deny his existence. However, that is for another thread (as Jobar indicates).

Quote:

Finally, Mageth, please do not rely upon me to "provide the evidence". The evidence is there. You, however, won't admit the possibility that you are dismissing or overlooking it. In fact, you insist that your search is complete.

Quote:

Let's set aside "Christianity" for the moment. Instead, let us concentrate on three things primarily:

1. There is a Creator.
2. There is objective right and wrong.
3. You can make choices.

We cannot prove the first statement, but there is so much that may be considered as evidence. Have you considered it fully?

Quote:

In regard to your second question: This is not something that I have formed a belief on previously. If you ask me what I think at the moment, I would say that I don't think it's likely. It's unlikely that someone will earnestly seek the truth and deny the existence of the Creator. So far, my experience with atheists and agnostics is that they have not thoroughly justified their beliefs. In fact, we have just seen in this very thread that one particular atheist has not searched as well as he previously claimed. But then, I don't think I've encounted anyone like, say, Bertrand Russell.

Quote:

That statement makes at least two huge assumptions.

1. That God exists.

2. That free will exists.

#1 is more than an assumption, to be argued in another thread.

A thread such as this one, perhaps.

Why the Biblical God? Apparently there is something special about the Bible:

Quote:

...You must resort to the wintess of Jewish and Christian scriptue which is of a type with the Koran, the Gitas, and othe religious works...

False. This is the typical "all religions are the same" fallacy. If Mr. Garrett really had all that training he's been bragging about, he would know that the Bible stands unique.

...Followed by a complete lack of any explanation of what distinguishes the Bible from any other religious work. Is it something to do with the "overwhelming evidence"? How can we know?

Vanderzyden, I note that your post count currently stands at 428. Unless I've missed something rather important, none of those 428 posts contain any good reasons to believe in the J/C God (or even a generic "creator" with the characteristics of a God, except via the fallacy of begging the question: calling everything "the creation").

Are you now ready to share this overwhelming evidence with us?

Keith Russell · 10-16-2002, 08:07 AM

Venderzyden:
If you (1) reject him on the basis of a quick survey of "religious sayings"--

Keith: Not hardly. I was agnostic for the first twenty years of my life. I truly wanted to believe, but I could not bring myself to believe without at least some evidence. I truly searched, asked questions of clergy and laypeople from dozens of different churches, faiths, and religions, yet still found nothing upon which I could base a religious belief. It was nothing at all like a 'quick survey', I assure you.

Vander: --or (2) flatly deny his existence despite overwhelming evidence

Keith: Saying that there is overwhelming evidence doesn't make it so. I have heard numerous people say that there is evidence for the existence of 'God'. I have yet to see any of it. Stop saying it exists, and simply show it to me.

Vander: If, on the other hand, you were to take a genuine interest in seeking the truth about the way the world IS--

Keith: It is precisely my genuine interest in learning the truth about the way the world is, that has led me to my atheism.

Vander: --instead of how you prefer it to be--then perhaps you would discover something about the Creator and what he is like.

Keith: Been there, done that, didn't work out that way. I discovered that any 'God', once defined, contradicts everything I know about 'the way the world is'.

Vander: Then you could make an [/i]informed[/i] decision.

I think I have made an informed decision, and all your babble about how I have 'rejected' 'God' is nonsense. I have only rejected the idea that 'God' exists.

I can't reject 'God'; 'He/She/It' isn't real.

Keith.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

10-16-2002, 01:28 PM

Quote:

If you (1) reject him on the basis of a quick survey of "religious sayings",

As far as I am concerned, 95% of religious doctrine adds absolutely nothing epistemologically to it's validity. With a very superifical knowledge of a mystical conception of the world, I can determine that it is not a fruitful venue to prusue. This is particularly true for religions that claim immediate, noninferential and certain knowledge.

A person who has a very minimal knowledge of the details of relgions could be very well justified in rejecting them. Indeed they could be better justified than someone with detailed knowledge of their workings.

It is more rational to spend your time masturbating than it would be to pursue the doctrines of fools mascarading as the work of gods.

Jobar · 10-16-2002, 02:59 PM

Vanderzyden, if you don't respond here, you will never hear the last of it. Given all the quotes Jack has cited, given your obvious interest in convincing both the ones who contribute and the ones who only read that God exists, given the fact that this forum is for exactly the evidence Jack, and all the rest of us, ask for- if you do not answer, then we can only consider this proof of your untruthfulness.

In short- go for your guns, or get the hell outta Dodge.

Mageth · 10-16-2002, 03:02 PM

Perhaps all the posters here are on Vanderzyden's little black list.

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-16-2002, 03:37 PM

Neat, another V thread I can be ignored on.

Here's my prediction for how this goes:

A) V makes no argument other than unsupported assertion about the obvious evidence in nature, or perhaps makes some weak-ass argument from design, fine tuning or some such.
B) He then uses special pleading to make that supposed god the Christian god.
C) Posters tear his "arguments" apart.
E) Any poster with a decent point get added to his ignore list.
D) Without ever responding to refutations of his arguments, he says his arguments have not had any decent responses and claims victory.
F) repeat steps C-F until the thread is completely off topic.

Jobar · 10-16-2002, 03:47 PM

Gentlemen and ladies, give it a bit of time to see if he'll reply. If he has not done so by, say, Friday evening, I will move this thread to Rants&Raves and declare it open season on Vanderzydens.

Aerik Von · 10-16-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
<strong>Gentlemen and ladies, give it a bit of time to see if he'll reply. If he has not done so by, say, Friday evening, I will move this thread to Rants&Raves and declare it open season on Vanderzydens.

</strong>

How very kind of you!

Aethari · 10-16-2002, 04:30 PM

Or what if he replies, and by some odd chance, happens to evade all questions and emphatically wave his hands around instead of answering the OP??

Not that such a thing is likely, eh?

-Aethari

xeren · 10-16-2002, 04:46 PM

I gave up on trying to argue with Vander a while ago, so I'm sure I've missed his more recent posts, but the feeling i got from his postings was that he felt like everything in nature proved God's existence, because the chance that humans could have evolved to this point by accident is ridiculous to consider.

But i don't think Vander has ever read up on retrospective and non-retrospective improbability.

I truly think that if someone could make him understand the difference between the two, he wouldn't think the overwhelming evidence for God's existence was so overwhelming anymore.

Does anyone know where I'm coming from, or am i just talking crazy?

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

10-16-2002, 08:07 AM	#2
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Venderzyden: If you (1) reject him on the basis of a quick survey of "religious sayings"-- Keith: Not hardly. I was agnostic for the first twenty years of my life. I truly wanted to believe, but I could not bring myself to believe without at least some evidence. I truly searched, asked questions of clergy and laypeople from dozens of different churches, faiths, and religions, yet still found nothing upon which I could base a religious belief. It was nothing at all like a 'quick survey', I assure you. Vander: --or (2) flatly deny his existence despite overwhelming evidence Keith: Saying that there is overwhelming evidence doesn't make it so. I have heard numerous people say that there is evidence for the existence of 'God'. I have yet to see any of it. Stop saying it exists, and simply show it to me. Vander: If, on the other hand, you were to take a genuine interest in seeking the truth about the way the world IS-- Keith: It is precisely my genuine interest in learning the truth about the way the world is, that has led me to my atheism. Vander: --instead of how you prefer it to be--then perhaps you would discover something about the Creator and what he is like. Keith: Been there, done that, didn't work out that way. I discovered that any 'God', once defined, contradicts everything I know about 'the way the world is'. Vander: Then you could make an [/i]informed[/i] decision. I think I have made an informed decision, and all your babble about how I have 'rejected' 'God' is nonsense. I have only rejected the idea that 'God' exists. I can't reject 'God'; 'He/She/It' isn't real. Keith. [ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

10-16-2002, 02:59 PM	#4
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Vanderzyden, if you don't respond here, you will never hear the last of it. Given all the quotes Jack has cited, given your obvious interest in convincing both the ones who contribute and the ones who only read that God exists, given the fact that this forum is for exactly the evidence Jack, and all the rest of us, ask for- if you do not answer, then we can only consider this proof of your untruthfulness. In short- go for your guns, or get the hell outta Dodge.

10-16-2002, 03:02 PM	#5
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Perhaps all the posters here are on Vanderzyden's little black list.

10-16-2002, 03:37 PM	#6
Vibr8gKiwi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: CA, USA Posts: 543	Neat, another V thread I can be ignored on. Here's my prediction for how this goes: A) V makes no argument other than unsupported assertion about the obvious evidence in nature, or perhaps makes some weak-ass argument from design, fine tuning or some such. B) He then uses special pleading to make that supposed god the Christian god. C) Posters tear his "arguments" apart. E) Any poster with a decent point get added to his ignore list. D) Without ever responding to refutations of his arguments, he says his arguments have not had any decent responses and claims victory. F) repeat steps C-F until the thread is completely off topic.

10-16-2002, 03:47 PM	#7
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Gentlemen and ladies, give it a bit of time to see if he'll reply. If he has not done so by, say, Friday evening, I will move this thread to Rants&Raves and declare it open season on Vanderzydens.

10-16-2002, 04:30 PM	#9
Aethari Veteran Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 1,635	Or what if he replies, and by some odd chance, happens to evade all questions and emphatically wave his hands around instead of answering the OP?? Not that such a thing is likely, eh? -Aethari

10-16-2002, 04:46 PM	#10
xeren Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Place Posts: 285	I gave up on trying to argue with Vander a while ago, so I'm sure I've missed his more recent posts, but the feeling i got from his postings was that he felt like everything in nature proved God's existence, because the chance that humans could have evolved to this point by accident is ridiculous to consider. But i don't think Vander has ever read up on retrospective and non-retrospective improbability. I truly think that if someone could make him understand the difference between the two, he wouldn't think the overwhelming evidence for God's existence was so overwhelming anymore. Does anyone know where I'm coming from, or am i just talking crazy?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.