A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

What evidence do you use to conclude that zeus is not god?

Never said he was or wasn't. Don't need evidence for a claim I never made.

What evidence do you use to conclude we're not just a computer simulation?

Never said we were or weren't. Don't need evidence for a claim I never made.

What evidence do you use to conclude I don't have delicious pasta in place of internal organs?

Never said you do or don't. Don't need evidence for a claim I never made.

Wow, that's all you've got? Asking me for evidence in support of something I never claimed?

Weak.

 

[soulcougher73]

You can't show me a myth "cause" it doesn't exist?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause

Yeah, and I'm the "dumbass". lol

Goal post successfully moved, and reading comprehension fail all in one. Congrats.

 

[soulcougher73]

Never said he was or wasn't. Don't need evidence for a claim I never made.



Never said we were or weren't. Don't need evidence for a claim I never made.



Never said you do or don't. Don't need evidence for a claim I never made.

Wow, that's all you've got? Asking me for evidence in support of something I never claimed?

Weak.

He was asking you a question dumbass, not saying you said those things.

Jesus Fucking Christ are you 3?

 

[Retro Rob]

He was asking you a question dumbass, not saying you said those things.

Jesus Fucking Christ are you 3?

and I answered them...

U mad...ain'tcha, brah?

If you read, he asked "what evidence do you have to "conclude"... indicating I am making claims.

Boy, chill out.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Aren't you christian, Rob? As I understand christianity that means you don't worship or believe in any other deities (the christian god definitely appears to have little man syndrome, he gets rather jealous when you worship others).

Can you answer the questions, if you do only believe in a christian god?

 

[JD50]

and I answered them...

U mad...ain'tcha, brah?

If you read, he asked "what evidence do you have to "conclude"... indicating I am making claims.

Boy, chill out.

You have concluded that your god is the true god, so naturally you would also conclude that Zeus is not god, and we are not part of a computer simulation. Unless you're saying that your god could be Zeus?

 

[soulcougher73]

and I answered them...

U mad...ain'tcha, brah?

If you read, he asked "what evidence do you have to "conclude"... indicating I am making claims.

Boy, chill out.

" Conclude" does not mean what you think it means. Reading fail as usual in order avoid answering questions posed to you.

Man up.

 

[Retro Rob]

Aren't you christian, Rob? As I understand christianity that means you don't worship or believe in any other deities (the christian god definitely appears to have little man syndrome, he gets rather jealous when you worship others).

Can you answer the questions, if you do only believe in a christian god?

lol. I "lack belief" in other god's the same as you "lack belief" in all gods. The question about evidence of Zeus not being God is the same as me asking you for evidence that Yahweh isn't God.

Your other questions are about stuff I've never concerned myself with.

 

[JD50]

lol. I "lack belief" in other god's the same as you "lack belief" in all gods. The question about evidence of Zeus not being God is the same as me asking you for evidence that Yahweh isn't God.

Your other questions are about stuff I've never concerned myself with.

When you definitively say that your god is the one and only god, you are also saying that all other gods throughout history are not the one and only god. This is not the same as simply lacking belief in these other gods.

 

[Retro Rob]

When you definitively say that your god is the one and only god, you are also saying that all other gods throughout history are not the one and only god. This is not the same as simply lacking belief in these other gods.

If you claimed to have the best "house", you are under NO OBLIGATION to prove that all the houses through history are bad, inferior, etc.

What are you guys smoking? Crack?

 

[JD50]

If you claimed to have the best "house", you are under NO OBLIGATION to prove that all the houses through history are bad, inferior, etc.

What are you guys smoking? Crack?

If you claimed to have the best house of all time then yes you would need to show evidence that your house is indeed better than any house ever built.

 

[soulcougher73]

If you claimed to have the best "house", you are under NO OBLIGATION to prove that all the houses through history are bad, inferior, etc.

What are you guys smoking? Crack?

Umm wrong. Typical though. At least you're consistent.

You really suck at analogies, you should just stop.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you claimed to have the best "house", you are under NO OBLIGATION to prove that all the houses through history are bad, inferior, etc.

What are you guys smoking? Crack?

Obligation? No. But when someone asks you why your house is best you should be able to come up with something better than "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT!" So far that's all that the faithful have provided. And when all the other houses that exist look more or less identical to your's inside and out, the burden is on you to explain why your home is best.

I do want to say, it is kind of entertaining to see a believer having to face logic. You never know what they'll say next to try and justify their ridiculous position.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you claimed to have the best house of all time then yes you would need to show evidence that your house is indeed better than any house ever built.

Here's where your point breaks down. Using the house analogy, if you choose one house over another, you're simply choosing one house over another. You're not saying the other house is "bad", or the "wrong" one to live in.

No proof required.

I choose to follow Jesus so how is that saying, for instance, that Muhammed is a false prophet?

I don't have to prove anything, because I am not making claims against other "gods". I'm simply following the one I'm following, just as you would simply choose the house you chose.

 

[ThinClient]

lol. I "lack belief" in other god's the same as you "lack belief" in all gods. The question about evidence of Zeus not being God is the same as me asking you for evidence that Yahweh isn't God.

Your other questions are about stuff I've never concerned myself with.

As usual, you fail.

You are the one claiming that "yahweh" is god. The burden falls to YOU to prove it. Otherwise, you are simply a dishonest snake oil salesman.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Well, I see my humble attempt to taper this debate has failed.

I don't think you want to talk about "face value" in an evolution-only educational system and classroom (mind you, I am NOT disputing the veracity of it in this post).

Then why are you bringing it up?

Teachers are doing essentially what religion does -- teaching from printed books based on research someone else did and telling children this is the truth concerning the origins of man, and there is no "need' to consider any other theroy. We call that "brainwahing". It happend to me, as God didn't enter the picture until I got home from school. I am glad it did.

My point is, there is no more "critical thinking" in science classroom than there is in a church. I was taught that evolution was such a fact that even considering anything else is stupid.

How is that encouraging critical thinking?

I agree with you that "critical thinking" is not what's being taught in many classrooms, but that's not necessarily a shortcoming. Education would become too slow a process if all knowledge had to be rediscovered by the students in every class, particularly in the grade school and middle school levels.

In my personal experience, the importance of critical thinking was introduced to me in high school science and (perhaps ironically) religion classes, which seems to me to be about the right timing given normal intellectual development. Even in high school and beyond, the emphasis is on the transfer of knowledge rather than the questioning of its validity.

This adds to the importance of ensuring that what's presented as knowledge in classrooms has been thoroughly vetted by experts in the various fields. The knowledge that needs to be conveyed in a science class is science's best current theories for describing and understanding nature. Evolution, with all of its shortcomings, is nonetheless the best scientifically based theory on how life has changed over time.

(I am also not an advocate of teaching creation in school).

Then why keep bring it up?

This is bad reasoning. Why do atheists love to perpetuate this myth that I have to study the "thousands of other supernatrual beliefs" before finding what I consider the true one?

Did any of you study the thousands of creations/origin of man stories before accepting evolution? How about the many abaondoned scientfic theories explaining how it took place? No, as you had only one teaching of orgins...evolution via natrual selection, and accepted the evidence without first considering and examining the many others based on scientifc evidence.

I know this because I finished school and did some college and nothing else was taught.

So don't sit here and talk to me about "critical thinking" and "blind acceptance" because that goes absoutely both ways.

I'll certainly admit that I don't have the background to understand the in's and out's of evolution. What I do understand and respect is how the scientific process is used to compare competing theories against objective evidence to identify the one theory that seems to fit best. I accept evolution as the (current) result of the scientific process. I expect that continuing work in this field accompanied by new discoveries (evidence) will require changes to the theory over time, which I will accept.

I am a "believer" in the critical thought inherent in the scientific process, not in the current scientific theories.

There seems to be no similar process that winnows down the myriad of supernatural possibilities for prospective believers.

It does not go "absolutely both ways. "

edit: somehow the quotes got split in a way I can't correct. miraculous?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Here's where your point breaks down. Using the house analogy, if you choose one house over another, you're simply choosing one house over another. You're not saying the other house is "bad", or the "wrong" one to live in.

No proof required.

I choose to follow Jesus so how is that saying, for instance, that Muhammed is a false prophet?

I don't have to prove anything, because I am not making claims against other "gods". I'm simply following the one I'm following, just as you would simply choose the house you chose.

The analogy doesn't work well because a house doesn't care if there are other or better houses out there. Your god does... Big time.

 

[Retro Rob]

The analogy doesn't work well because a house doesn't care if there are other or better houses out there. Your god does... Big time.

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. All you need is similarities.

 

[JD50]

Here's where your point breaks down. Using the house analogy, if you choose one house over another, you're simply choosing one house over another. You're not saying the other house is "bad", or the "wrong" one to live in.

No proof required.

I choose to follow Jesus so how is that saying, for instance, that Muhammed is a false prophet?

I don't have to prove anything, because I am not making claims against other "gods". I'm simply following the one I'm following, just as you would simply choose the house you chose.

Ummm no. If you claim that your house is the best house ever made, then you're saying every other house is worse than yours. You would need to provide some evidence to back up that claim. What sets your house apart from all others? What is unique about your house that makes it so great? Etc... That's why no one would make such a ridiculous claim.

When you choose to follow Jesus you are in fact saying that all other gods throughout history are false gods. You are saying that your god is the one and only god, that means any other god would be a false god, since there can only be one.

This is true for all religions that claim their god is/are the only god.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ummm no. If you claim that your house is the best house ever made, then you're saying every other house is worse than yours. You would need to provide some evidence to back up that claim. What sets your house apart from all others? What is unique about your house that makes it so great? Etc... That's why no one would make such a ridiculous claim.

When you choose to follow Jesus you are in fact saying that all other gods throughout history are false gods. You are saying that your god is the one and only god, that means any other god would be a false god, since there can only be one.

This is true for all religions that claim their god is/are the only god.

Are you married?

If you are, are all other men/women bad spouses, and untrustworthy, unworthy? That's essentially what you're saying by choosing the one you chose.

Why should that be any different than what you're attributing to me?

 

[JD50]

Are you married?

If you are, are all other men/women bad spouses, and untrustworthy, unworthy? That's essentially what you're saying by choosing the one you chose.

Why should that be any different than what you're attributing to me?

I'm married to my wife because my she is the best fit for me out of all of the women that I have dated. There quite possibly could be a better fit for me out there, but I did not meet her or date her. I do not claim that my wife is the best wife in all of history (don't tell her I said that ), that would be a ridiculous claim to make.

Are you saying that out of all of the religions that you've tried, that your god is the one true god? Are you saying that it's possible that one of the thousands of other gods could be the one true god, you just haven't researched it enough? I believe you've claimed definitively that your god is the one true god. Isn't that a requirement for being a Christian?

 

[soulcougher73]

Can we all just agree Rob. M is a troll and forget about him. I mean he doesnt even try. He argues from points no rational person would ever make. He cant make or understand an analogy to save his life from a fiery hell. It's like talking to a 3 year old or something. It's like pulling teeth to get him to answer a question, all he does is try to deflect them back or move the goal post.

 

[Retro Rob]

do not claimed that my wife is the best wife in all of history (don't tell her I said that ), that would be a ridiculous claim to make.

I won't tell her.

However....

You're splitting hairs and playing semantics here. "Oh my wife is the best for me, but not in all history".

This is bull**** and you know it. The fact that you only dated a microscopic amount of women (compared to all the women to ever live) and only chose the one you did is the same freaking thing you're accusing me of doing...but you wanna play the game that since you haven't "verbally" said she's the best ever, you're off the hook that you're putting me on.

Bull****!

 

[sandorski]

I won't tell her.

However....

You're splitting hairs and playing semantics here. "Oh my wife is the best for me, but not in all history".

This is bull**** and you know it. The fact that you only dated a microscopic amount of women (compared to all the women to ever live) and only chose the one you did is the same freaking thing you're accusing me of doing...but you wanna play the game that since you haven't "verbally" said she's the best ever, you're off the hook that you're putting me on.

Bull****!

lol, wtf is happening here?

 

[JD50]

I won't tell her.

However....

You're splitting hairs and playing semantics here. "Oh my wife is the best for me, but not in all history".

This is bull**** and you know it. The fact that you only dated a microscopic amount of women (compared to all the women to ever live) and only chose the one you did is the same freaking thing you're accusing me of doing...but you wanna play the game that since you haven't "verbally" said she's the best ever, you're off the hook that you're putting me on.

Bull****!

The problem is that it's really a terrible analogy and the two are in no way similar. I have not claimed that my wife is the best ever, and that there couldn't possibly be another women out there that is better than her. I freely admit that there probably is someone out there that would be better for me, and I'm sure there's someone out there for my wife that she might be happier with.