| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"TehGhodTrole" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2004 03:03:06 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
Nerd Gerl wrote:
The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation
Darwin admitted far more than that...
It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.
Illogical twits.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
03 Mar 2004 11:30:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:14:54 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:23:17 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:19 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
[...]
So, I don't expect you to come to grips with this right away or
develop contrary arguments in short shrift. It's a very tough
philosphical subject. What I would suggest is that you consider
taking some of the points I've drawn out and submit the entire
problem to your own rationalising engine over the next few
nights and see what it pops out without your conscious help.
With no pretense of interest enough to to do that, are you saying
that it is impossible to rationally disprove a (sufficiently
comprehensive) irrationality?
If I make assumptions about what you are referring to, then I might
actually be able to answer your question. But you've trimmed the
entire 32k of the post and left only a suggestion I was making
to the OP.
Sorry, I thought you'd be able to find it.
It isn't exactly clear what point or collection of points
or what summary of points you're actually referring to.
The conclusion that you've reached about the arguments of atheists.
So I also don't
have any pretense of interest enough to answer unless you lift your
game.
<Shrug> No game. I'm neutral in the "argument".
Shrug as much as you like. There were several conclusions. So, if you
want an answer, you can quote directly what conclusion you are
referring to. I'm not going to go and do your inferring for you then
proceed to attempt an answer to something that might not even exist.
But, to be fair, I will ask a follow-up question: If you are
interested in a rational argument against a position, what need is
there to do more than identify the position as irrational?
Precisely. alt.atheism atheists, being irrational, are not able
to perceive rationality and merely blindly assert the position to
be wrong. Not even simple logic can be beaten into their thick skulls,
which they consign to the mysterious workings of magick.
Funny, you seem to be able reply when you want. So, you must not want to
reply . . . for whatever reason.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 05:31:26 AM |
|
|
catshark wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:14:54 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:23:17 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:19 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
[...]
So, I don't expect you to come to grips with this right away or
develop contrary arguments in short shrift. It's a very tough
philosphical subject. What I would suggest is that you consider
taking some of the points I've drawn out and submit the entire
problem to your own rationalising engine over the next few
nights and see what it pops out without your conscious help.
With no pretense of interest enough to to do that, are you saying
that it is impossible to rationally disprove a (sufficiently
comprehensive) irrationality?
If I make assumptions about what you are referring to, then I might
actually be able to answer your question. But you've trimmed the
entire 32k of the post and left only a suggestion I was making
to the OP.
Sorry, I thought you'd be able to find it.
It isn't exactly clear what point or collection of points
or what summary of points you're actually referring to.
The conclusion that you've reached about the arguments of atheists.
So I also don't
have any pretense of interest enough to answer unless you lift your
game.
<Shrug> No game. I'm neutral in the "argument".
Shrug as much as you like. There were several conclusions. So, if you
want an answer, you can quote directly what conclusion you are
referring to. I'm not going to go and do your inferring for you then
proceed to attempt an answer to something that might not even exist.
But, to be fair, I will ask a follow-up question: If you are
interested in a rational argument against a position, what need is
there to do more than identify the position as irrational?
Precisely. alt.atheism atheists, being irrational, are not able
to perceive rationality and merely blindly assert the position to
be wrong. Not even simple logic can be beaten into their thick
skulls, which they consign to the mysterious workings of magick.
Funny, you seem to be able reply when you want. So, you must not
want to reply . . . for whatever reason.
How very astute. I will proceed to the truth of the matter...
I simply flat refuse to engage illogical nitwits in any kind
of reasonable discussion. It's as pointless as asking for proof
or evidence of unprovable truths.
To illustrate the absurdity, take the nitwit named "MG", who
obviously fancies himself as some sort of high and mighty
philosopher of wisdom. His posting name is accompanied by
the this hotmail address:
He bandies about logical statements like a cheap ***** dresses
herself up tawrdy accoutrements:
1) S believes (not P)
2) Not (S believes P)
(1) tells us that S has a particular belief, namely the belief that P.
Then he proceeds to attempt to dissect a statement of reality down
into a belief by misapplication of propositional knowldege, then
the nitwit proceeds to try and desiccate the same statement of reality
into truth and falsehood, totally missing the inescapable fact that
the truth of anything at all is totally independent of belief and
knowledge.
Clearly, his status as a thinker is all in his head.
So, pointlessness and stupidity abounds. People like that can
find someone else's time to waste. I'm more than happy to give
as much time is needed to people who can actually think. I have
no time at all for people who only pretend to think.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 08:51:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:31:26 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:14:54 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:23:17 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:51:19 +0000 (UTC), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
[...]
So, I don't expect you to come to grips with this right away or
develop contrary arguments in short shrift. It's a very tough
philosphical subject. What I would suggest is that you consider
taking some of the points I've drawn out and submit the entire
problem to your own rationalising engine over the next few
nights and see what it pops out without your conscious help.
With no pretense of interest enough to to do that, are you saying
that it is impossible to rationally disprove a (sufficiently
comprehensive) irrationality?
If I make assumptions about what you are referring to, then I might
actually be able to answer your question. But you've trimmed the
entire 32k of the post and left only a suggestion I was making
to the OP.
Sorry, I thought you'd be able to find it.
It isn't exactly clear what point or collection of points
or what summary of points you're actually referring to.
The conclusion that you've reached about the arguments of atheists.
So I also don't
have any pretense of interest enough to answer unless you lift your
game.
<Shrug> No game. I'm neutral in the "argument".
Shrug as much as you like. There were several conclusions. So, if you
want an answer, you can quote directly what conclusion you are
referring to. I'm not going to go and do your inferring for you then
proceed to attempt an answer to something that might not even exist.
But, to be fair, I will ask a follow-up question: If you are
interested in a rational argument against a position, what need is
there to do more than identify the position as irrational?
Precisely. alt.atheism atheists, being irrational, are not able
to perceive rationality and merely blindly assert the position to
be wrong. Not even simple logic can be beaten into their thick
skulls, which they consign to the mysterious workings of magick.
Funny, you seem to be able reply when you want. So, you must not
want to reply . . . for whatever reason.
How very astute. I will proceed to the truth of the matter...
I simply flat refuse to engage illogical nitwits in any kind
of reasonable discussion. It's as pointless as asking for proof
or evidence of unprovable truths.
To illustrate the absurdity, take the nitwit named "MG", who
obviously fancies himself as some sort of high and mighty
philosopher of wisdom. His posting name is accompanied by
the this hotmail address:
He bandies about logical statements like a cheap ***** dresses
herself up tawrdy accoutrements:
1) S believes (not P)
2) Not (S believes P)
(1) tells us that S has a particular belief, namely the belief that P.
Then he proceeds to attempt to dissect a statement of reality down
into a belief by misapplication of propositional knowldege, then
the nitwit proceeds to try and desiccate the same statement of reality
into truth and falsehood, totally missing the inescapable fact that
the truth of anything at all is totally independent of belief and
knowledge.
Clearly, his status as a thinker is all in his head.
So, pointlessness and stupidity abounds. People like that can
find someone else's time to waste. I'm more than happy to give
as much time is needed to people who can actually think. I have
no time at all for people who only pretend to think.
Ok.
Since you have chosen to use a real-life example, would you agree that, in
a *dialog* between two people, the rationality of each person's
actions/conclusions must be evaluated independently based on what each
person knows *at the time*? For example, people 1,000 years ago were not
irrational/illogical to conclude, based on the state of knowledge then,
that the Earth was stationary and the sun went around it. If that is not
true, why not?
Now, Adam the atheist meets Bill the believer for the first time, perhaps
in a usenet group, and they exchange assertions, Adam stating "There are
no god(s)" and Bill saying "There is a god or god(s)". Would you say that,
at *that* point, it would be irrational/illogical for each to *ask* the
other, "Do you have any evidence/support/proof of that?" without any claim
that the failure to produce any is itself probative and simply as an
informational query. If it is illogical, why?
It seems to me that either can answer:
a) No.
b) No, because there can be no such evidence.
c) Yes and the evidence is . . .
d) Yes but I'm not going to tell you what it is.
e) I'm not going to tell you one way or the other.
I have not read all your posts and the ones I have, not in depth. Because
of the press of other business, I don't presently have the time to go back
and do so. You appear to speak to the case of one or the other party
responding with answer b) but also seem to have Bill replying with d) or e)
(hence my original question).
If you think it is fruitful to pursue this line of thought, please let me
know where in the *process* of the dialog you think your argument falls (or
whether you accept that there is a process at all). If you don't think
it's fruitful, HANL.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
04 Mar 2004 08:41:11 PM |
|
|
catshark wrote:
Since you have chosen to use a real-life example, would you agree
that, in a *dialog* between two people, the rationality of each
person's actions/conclusions must be evaluated independently based on
what each person knows *at the time*? For example, people 1,000
years ago were not irrational/illogical to conclude, based on the
state of knowledge then, that the Earth was stationary and the sun
went around it. If that is not true, why not?
Since it isn't clear where you're going with that, I will confine
my reply to this...
Now, Adam the atheist meets Bill the believer for the first time,
perhaps in a usenet group, and they exchange assertions, Adam
stating "There are no god(s)" and Bill saying "There is a god or
god(s)". Would you say that, at *that* point, it would be
irrational/illogical for each to *ask* the other, "Do you have any
evidence/support/proof of that?" without any claim that the failure
to produce any is itself probative and simply as an informational
query. If it is illogical, why?
Why do you want me to answer that when I am clearly on record as
asserting that asking for "evidence/support/proof" is meaningless
and pointless?
It seems to me that either can answer:
a) No.
b) No, because there can be no such evidence.
c) Yes and the evidence is . . .
d) Yes but I'm not going to tell you what it is.
e) I'm not going to tell you one way or the other.
I have not read all your posts and the ones I have, not in depth.
Because of the press of other business, I don't presently have the
time to go back and do so. You appear to speak to the case of one or
the other party responding with answer b) but also seem to have Bill
replying with d) or e) (hence my original question).
Well, you're wrong. The correct empirical answer is a).
If you think it is fruitful to pursue this line of thought
I have no intention of telling you if I feel it will be
fruitful or otherwise. What I will tell you is that I
will not enter into discussion with anyone who excuses
themselves from preliminary reasearch because of pressing
matters elsewhere.
It's quite probable that after spending much time
reconstructing what's already there on google, something
as equally pressing will pop up. So, bad luck for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
05 Mar 2004 03:49:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:41:11 +0000 (UTC), "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote:
catshark wrote:
Since you have chosen to use a real-life example, would you agree
that, in a *dialog* between two people, the rationality of each
person's actions/conclusions must be evaluated independently based on
what each person knows *at the time*? For example, people 1,000
years ago were not irrational/illogical to conclude, based on the
state of knowledge then, that the Earth was stationary and the sun
went around it. If that is not true, why not?
Since it isn't clear where you're going with that, I will confine
my reply to this...
Now, Adam the atheist meets Bill the believer for the first time,
perhaps in a usenet group, and they exchange assertions, Adam
stating "There are no god(s)" and Bill saying "There is a god or
god(s)". Would you say that, at *that* point, it would be
irrational/illogical for each to *ask* the other, "Do you have any
evidence/support/proof of that?" without any claim that the failure
to produce any is itself probative and simply as an informational
query. If it is illogical, why?
Why do you want me to answer that when I am clearly on record as
asserting that asking for "evidence/support/proof" is meaningless
and pointless?
It seems to me that either can answer:
a) No.
b) No, because there can be no such evidence.
c) Yes and the evidence is . . .
d) Yes but I'm not going to tell you what it is.
e) I'm not going to tell you one way or the other.
I have not read all your posts and the ones I have, not in depth.
Because of the press of other business, I don't presently have the
time to go back and do so. You appear to speak to the case of one or
the other party responding with answer b) but also seem to have Bill
replying with d) or e) (hence my original question).
Well, you're wrong. The correct empirical answer is a).
If you think it is fruitful to pursue this line of thought
I have no intention of telling you if I feel it will be
fruitful or otherwise. What I will tell you is that I
will not enter into discussion with anyone who excuses
themselves from preliminary reasearch because of pressing
matters elsewhere.
It's quite probable that after spending much time
reconstructing what's already there on google, something
as equally pressing will pop up. So, bad luck for you.
I'm *so* broken up.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Honesty is the best policy --
when there is money in it.
-- Mark Twain --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
05 Mar 2004 03:58:08 AM |
|
|
catshark wrote:
I'm *so* broken up.
Only fools play another fool's games. There's a lesson there for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? -- WHAT IS "X"??? |
01 Mar 2004 02:57:12 PM |
|
|
TehGhodTrole wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
BZZZT!
Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.
Here is why:
A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.
===>FIRST you must give some mutually agreeable DEFINITION
of your "metaphysical X". Otherwise there cab never be any intelligent
discussion, as illustrated by the nonsensical quasi debate about the word
"God". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 07:33:40 AM |
|
|
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindly be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 07:56:13 AM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Phÿltêr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindly be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
Seppo P.
Sorry, wrong attribution. My reply was meant to "TeGodTrole".
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 11:28:22 AM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument a=
s
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia, but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "underground" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:38:28 PM |
|
|
"Richard Crawford" <rscrawford.penguin@mossroot.remove_waterfowl.com> wrote
in message news:c1vs58$kvb$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument a=
s
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia,
but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
Richard, I don't want to plagerise. Can I please post this in other places
with attribution to you? It is the first honest thing I have ever seen from
a theist and I would like to see how others respond to it. I mean his in all
sincerity.
Oh, I'll nominate you as a POTM if I am not too late.
Kind regards
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:42:58 PM |
|
|
underground wrote:
"Richard Crawford" <rscrawford.penguin@mossroot.remove_waterfowl.com> wrote
in message news:c1vs58$kvb$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument a=
s
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia,
but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
Richard, I don't want to plagerise. Can I please post this in other places
with attribution to you? It is the first honest thing I have ever seen from
a theist and I would like to see how others respond to it. I mean his in all
sincerity.
Oh, I'll nominate you as a POTM if I am not too late.
Kind regards
Martin
Martin,
I'd be honored. Let me know where you post it.
Richard
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:45:10 PM |
|
|
"Richard Crawford" <rscrawford.penguin@mossroot.remove_waterfowl.com> wrote
in message news:c1vs58$kvb$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
<snip>
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia,
but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
Wow. That is the most honest statement from a Christian
I can remember seeing.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 03:33:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:45:10 +0000, Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Richard Crawford" <rscrawford.penguin@mossroot.remove_waterfowl.com>
wrote in message news:c1vs58$kvb$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
<snip>
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have
nothing=20 to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical
universe.=20 Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical;
thus no=20 discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of
logic to=20 prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists
just end
up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view
that=20 something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence
to make=20 denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to
Russia,
but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in
the=20 existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
Wow. That is the most honest statement from a Christian I can remember
seeing.
You'll see them quite often if you spend more time with the
evolution-supporting Christians of talk.origins.
It's sad that the dishonest and narrow-minded trolls that populate so many
of the online "Christian" groups are the only representatives of
Christianity that many people see. We're not _all_ like that. In fact,
most of us _aren't_ like that.
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "underground" |
|
| Title: NOMINATE TQOTHM Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:38:29 PM |
|
|
I hope I did this right, it was a fantastic post and deserves more than
this.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia,
but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: NOMINATE TQOTHM Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 06:42:24 PM |
|
|
underground wrote:
I hope I did this right, it was a fantastic post and deserves more than
this.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end
up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia,
but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Heh. I just noticed that this thread is posted in alt.bible,
alt.atheism, and talk.origins. Of those, the only group I regularly
read is talk.origins. So let me know what happens. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 12:55:05 AM |
|
|
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
<snip>
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia, but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Richard,
I appreciate your posting, it demonstrates quite well that thinking theists
can, and do separate science and their religious beliefs. This seems to
be something that totally escapes the minds of religious fundamentalists.
Well, this is really nothing new to me, as Stanley Friesen, Dave Oldridge
and others have already done so many times before.
Regards,
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 12:04:40 PM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<c21bdu$1o1vi0$1@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
<snip>
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia, but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Richard,
I appreciate your posting, it demonstrates quite well that thinking theists
can, and do separate science and their religious beliefs. This seems to
be something that totally escapes the minds of religious fundamentalists.
Well, this is really nothing new to me, as Stanley Friesen, Dave Oldridge
and others have already done so many times before.
Regards,
Seppo P.
Richard's post is similar to what my workout partner in the university
would have said. He was/is a devout Christian and now a PhD in plant
virology. He knew the difference between faith and reason, and never
thought that simply saying "Look around! Isn't it obvious?" would be
enough to convince me that God existed outside his skull. He also said
that doing science was "Studying how God does things".
He held in quiet contempt or pity those who loathed knowledge and
actively fought science; for they serve neither God nor humanity. (Hi,
Joe!)
- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
02 Mar 2004 11:01:48 AM |
|
|
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
<snip>
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
An atheist takes a perfectly reasonable and logical point of view that=20
something has not been proven to exist without enough evidence to make=20
denial perverse (a typical atheist may not have ever been to Russia, but=20
it would be foolish to assume that the atheist does not believe in the=20
existence of Russia, unless they are a total solipsist).
=20
Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view, kindl=
y be
quiet.
If you ARE admitting the rationality of those viewpoints, definitely be
quiet.
=20
=20
Seppo P.
=20
=20
Richard,
I appreciate your posting, it demonstrates quite well that thinking theists
can, and do separate science and their religious beliefs. This seems to
be something that totally escapes the minds of religious fundamentalists.
And it has been pointed out to them many, many times. I'm personally of
the opinion that they're just scared that their faith may be proved
wrong by science, and thus they may not survive after death. And so
they need to restrict their thinking to support the idea that they will
survive after death, and if anyone else challenges their restricted
worldview, then they feel even more threatened and afraid.
Well, this is really nothing new to me, as Stanley Friesen, Dave Oldridge
and others have already done so many times before.
Some of the most interesting philosophers I've read have thought along
the same lines. Not that I'm comparing myself to them, of course; I
just think it's a neat way of looking at the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:17:58 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument a=
s
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:28:27 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
sparkup wrote:
=20
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Pcdx569XRql32E39DACEnMUKrozWTmjA@animal.squaretrade.com...
sparkup wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:7GeLF0zuytI03F91224A2D72AB4BOsOEiaXjepMR@kadaitcha.cx...
Ph=FFlt=EAr wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> astounded us with:
news:XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx:
If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument a=
s
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist
Another weak attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
On the contrary. Asking an atheist to establish a coherent reason
why God should not exist is quite valid,
It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.
Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument
It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.
Otherwise it would be rational to believe in everything, invisible pink
unicorns, people actually being made of popcorn, that the universe was
farted out of the backside of a giant badger etc etc.
=20
=20
Ok, then. Provide *positive* evidence that your god exists.
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:42:13 PM |
|
|
"Richard Crawford" <rscrawford.penguin@mossroot.remove_waterfowl.com> wrote
in message news:c1vvm1$nlk$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Libertarius wrote:
[...]
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
Requiring evidence for faith is the most illogical of illogics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 12:59:31 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 01:16:51 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
Heh. You're probably quite right about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 03:02:29 PM |
|
|
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at
your decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason
to an extent. -- L.
====================
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
Heh. You're probably quite right about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 04:03:53 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
lines. I believe in the existence of God, largely as defined in the
tradition of the Methodist church (though since I grew up as an
Episcopalian, much of their theology has affected me as well, I'm sure).
While in college, I spent some time exploring many different faiths
(such as Zen Buddhism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Wicca, and more), and
even spent some time as an atheist. I won't go into my life story or my
spiritual biography here (it's not all that interesting, and my fingers
only have so much typing energy in them); suffice to say that at this
point, I do believe in the Creating power of God (as represented by the
"Father"), in the loving nature of God (Jesus), and in the inspiring
nature of God (the Holy Spirit).
WHY do I believe? To be honest, I have never been very comfortable
answering that question. Partially, it's a conscious choice.
Partially, it's because it makes sense to me personally. Partially,
it's because I find my own faith inspiring and helpful to me. It helps
me through the day, you might say.
I know that I will never convince someone who does not believe, and
that's okay with me. I also don't believe that people who believe
differently than I do are going to hell. In fact, I believe that there
are probably some people who call themselves atheists who have a much
closer relationship to God than I do.
This probably doesn't help. Heh.
Creationism (which I mention because I am reading this thread in
talk.origins, and because the title mentions evolution) is utterly
incompatible with my faith and with science. Therefore, I reject it
very easily.
===>Again, WHY?
Reason is a human trait and I cannot see how you can arrive at
your decisions without it. In fact you appear to be applying reason
to an extent. -- L.
True.
Many of my "fundamental premises" are unsound and irrational: that God
exists, that He created the universe and manifests Himself in it, and so on.
But I do believe that God gave us the power to use reason to investigate
His creation -- in other words, science is a gift from God. It can be
used to explore the nature of reality, and that's when we discover
evolution, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. I've built up, in
conjunction with what I know of science and what I believe about the
nature of God, a set of axioms about how I believe the universe works.
Insofar as some claim comes along -- like, say, any sort of
pseudoscience like Creationism or magnetic therapy -- I can look at such
claims and decide whether or not their claims are supported by that set
of axioms.
Of course, I always entertain the notion that I might be wrong about
anything I believe. My faith in God is, I feel, unassailable, but I am
always willing to consider that on some specifics -- such as what I
believe we are called by God to do in specific situations -- I may be
completely wrong.
I know that this sounds like rambling. If I had a couple of weeks, I'm
sure I could write a much better screed.
====================
I wonder what some fundamentalists will make of this belief of mine,
though. Am I saved because I have faith? Or damned because I don't
require evidence for my faith?
===>I think most of them would attack you,
saying you are not a "real Christian". ;-) -- L.
Heh. You're probably quite right about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK?? |
01 Mar 2004 09:29:05 PM |
|
|
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
As a Christian, I will happily admit that there can be no positive=20
logical or empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's an=20
assumption made on faith, reinforced by emotion and experience and=20
possibly revelation (I won't claim to have received any divine=20
revelation myself). Logic and physical evidence, however, have nothing=20
to do with faith. Those are for describing the physical universe.=20
Faith, however, is fundamentally irrational and illogical; thus no=20
discussion of faith or God or whatever can involve the use of logic to=20
prove its premises. Any attempts to "prove" that God exists just end up=20
sounding silly to people who know how logic works.
===>WOW!
Finally, an honest comment from a Christian who simply chooses to
believe knowing there is no evidence. -- L.
It is a choice, but it is an informed choice (in a way). It's informed
by experience and emotion, but not logic and evidence. Heh.
===>Still an honest statement.
You BELIEVE in your subjective impressions, without seeking
"logic and evidence". Most "believers" would not admit that, but
it is consistent with the biblical definition of "faith".
(SEE: Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen.")
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish between that and
credulity, which all con men take advantage of.
This is, unfortunately, true. Which is why it's important to maintain a
very healthy dose of skepticism with regards to claims made by shysters,
hucksters, many preachers, and so on. When faced with a new claim, one
should wonder whether that claim is consistent with their faith and with
known reality (that is to say, with what science tells us).
But there are always choices that have to be made, and it isn't always
easy. There is no logical reason for asserting that reincarnation, for
example, is not true (and I often wish it were). It is not, however,
consistent with the faith that I choose, so I do not believe in it. I
respect those who do, however.
===>It would be most enlightening if you would be willing to explain
what it is you DO choose to believe and most importantly WHY?
I suppose you could call me a "Zen Methodist" or something along those
| | | | | | | | | |
