Belief in a 'God' provides no objectivity, no knowledge.

Such a being would be totally beyond our comprehension, we could not 'know' its purpose or motives with any certainty at all. It could change the nature of reality at a whim, so we could never have certain knowledge of anything.

Only the painstaking discipline of scientific study, where we seek not 'certainty', but consistent patterns in what we observe, that allows us to form 'models' of reality that can be tested and refined to establish high degrees of confidence, not certainty, allowing us to make the progress we have in technology that allows us, among other things, to communicate here.

Faith and revelation provide no knowledge at all, apart from the follies our wishes and desires and fears lead us to.

 

 

 by your own admission, you don't HAVE all the evidence. However, even from the position of the unregenerate this is a highly irrational assertion. 

by definition, the christian has ALREADY confirmed God's existence. With regard to definition, the scriptures give adequate information. 

you couldn't even define "mind". 

yes they do. 

 the "God" explanation is perfectly testable, you merely seek an excuse not to test it. Everyone is biased.

obviously not.  For example, the fact that the age of the universe is untestable is blithely ignored in all the wild proclamations of pseudo-science.

you're already contradicting yourself.........you've just claimed, "understanding without bias".[

empiricists have a worldview; it is based on unproven hypotheses; ergo it is held by faith. 

how do you determine what constitutes "data"? You have no more basis for determining what constiitutes data than you have for determining which "data" should impinge upon your worldview. Thus your bias dominates your thinking and not for empirical reasons as you like to imply but for purely emotional ones. That is why atheists are always so angry.......and sad.   

well, think about it........there may be a good reason! 

do you see how quickly any claim to empiricism breaks down? You attribute "imagination" to me regarding a phenomenon of which, by your own admission, you have no experience. Atheists just can't help themselves. 

he already admitted to having that........what he needed was a grounding in rationality.

 

which bit didn't he understand do you suppose?

 

define truth.

unsubstantiated presupposition 

what evidence do you have that I was offended? I merely pointed out the objective fact that his comment was ad hominem........it was. I expect this sort of thing from atheists.

 

inference of stupidity?.........further ad hominem? You guys just can't help yourselves. If you think an assertion is irrational just demonstrate it.

 Are you sure YOU know why you reject my claims?

I reject the pet gods of other labels for their overt irrationality and on grounds of personal knowledge. I reject atheism for the same reasons.

ridicule indicates intellectual poverty. Blasphemy indicates spiritual poverty.

get over the idea that I'm offended, I'm well aware that atheists can't help being offensive.........it's a spiritual issue. Btw.don't you ever tire of churning out all those atheist mantras?...........fairies, invisible friends.........all that nonsense?

 

 

 

 

 

Jefferson did understand, which is why he rejected what he rightfully saw as bullshit magic. I bet if he were alive today he'd love our scientific advancement and most likely would give up on his deism as well.

Where did I say I believed in a god, I am an atheist, please stop projecting your fantasy on me.

No, ridicule is what a rational person does when they hear bullshit. Just like it would be rational to say "bullshit" if someone claimed that the sun rotated around the earth. The sun does not rotate around the earth so making fun of such an absurd claim is especially appropriate because to allow the sale of such is to dumb down society.

I get tired of ANYONE claiming that their Santa for adults exist. Invisible friends make sense for kids imaginations, but once you grow up, if you still have one and call it god, you need to grow up.

You have no evidence for your magical super hero. No human of any label, past or present has or has had evidence for their fictional super heros. Your pet deity is no different to me than any other claimed in human hstory. I think it simply frightens you to hear the truth that there was never a god and will never be a god.

 

 

Yea, you're used to us being offensive. Yea, but when the trend is that fewer and fewer people buy your fictional friend, you wont be a gracious loser and admit you got it wrong. So thanks for your childish condescending attitude. This is not an argument, merely more complaining pretending it isn't.

And yes the claim of a thinking being with no brain, no material, no neurons, is as it should be in the same category as fairies and Super man and Harry Potter.  Don't feel bad, you're not the only one who makes this bullshit claim. You simply have a different name you call your warm fuzzy anthropomorphic self projection.

Some give their super hero the name of Allah. Some claim their super hero is Vishnu. Others have looked up into the sky and thought the sun was a god who saved them. Same shit, different color, different name. Same empty box.

All any god/deity/entity/super natural claim requires is to swallow it first and then make shit up afterwords to prop it up. It makes for great comic books and action movies, but it makes lousy politics and morals.

You have an empty box. You are not the only person who claims their box is not empty and you are not the only human with a pet god. But your box is empty just like all the rest. Pretty bows wont change that.

 

 

 

 

 

* Man did write the bible. Show me a single instance of written language not formulated by man and you might attract my attention. You might argue god influenced the authors but this cannot be proved true. 

* The definition of god in the bible is inadequate and cannot be measured in any way. Please define god using concepts that can be entirely comprehended by human brains or admit your definition is an unsupported hypothesis. 

* The challenges of establishing the nature of human consciousness/mind notwithstanding, empirical evidence shows human brains are the seat of consciousness and that concepts of soul derive from human brains. 

* Please define the concept of 'soul' in your own special words. Don't just say 'immaterial mind' or 'it's in the bible'.  What is a soul, Freeminer?   

* Scientism? We respect testable explanations but know they do not guarantee certainty. There's no doctrine. No worship. No prayers. You don't follow empiricism tho' do you? When the fuel gauge on your car points to empty you just assume it's still full. 

* Please outline your testable explanation for a god without employing subjective personal experience that could equally well be ascribed to confirmation bias and the power of suggestion. 

* Now science is pseudo-science? I love your system of labeling. What method of testing did you deploy to establish that the hypothesised age of the universe was incorrect? Was it assertion? That's the easiest way to be certain. 

* Finally, you insist again that you know the absolute truth on the basis of no actual proof and you appeal to complexity - brain/mind is soul/immaterial/supernatural and this underpins everything and exists before empiricism. If you are correct, why do babies not pop out of the womb with a full head of knowledge? Why do they spend their first years crawling around establishing comprehension of balance and space and matter, and a system of general rules they then apply to the material world as well as the projected world of the 'supernatural'? Why don't you see that brains and their interaction with the environment are sufficient to explain the nature of mind? Of course, you could just define what you mean by mind and outline your proposed tests and we could see if you are right. Or perhaps, like every epistemologist, you are just appealing to complexity...

 

 

 

 

 

how irrational of you! Please explain how a truism becomes UNTRUE based on the number of times it's presented to you.

 

well here's news for you!...........this is how scientific hypotheses work! Aspirin cured my headache last week, it cured my headache today. If I had to prove EVERY aspirin would cure my headache rather than kill me I wouldn't risk taking it.

 

DNA corresponds with Shannon's definition of a coded information system. In fact it more than does so, since, as Werner Gitt has pointed out, Shannon's theory has serious defects.

I quote from Martin Irvine:

"A code is a learned rule for linking signs to their meanings. The term is used in various ways in media studies and semiotics. In communication studies, a message is often described as being "encoded" from the sender and then "decoded" by the receiver."

"The important point is to see all this meaning-making and symbolic activity as rule-governed, learned, and constructed as opposed to natural or given in reality."

ie. it is a matter of empirical observation and accepted by information theory that all codes have a codifier. Thus the point conforms to the norms of scientific acceptation. Thus to adopt a position of denial is irrational in the face of the evidence.

which renders this:

almost undertandable!! 

I didn't say it was cognitive dissonance.........please pay attention.   

it isn't. We form a basis for conjecture on the available evidence and test it. 

All knowledge is held subjectively. The difference for the Christian is that he has a philosophically watertight case to a claim of objectivity since he is the only one with an infinite absolute external reference point and internal confirmation of it ie. the objectivity is not inherent to him.

 

I didn't say there is. I said the atheist doesn't have one. 

you cannot define "reality". Furthermore any psychologist would disagree with you.........furthermore, so would any scientist who isn't still living in the '50's.

well, both your "reason" and your "psychology" are looking pretty shakey. The atheist presupposes reason. He has no external reference point by which to know what it is. 

this is true. It's because you're spiritually dead and therefore only take account of a small part of life.  

again, you make the mistake of presupposing that Christians go around interpreting events as 'goddidit' in order to convince themselves of his existence and interest in them. They don't. They are well aware of both. If he needs to communicate something specific beyond this it is his business to do so, not mine to go looking 

 

but this is a straightforward matter of revelation rather than assumption. eg. we have climate change but the presumption that Man controls the weather is just hubris.

of course this is true. Millions of people put faith in false gods. That's why it's nonsense to define an atheist as one who doesn't believe in the existence of gods.....it just belies extreme ignorance! But it is irrational to claim that because of their existence, ergo the God of the Bible is false. The question is ultimately, as we've said, one of personal epistemology. The question to you is, can you countenance the possibility of an epistemological shift, such that you come to know things you don't know at present?..........that is the crunch point at which atheists struggle with christians. They presume it is merely a psychological self-construct.

 

ok, apart from the fact that I see a spiritually deceptive element in other religions, I assess them much as I suspect you would ie. on grounds of evidence and rationality. Not only do I have no evidence that Granny will return as a tree-frog, I consider it highly irrational to presuppose it.

 

no, of course it isn't. It doesn't purport to be. 

well obviously it was.......but if it didn't answer the question you had in mind, you are more than welcome to point it out. 

yes of course he could but it would require him to base his position on two fundamental presuppositions for which he has no evidence, and atheists are always telling us how important evidence is to them!

if you mean that my posts so far have chiefly consisted of nailing the latter rather than putting the former, I think you are largely correct but, as an atheist, you should share my predilection for rigorous thinking. As long as an atheist presupposes  the irrationality of Christianity, there is no meaningful point of contact. 

 

Now, if you don't want me calling you an asshole, then don't call us depraved merely because we don't buy your god claim.

If you think you are "above" all that, then stick to making your fucking arguments and stop bitching about our word choice. I have made it clear, and most here agree with me, that slapping your claims around is STRICTLY ABOUT YOUR CLAIMS. But as soon as you use words like "depraved" you are no longer debating, but merely projecting your own fucking insecurities on us by falsely trying to portray us as the bad guys.

We are just as capable of being good and decent as any other human. If you insist on painting us as evil merely because we don't buy your god claim, we will treat you like the asshole you are acting like. Grow the fuck up.

If you want to debate then debate. But you will not get away with your pathetic attempt to look down on us as if we are criminals.

 

Now you are pathetically and falsely accusing atheists of lacking self control. And yet another childish attempt to paint atheists as lawless heathens who go around raping and murdering.

GROW THE FUCK UP! Otherwise we will treat you like the fucking asshole you are acting like.

I have been in debates with believers for 10 years now online. One thing most of them quickly learn is that they wont get away with the moral argument, and neither will you.

Drop it before you get your ass verbally handed to you.

If you want to make a case for your invisible friend, that we welcome that debate. What you will not get away with is trying to treat us like evil criminals.

We simply do not by your claims of your pet god, or any for that matter. We are not evil because we don't believe what you believe. Unless or until you accept that you are going to get treated the way you deserve to be treated. Act like a self centered selfish dick, and we will treat you like one.

Now, do you want to grow up? Or are you going to act like a bratty child because others are different than you?

 

 

Actually there are mods here who can show you the door. They don't have to because you are hanging yourself with your own bigoted rope. "Fuck off" is a perfectly reasonable response to dickish comments like yours. We could do far worse to you, but we don't have to because your selfishness and childish view of atheist speaks for itself.

You came here to pat yourself on the back thinking you were fighting evil. You try to put us on display like zoo animals and then like an idot expect us not to respond to your comments.

Your problem is that you did not run into passive atheists. We really don't give a fuck what you think of us. We've heard it all before. What you will NOT get away with is thinking you can come in here and use words like "depraved" in describing us and expect us not to call BULLSHIT on it.

You are the one who needs to grow the fuck up. Debate is one thing, your selfish bigotry will not be tollerated here. We will simply expose you for the imature brat you are acting like. So keep it up, we don't mind putting idiots like you on display.

Now, debate us without the stupid comments about our morals. If you cant or wont do that, then you need to stop wasting your time here.

The inability of humanity to achieve consensus on the definition of a made up collection of sounds pertaining to brain processes is irrelevant to the argument of a god.

 

Ridiculous. There is no such thing.

Then why hasn't god been proven? I suspect you have no idea what testable means, else you'd be famous for knowing a valid test, and this site wouldn't exist.

So you admit you are biased and could have false conclusions?

That is not a fact. The age of the universe is testable. And as technology and our understanding improves, our ability to test the age will become even more refined.

 

 

Here's the evidence that you gain morbid satisfaction from being the lickspittle of the biggest bully in town.  

 

Freeminer, you need to step back and look at yourself instead of critizing me. I'm sorry everyone. I wasn't trying to start a fight and wasn't trying to get everyone mad. I apologize.

 

thank you for that but I didn't say that atheists don't understand the definition of 'data', I said they have no way of knowing what CONSTITUTES data. See Hume.

the confirmation comes upon an act of faith - no different from the faith you have in your own worldview. 

we both have the same external facts. You think they are evidence which supports your worldview. I know they are evidence supporting mine.

this is a very flattering notion but even Plato didn't come up with the Trinity! 

this is just irrational guff isn't it. Firstly it evinces an ignorance of the qualities of early belief systems........even the American indians understood the need for a philosophy which contained diversity within a unity. Secondly it evinces an ignorance of the Old Testament in particular. What is "primitive" about a worldview which answers all the philosophical questions yours can't? 

Data is observed and recorded information.

All possible DNA sequences can form by unguided chemical processes. Most of them will map to some protein sequences.

The relation between the sequences of bases in DNA and the proteins they 'code' for is chemical and directly functional, no element of the arbitrary that we find in human designed code.

If a particular DNA sequence causes the generation of more useful proteins, that contribute to the improved survival of the individual, it will tend to spread via natural selection, ie, evolution. No guiding intelligence required.

 

Nothing you have said here is different than anything you have said before. We are not interested in your condescending  psychobabble. We do not need your fictional sky daddy. I am sorry that bothers you.

You are not debating you are preaching. That is not going to get you anywhere repeating yourself.

My "rage" , is at your stupid claims and condescending attitude. Lose it.

 

 

is "no" an argument? Deeming a proposition to be false on the basis of the number of times it's been presented to you is, objectively, irrational.

obviously, the fact that extant codes ALWAYS indicate a codifier, renders it anything BUT "ad hoc. "Fallacy" is not an argument.

I challenge you to suggest an alternative inference.

no we don't, you merely PRESUPPOSE that they occur "naturally".

since, empirically, codes don't exist without it, clearly not. 

science "persists" among those who believe that invoking intelligence is justified....and historically, to a large extent. 

this is correct. God is a force at work.

but when it does so,, it should be honest about it. 

all bias is "personal" bias.

 

it can't, the best it can do is approximate. Many attempts leave a great deal to be desired, particularly in the treatment of hypotheses as 'facts'.

the question is whether when the Bible deals with issues which science also deals with........is it true or not.

 

why not?.......since this is the overwhelmingly rational, empirical conclusion?

like you, I look for the rational evidence, it isn't rocket science.

well what you've defined here is the classical concept of truth. Those who held it understood that, since all belief is subjective, an external absolute source of truth was necessary in order for the concept of 'truth' to exist. It's interesting to see you come up with this definition since it hasn't prevailed since Hegel. Now EVERYTHING is relative. 

we just mistake everything for being solid!

I _________________________________________________________________

You're putting the cart before the horse, unless I missed it.

Can you show us a valid conclusion that your god exists?

'The bible says...' is not a sound premise, BTW.

Someone's personal conclusions aren't an 'ism'. They're merely a personal conclusion.

Everyone apart from you, isn't a 'Someonewhodisagreeswithallofuswhobelieveingodsist'.

Pot meet Kettle.

Unsupported assertion.

Give us a sound argument for the existence of god first, then give us a sound argument with this 'this is the Age of Grace' thing as it's conclusion.

Unsupported assertion.

Give us a sound argument for the existence of god first, then give us a sound argument with this 'God gives you freedom' thing as it's conclusion.

Post hoc fallacy.

It doesn't make the bible 'true', or what it says relevant.

It should tell you at the very least that the claims of Christians of objective morals is something they tend to claim, and that others simply aren't willing to grant their claims.

 

Now, do you actually have any sound arguments for the existence of your god?

Do you expect us to simply grant you things?

 

 

 

 

Faith by my definition is trust. I operate under the axioms that I exist, and that I can know things about me and my surroundings. In my experience, the best way to know if something is true or false is to test it. Something that cannot be tested has no observable impact on my existence, and is irrelevant. Something that can be tested can also be trusted to be true, should it pass the test. By reduction, the only way I could cease trusting my knowledge is if the basis of that knowledge were questioned. The only way that could happen would be by throwing my axioms away, and assuming the opposite of the observable. But if I don't exist, or can't know me and/or my surroundings, then there is no knowledge I can have, including knowledge of a god.

So there is a significant difference in the way we approach faith in a worldview.

Naked assertion.

 

Why are you removing the identity from the person you are quoting in your responses? The software doesn't do that when you click on 'Quote'.

Is this some kind of tactic to make it more difficult to backtrack who you are responding to?

Interesting...

 

Rhetorical question.

It's a conclusion. Followed by the reasoning for it.

Your allegation that anyone did that is false.

You have not proven it. You just keep repeating the allegation.

It's not going to work.

Non sequitur. You are invoking a god. You are special pleading.

That's poetry, not science.

Nobody claimed that.

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is an often plausible or seemingly plausible argument using false or invalid inference that can result in a misconception or presumption.

It seems you agree with my statement.

Good.

 

You obviously see something I don't.

You could be mistaken.

No.

I concluded.

And I didn't 'merely' conclude.

Your hypebole and rhetoric is amusing, though...

I'm very clear in my statements. Paraphrasing me signals that you cannot grapple with my statements as they stand.

Either deal with my actual statements, concede, or just ignore them and make a statement or claim of your own.

It doesn't appear that you are able to defeat me, so your comments are meaningless to me and only of value to you and those who are at your level, and below...

 

Sure.

Their churches instruct them to get degrees and infiltrate academia so that they can attempt to 'invoke' their unsound and invalid assertions.

But they lose quite a few 'converts' in those attempts, when they're exposed to the evidence.

Now, reports are there are close, if not 1 billion atheists worldwide.

That's what's so funny.

Then you understand what science does, and why theism relies on faith and old stories.

Not everyone believes that.

Not everyone is willing to grant that, nor convince themselves to rely on faith and old stories.

Why aren't your theists able to provide any evidence that their god actually exists; outside of their hopes and imaginations?

There's no evidence that we even have a 'soul' that occupies our body and lifts off after death, like the stories go.

 

Sure.

That's why we do science, and not poetry and theology.

 

Then you're making a positive claim. I'm not willing to grant you that.

Argue it, if you wish to get us to agree that what you say is accurate.

Then you're making a positive claim. I'm not willing to grant you that.

Argue it, if you wish to get us to agree that what you say is accurate.

Then you're making a positive claim. I'm not willing to grant you that.

Argue it, if you wish to get us to agree that what you say is accurate.

I'm not willing to grant you that.

Sorry.

 

Because it's not rational, or practical to do so.

I don't know how you conclude that faith is rational...

Theists don't have any.

They just have faith and stories.

No.

I concluded that you're wrong, using my definition of objectivity.

I think that too, relative to my perceptions.

Speak for yourself.

I'm an engineer. I don't know why people would think that ignorantly.

I don't think so.

It's a personal faith based on stories.

I'm skeptical of claims.

 

No, there wasn't actually. He didn't imply or claim that you were 'wicked', or 'evil', or the contrary.

He defined you as one.

You're playing semantics and using hyperbole to cast the aspersion that you are being persecuted by him.

Drama much?

Sure.

I'm also amused everytime I knock down stupid arguments.

Then back up and contend with the strawmen, non sequiturs and naked assertions I've circled for you.

 

You can't simply assert that a god exists, if your intention is to be intellectually honest, and not just come here to be obnoxious and preach, like every other theist I've come across on this forum.

I don't have the burden of disproof, nor the burden of proof, for any and all god claims, or things that lurk, or go 'bump' in the night.

It gets annoying as all fuck to listen to the constant drone and finger pointing to personal views of 'sin' of superstitious Koolaid drinkers.

It's fucking obnoxious.

Do you not get that?

Would listening to Muslim's drone on about how their book is 'true' and how pure evil they think you are not fucking annoy the piss out of you?

Ever think about that?

It should be clear that I don't care what you personally think or feel is evidence.

My goal is to educate others on how to think critically and be able to avoid drinking all the Koolaid that's out there.

 

Exactly.

It's clearly spelled out.

Didn't you read it before you signed up here?

Usually, it's close to, if not the same as the dictionary definition.

IOW, their personal view of you.

But you're being 'theological', not 'logical'.

They're not mutually inclusive, or interchangeable terms.

 

 

 

 

Red, et al. Not sure what Freeminer is going to come back with after that paddy-whacking...