He certainly is required to defend his faith, particularly when that faith sees him or her, actively carrying on crusades and missions on science forums, doing their best to invalidate anyway they can muster, the scientific theory/s that have for all intents and purposes, pushed any necessities for their deities into near oblivion. Otherwise Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever must practice what they preach...live and let live would be a good start.
Then he must be jailed. For example if a theist starts preaching anti mankind sort of nonsense, few groups are doing this, then they must be castigated. It is not the business of a theist to poke his nose and bring faith in science which is objective. Both can co exist without questioning each other. On the other hand it is not the business of an atheist to poke his nose and question the faith of a theist. Harmless discussions apart.
I don't believe I said or inferred anything about anti mankind... But they do do that, whether they know it or not! Simply because the fact that science has pushed their god/beliefs back into obscurity is offensive to them.
Paddoboy, Do not bring your prejudice here. If a person says that Earth is sitting on some religious Godhead, which is anti science and of public importance, then he must give empirical evidence for this, otherwise he is just making a noise. He can be safely ignored. Anything which has empirical (observational) basis can be recorded notwithstanding what faith in God says. People worship 'stones', science may find it ridiculous, but let them. Similarly science has proved that moon is just a lump of chemical stuff, some theists treat moon as God, both can co exist if not interfered. The greatness of faith is that a scientist knowing very well what moon is, still prays in front of moon or sun.
As usual the accusations you accuse others of, accurately apply to yourself. That is a fact others have noted besides me. I don't really give a flying f%$& as to what you or any other theist believes in. When that belief drives them to attempt evangelistic missions against science, as what at times certain people have carried out on this forum, then I'll lay the boot in to put it bluntly. By the same token, we also have one or two that go out of there way to denigrate religion. Some of the bestest, nicest, most honourable people in the world are atheist: Some of the bestest, nicest, most honourable people in the world are religious/theist. Some of the most evil, dishonest, hypocrtitical, coniving arseholes are atheist: Some of the most evil, hypocritical, dishonest, coniving arseholes are theists/religious.
¿Really? You know, I'm going to use this as an example of a particular idea. See, every once in a while, someone suggests certain arguments are somehow forbidden. So let's try this one. "[Tiassa] made a mess of it". Okay, now we have a working thesis. How about on this occasion I just skip the part where I ask you to explain that, and simply look at my early posts. • #44↑: Criticizes selection bias in faithful attributions of God's will: "It's not 'faith'. It's a mass-delusional faery tale, a massive, ultimately dangerous game of make-believe"; "Those Christians treat God and Christ like shit. It isn't faith." I'm just curious what about this post suggests I'm theistic. • #47↑: Criticizes "usurpers―those who wish to possess, determine, and execute God's judgment and authority in their earthly endeavors", and complains about how "Christian apologists squirm on the hook while trying to excuse themselves from the actual instructions given by Jesus Christ". While I suppose it is possible to mistake a basic literary analysis ... Basically, what is happening is that God will reckon with each sinner, and these self-proclaimed Christians simply don't trust His Judgment and Justice to satisfy their aesthetics―so they want it for themselves. ... for some manner of profession of faith, something seems rather ... presupposing? ... exclusive? ... about it. Perhaps you've just offered an insight into Jan Ardena's strange treatment of the word "theism". • #51↑: Honestly, challenging the faith of identifying Christians who deliberately and consciously defy Christ in Jesus' name just doesn't say a damn thing about theism or atheism. It's still pretty much a literary analysis: Bible says Jesus says this, preacher man says that. Jesus? Preacher? Jesus? Preacher? Hmm ... I wonder who's right, Jesus or the Preacher? This is neither mystic faith nor neurosurgery. • #53↑: More on usurpation and faithlessness. Honestly, do you think only believers are capable of reading and analyzing Scripture? And, you know, while we're on the subject, what of those who are apparently incapable? What the hell is anyone supposed to do about them? • #69↑: Criticizes an atheist for overestimating God. • #72↑: In truth, I'm going to stop the review here, since this, my sixth post in this thread, includes the actual answer: I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us. Don't feel badly, you weren't the only one who missed it. As to your points of complaint, if I could tell what you're actually referring to it would be easier to answer. Nonetheless: Which time? Depends on what you're referring to, and given your track record (cough! ... #72↑ ... hack! wheeze!) it's probably best to wait for you to clarify. Honestly, this is one of those weird things that evangelicals do, whether theistic or atheistic. In the abstract, you are correct. Your faith is your faith is your faith. However, if your faith is to have any effect on anyone else, then yes, you are required to justify the faith in order to justify that effect. And it's kind of strange, because as my society, for instance, has been wrangling about all manner of effects on other people, and in these discussions at Sciforums, it's almost as if who we're hearing from are factions (theistic and atheistic alike) that disdain ... I don't know ... how about, disdain actually putting any effort into it? I mean, I get some of our atheistic neighbors' disdain for the effects of religion, but apparently their arguments have nothing to do with those aspects. And, you know, hell, try getting some of them to tell you why they're bothering with their superstitious denunciations in the first place. Yet at the same time, so are so many of my theistic neighbors so stubbornly uncommunicative for all they seem to wish to express. And in my society, it is a perpetual fight: One person's religious faith obliges another person to _____. It's a fight we've been having pretty much my whole life. And yes, that's the thing. If people are supposed to constrict their own lives for the sake of someone else's religious assertion, then yes, that assertion needs to be justified; outside that context, though, well, right. Just why is anyone discussing anything, again? Honestly, it's starting to sound like I'm in the wrong thread; nobody actually seems to be talking about anything, but instead just reciting words or platitudes or what the hell ever. There are hints of an interesting theological question buried in your points two and three, but I could be mistaken; it's still pretty difficult to decipher whatever it is you're on about. Okay, then. Thank you for clarifying.
No, this is not weird. This is how it is. None so far could explain God to an atheist objectively, and none is required to defend his faith objectively. And of course if one is trying to push his theism to atheist, then there got be explanation or justification, I am not disputing that. I am not advocating any kind of conversion also.
Witness and Purpose Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ¿Cogito ergo sunt? Okay ... uh ... thank you. Unfortunately, that only returns to the general question of why anyone is discussing anything; nobody actually seems to be talking about anything, but instead just reciting words or platitudes or what the hell ever. Think of it this way, dude: I've been in a few disuptes in this thread, recently, and it turns out that none of the people I've tangled with are actually in this thread for any reason other than posting for the sake of seeing their own words. In your case, it's pretty simple: Consider my post at #72↑. You wrote↑ this weird line, "In your early posts ... you appeared to be a theist", and, honestly, it's one of those things I would love to see the justification for. But like I said, I was pretty clear about it in #72. Still, though, you also complained of a "comical reference to mathematical expression of God", and since you don't ever bother citing in order to let people know what you're on about, it's worth mentioning that you appear to be criticizing the content of #72. Reading that stupid line, "In your early posts ... you appeared to be a theist", it's easy enough to figure you just missed the obvious. But to find you complaining about that post three paragraphs later? And that's the thing: Come on, put some effort into it. You're not fooling anyone. † I will thank you sincerely, though; you've finally brought me to the question: • Why do people witness their faith? In American society, for instance, we have this weird cottage discussion when questions of religious faith swirl near: "I'm more spiritual," someone will assert, "than religious." Comedian Bill Maher loves to pick on this point, but his pretense also requires that he is a completely self-absorbed idiot in order to be believable. Comedy is as the artist does, and I've never heard him explain that particular thesis, so, you know, whatever. But the line is pretty straightforward; it's an attempt to retain some measure of faith and belief while separating oneself from the absolute insanity that traditional, public faith identification has become in our society. And it's true; a lot of these people just don't want to give up comfortable old labels that no longer fit. And part of what is going on really is a strange and counterintuitive faith identification―largely, "evangelical Christianity"―has basically discredited Christianity as a public identity, and amid it all are a bunch of people proclaiming and witnessing their faith, except their witness apparently has nothing to do with anything. And what I mean by that is exactly what we see here in this thread. You, Jan Ardena, DaveC, Seattle―none of you seem to have any real reason that has to do with anything else outside of yourselves for witnessing your faith. Because the thing about the labels that no longer fit is that people also used to talk about feeling like they were part of something larger than just themselves. And it's true, when it's all just one person and their own lonesome self, it gets lonely in there. There are reasons humans participate in social behavior. Yet this seemingly purposeless witness, this chatter in order to hear one's own voice? Okay. Fine. Great. It's just a matter of figuring out who to ignore, because it's not always apparent up front. Those of us who are looking to discuss these issues toward other ends than mere ego gratification are happy enough to leave you alone; it's just that we don't always know that you're not actually in it for the discussion until you make it clear that you're only in it for the satisfaction of your own chatter. If you're seeking validation in others, though, you're going to have to offer something useful for validation. The way you go on, though, there really isn't much to say, and most of it sounds cynical and sarcastic like, "Yes, and isn't that just special?" It's best to just leave it alone, which people seeking rational discourse will happily do once they figure out which hazards of witness to avoid.
Tiassa, Pl donot conclude, just because I did not see your post #72, do not generalize. The way you took on DaveC and others, it gave me an idea that you are possibly a theist....do not push yourself too hard on this. You expect that every discussion should conclude something, or worse the topic of every discussion should be concludable ? In this case it could be curiosity on the part of an atheist that how people who understand logic follow irrational stuff like God etc. A somewhat delved theist would Wonder about the purpose of life without God, so he may listen to atheist, he may listen to derision also, because at the end he himself cannot rationalize, to the satisfaction of an atheist, his faith. Its impossible for atheists to get satisfied with this because they want evidence which they can scrutinize, and what they would do, give their objective explanation for this evidence and back to square one. You are vacillating, you are like an angry bird, releasing enormous amount of carbon without gain. I and Jan have a stand, DaveC and Seattle etc have a stand. What's your role in this argument? Generally taking on people without any stand?
A very intriguing point. I had never serisly considered that as a bona fide option, on par with the others. It is certainly more pragmatic than a stance as an atheist, which is essentially making a declaration of non-belief.
...... I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway...... You presuppose that belief in "God Existence" literally would define them. I do not believe that God exist in any finite describe-able form, he can be grandly defined as formless. I will put you in 'atheist' category, does not matter what you call yourself.
It would be interesting if the gods existed, but as there's no way of knowing if you're worshipping the right ones until it's too late, what difference does it make?
If you are like me an worship the right God you will be certain of it... e.g... you will know it in you'r hart.!!!
I like the way you include ''perfectly'' giving the impression that the natural explanation is necessarily truthful. An explanation of something may even be true as far as that explanation goes, but it doesn't mean it is the truth. evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. What is the evidence that a 'natural explanation' of the origin of information found in the cell, factual? jan.
Do you, or anyone here know whether or not unicorns exist? If unicorns do exist, I would expect to see one, as they would be physical beings. Unless you meant invisible unicorns. jan.
The null hypothesis does not need evidence; it is the default, unless and until evidence is found to support any alternate explanations.
They read every scripture they can get their hands on (I don't wrie scriptures), okay. How do they determine what evidence of God should be? It is important to note that they are the ones claiming there is no evidence of Gods existence, indicating that they will know what is evidence for God' What do rationalists think God is? Not, what books do the read. No it's not. If I believe in you, then existence is a part of you, hence there is no need of debating whether or not you exist. You're the one who doesn't believe God exists (for whatever reason), not me. I haven't ignored them, I have been working, which is why my answers were short. But that wasn't the request. You accused me of evading question in our discussion. Please show evidence of this. jan.
I don't know whether or not they exist. The unicorns I'm talking about are invisible or at least that's what I envision. They aren't the simple unicorns I think you are talking about. You don't believe in unicorns so I'm not sure you can appreciate the specialness of the unicorns that I'm talking about.
Okay. God isn't a physical being. What is the default in this case? Information has a perfectly natural explanation? Explain why this should be the default. jan.
