The origins of atheism

[ScottA]

Do you have anything productive to say? Or are you just going to continue repeating your faith based claims?

I'm the annoying guy in your dream that keeps poking you to wake up.

 

[ScottA]

You know...

If it is indeed the truth, it tends to put people into their place all by itself...without any need to personally attack someone.

I'm just defending myself. I'm a Christian. This is a Christian forum. Honesty is the best policy.

Does that offend you?

 

[ScottA]

I think it is quite interesting that we here have ScottA and colter in the same thread, both promoting their claims of "truth" to the atheists... but manage to evade the elephant in the room: they both promote a contradicting truth.

But somehow it is the atheists fault when they cannot accept either as correct.

I'm an archer. In my book a near miss scores better than a total miss.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm the annoying guy in your dream that keeps poking you to wake up.

Ok.

Call me when you have something to say to me in reality.

 

[ScottA]

OK, I pinched myself. What you're saying still makes zero sense. Now what?

Roll over. Repeat.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm the annoying guy in your dream that keeps poking you to wake up.

You have to realize that by engaging in illogical discussions in the Philosophy forum you're accomplishing nothing. None of us will be swayed by anything you have to say because you care so little of evidence or logic.

 

[ScottA]

Ok.

Call me when you have something to say to me in reality.

Reality calling: It's time to rise and shine!

 

[ScottA]

You have to realize that by engaging in illogical discussions in the Philosophy forum you're accomplishing nothing. None of us will be swayed by anything you have to say because you care so little of evidence or logic.

I do realize that you care more for the dream state of this world than the reality beyond, but I was born into the dream also. Fortunately, I was stirred to wake up, and now I have something to say...whether you care or not.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I do realize that you care more for the dream state of this world than the reality beyond, but I was born into the dream also. Fortunately, I was stirred to wake up, and now I have something to say...whether you care or not.

Ok. Just as long as you realize this is completely futile.

 

[Hikarifuru]

You are referring to Atheistic science or pseudo-science. Like Dawkins, a blight in the field of true science, using science to buttress the doctrines of doubt, his Atheistic religion of sorts.

Actually Dawkins is a scientist a very accomplished one and has been a scientist for a long time and you will never have the knowledge he has concerning biology. Almost no humans do.

Saying that a being that is immune to all scientific research, all scientific rules, all logical rules and is excluded from all criteria of investigation and with no justification is illogical, is not pseudoscience. You have a special pleading fallacy. It is very simple.

 

[Hikarifuru]

That's right.

and like I said, the bible is the claim not the evidence

 

[Hikarifuru]

Science is pseudo-science when the scientist leaves the discipline of fact finding and attempts to discredit spiritual truth through unsupported assertion. But to be fair the same is equally true for religion when it goes into science and try's to deny the finding of facts because those facts contradict for instance a young earth creation narrative.

spiritualism has no truth, there are no measures by which to establish it, you only insist that it exists, you only insist that it be exempt from all scientific measure in order to protect your needs and fears.

 

[Hikarifuru]

You are referring to Atheistic science or pseudo-science. Like Dawkins, a blight in the field of true science, using science to buttress the doctrines of doubt, his Atheistic religion of sorts.

The bible makes claims about the earth, it makes claims about humans, it makes claims about historical events, scientists can weigh in on those things and their point of view is to superior to ignorant laymen who insist on having a heavenly wisdom that they cannot evidence or establish or even display.

The vast majority of people in prison are bible believing Christians, they aren't even wise enough to stay out of jail or obey the law.

 

[Colter]

Actually Dawkins is a scientist a very accomplished one and has been a scientist for a long time and you will never have the knowledge he has concerning biology. Almost no humans do.

Saying that a being that is immune to all scientific research, all scientific rules, all logical rules and is excluded from all criteria of investigation and with no justification is illogical, is not pseudoscience. You have a special pleading fallacy. It is very simple.

* But the true scientist can study the laws of the being, of his creation and marvel to their hearts content.

Dawkins may well be a very accomplished biologist whom has studied the preexisting creation, but he is a spiritual idiot and is guilty of the special pleading fallacy as concerns spiritual realities when he proclaimed God to be a delusion.

 

[Hikarifuru]

* But the true scientist can study the laws of the being, of his creation and marvel to their hearts content.

Dawkins may well be a very accomplished biologist whom has studied the preexisting creation, but he is a spiritual idiot and is guilty of the special pleading fallacy as concerns spiritual realities when he proclaimed God to be a delusion.

Except he invites logical rules and uses them, you do not. You're the only one with the fallacy. There are no spiritual realities.

 

[Colter]

The bible makes claims about the earth, it makes claims about humans, it makes claims about historical events, scientists can weigh in on those things and their point of view is to superior to ignorant laymen who insist on having a heavenly wisdom that they cannot evidence or establish or even display.

The vast majority of people in prison are bible believing Christians, they aren't even wise enough to stay out of jail or obey the law.

I concede your point, it is a good argument. Scientist can and do use certain disciplines and stay in their discipline when analyzing the claims of religious narratives, at least where they can. The Bible books are the speculation and conjecture of holy men around the events of the spiritual world. The Bible contains many historic and factual errors. But the spiritual truths are unassailable.

Many Christians are not in jail and don't commit crimes, that point wasn't so good.

 

[Colter]

Except he invites logical rules and uses them, you do not. You're the only one with the fallacy. There are no spiritual realities.

To one who knows God faith is entirely logical. What rules do you use to claim that those who know God in their hearts do not know God? How do you claim to know that they do not Know?

 

[Colter]

spiritualism has no truth, there are no measures by which to establish it, you only insist that it exists, you only insist that it be exempt from all scientific measure in order to protect your needs and fears.

Special pleading

 

[Hikarifuru]

I concede your point, it is a good argument. Scientist can and do use certain disciplines and stay in their discipline when analyzing the claims of religious narratives, at least where they can. The Bible books are the speculation and conjecture of holy men around the events of the spiritual world. The Bible contains many historic and factual errors. But the spiritual truths are unassailable.

Many Christians are not in jail and don't commit crimes, that point wasn't so good.

You have no method to establish any unassailable spiritual truth, you say that your claims are special and should be exempt from all scrutiny. That's a fallacy.

It doesn't matter that many Christians are not in Jail, that most of the people who go to Jail are Christians establishes that Christianity does not provide a wisdom that enables one to obey the law.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Special pleading

My claim that your system is a fallacy because you exclude it from all rules... is not a fallacy in itself. You are horribly confused.