Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What happens when revelation leads to multiple incompatible claims?The argument cannot be made sound because it relies on human intellect and reasoning. People who are Christians believe that God exists by revelation. Evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs are all actions of the flesh and no one will be saved by the works of the flesh. John 16 tells us that conviction is a work of the Spirit, not a work of reason. Look around this forum and see. How many have been convinced to believe by debate and reason?
As opposed to religion, which plays by no rules or arbitrarily changes the rules to suit itself.But this is atheist circularity. The atheist says to the theist, "Come, let us argue our cases together. The rules are, only things in space and time exist. Now then, come, tell me all about your God!"
If you get to set the rules, you'll "win" every time. So much for the 'freethinker' title.
Unlike your initial posts here.LOLOL.
Let's get real.
You have confused them with "apatheists".Atheists don't visit religious websites, they're indifferent to theism.
What are these alleged political purposes?Antitheists, however, elevate atheism to the level of religion. They feel compelled to attempt to refute the faith of the theists with their own antitheist faith for political purposes.
or that you can demonstrate.It really is a ridiculous premise, hating “religion” yet promoting the religion of antitheism, a fact they deny but cannot escape.
For what does it require faith?Antitheism has proved to be destructive throughout history and a failed belief system, yet the antitheist insists on investing unquestioned faith in it.
Indeed. It is the job of religion to subjugate and eliminate independent thinking not aligned with it's own.It's purpose is subjugation, elimination of independent thinking not aligned with it's own. Antitheists are what they claim to hate.
You compare yourself to Picasso, do you? We have objective evidence of Picasso's work. You have no objective evidence of anything "supernatural", do you?As to “theology”: to those familiar with the supernatural, those who's thinking is confined to the limitations of the natural and arguing against the supernatural are like blind men criticizing Picasso.
Or what you cannot define.There's no point in discussing what they have no concept of,
Or that it is all imaginary.and every argument raised only proves their blindness.
But whales can be shown to exist, even if the guppy cannot comprehend it.Guppies in a fishbowl will never comprehend whales in the ocean.
All religion is the same, as far as I am concerned.Antitheism religion, and that is exactly what it is, holds no interest to those who see it for what it is.
There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.
1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.
Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?
I´d be interested to learn what exactly you mean by "evaluating emotions". How is this done?So far, our working p1 is:
" 1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs."
People, by and large, believe in religion because of indoctrination. if you had been born in Iran you'd be a devout Muslim if you're indoctrinated from an early age. You cannot evaluate religion in the same way as facts, because it is based on believing a book reflects the word of god, and there is zero evidence for that except in the brainwashed mind of the believer. You might as well believe in Hogwarts!There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.
1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.
Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?
You seem to have misread. Your post was an argument from ignorance.LOL. My point exactly.
Since that thread is still available, why don't you link or quote some of these atheists who said you "only come to believe something based upon evidence?"
It would be helpful to see what they said exactly and the context they said it in.
No, I didn't misread. I got your point. You just proved mine true, but don't comprehend the fact. Have a nice day.You seem to have misread. Your post was an argument from ignorance.
It's no coincidence that people who are fond of hollering "scientism!" happen to hold positions that are either unsupported or demonstrably wrong. They've got an axe to grind. Science may not be able to explain everything. But is religion able to explain anything?Due to their a priori commitment to atheism, its adherents are unable to escape what Einstein called, 'naive realism', and what has become known, not as 'science' , but as 'scientism' , i.e. the belief that science can explain everything. It is actually a fundamentalist kind of religious belief, totally impervious to evidence, although the evidence against it is now overwhelming. As a result, quantum physics, the most sucessful paradigm in the history of science, verified again and again by new experiments, and upon which 70% of industry now depends, makes a nonsense of your question, which belongs to the scientism that the old classical mechanistic paradigm seems to have encourage in them.
Which says a lot about the prevailing social influence of religion, but very little (nothing really) about the truth of religious claims.Furthermore, there is evidence that everyone KNOWS intuitively that God exists, since an experiment was conducted in which atheists were asked to curse God, but which, however, caused them to perspire; evidently from the stresses produced by fear. I can't guarantee it, but I'll try to find the post on UD with the link to the relevant article.
So you understand that your argument was a fallacy?No, I didn't misread. I got your point. You just proved mine true, but don't comprehend the fact. Have a nice day.
Evolution states that things go from simple to complex...
Yes, it's methodological naturalism....into which arena the atheist demands the theist discuss religion. Keep on freethinking...
Name ten.
After all, they do not believe he exists so they are obviously the ones that are the experts on nothing.
I had a very good friend who has since died who was a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University. He was 25 when he acknowledged God in his life. How did it happen? Being a Professor of Philosophy he decided to read the bible from A to Z. His study was from a philosophical perspective.
Why is stuff in a book not evidence that must be dealt with?
What is evidence?
Are empirically obtained data the only data?
What about history?
What about historical documents?
What about historical eyewitness accounts—yes, the bible?
If there is a God, and he decided to leave historical documents as the main source of evidence about Himself, how would you know if you refuse to read about His character 'in a book'.
Why is stuff in a book not evidence that must be dealt with?
If He has decided to create enough evidence for those who seek Him, but not so much as to overwhelm free will and compel belief in those who really want nothing to do with Him, how dangerous might it be to just ignore evidence because it is 'in a book'?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?