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.
So people were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for excuses?
Let me get this straight.If you have a good reason to believe something, you don't need faith.
Let me get this straight.
People were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for something they didn't need?
I doubt to your satisfaction, but I'll try.Can you give me a specific case?
I doubt to your satisfaction, but I'll try.
Peter was hanged upside down on a cross.
Unceremonious dismissal of evidence without a valid explanation or refutation
The biblical faith isn't the blind, mindless, baseless, faith you are describing. Good reason to believe and faith, from a biblical standpoint, go hand in hand.Want I meant was: When I ask theists why they believe in god/supernatural/whatever, most of the time they say "I believe because of Faith/because I have faith." If you have a good reason to believe something, you don't need faith.
You didn't get that straight - the statement implies they were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for something they had no good reason to believe (i.e. for faith).Let me get this straight.
People were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for something they didn't need?
How did the Bible writer KNOW that from space the Earth looks as if it is hanged on NOTHING?Those are not proof of God.
A holy text is not proof of a deity, otherwise you would find the Hindu texts proof that Hinduism is correct.
A calendar is not proof of God, since other countries use other calendars, and our own calendar has references to other Gods anyway.
None of the other things are proof either. Your standards for evidence are extremely low.
Back to the topic of the thread. We are still waiting for this proof that a god exists.Well, it’s well nigh two days already and no sight of Loudmouth.
This is not an isolated case, for I have if memory serves met this kind of a development with two posters here - but they turned up afterwards when the discussion went to another direction, some days after.
Okay, dear KTS, suppose you take over and you and I will engage in a sustained exchange on evidence, for as you are an atheist you have a correct objection to God existing, in that you don’t see evidence of His favor.
So, let you and me discuss evidence, what is it, what is its target, and how does evidence hit its target.
Okay, just you in case you want to continue from where Loudmouth leaves off, here are so far the statements presented by yours truly and Loudmouth.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]
Addendum:
From Pachomiuis, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence:
DNA.
On target of evidence:
From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples of evidence is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, or what is DNA evidence, evidence to?
Loudmouth waxes eloquent on what is DNA in his one example of evidence, but becomes completely silent and absent when I asked him, "Pray, what is the target of the DNA evidence?"
Again:
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for now two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
Okay, KTS, will you take up the challenge to discuss with me about evidence: what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.
You have the option to continue where Loudmouth takes to his leave of absence, and appropriate the so far only one statement of Loudmouth, his concept of evidence, scil., "Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Take notice of the term “falsifiable” in Loudmouth’s concept of evidence, I recall that you are a specialist in falsifiability, that makes you a scientist if your being a specialist in falsifiability is falsifiable.
The biblical faith isn't the blind, mindless, baseless, faith you are describing. Good reason to believe and faith, from a biblical standpoint, go hand in hand.
So 'no evidence at all' is being 'unceremoniously dismissed'?No evidence at all from your viewpoint.
Fixed that for youThat may be so. But when faith is contrary to physical reality its, well, [problematic] wrong to say the least.
I have found by observing this site, the theists who state they believe on faith alone and they recognize they dont have objective evidence to support their belief, are folks you can have rational discussions with. The theists who insist they have evidence and or proof of their belief, could be struggling internally with their belief and need to try desparately, they have proof and evidence, to calm this internal struggle. When they make these claims and they are asked to justify the same, the cognitive dissonance that follows, is off the charts.Want I meant was: When I ask theists why they believe in god/supernatural/whatever, most of the time they say "I believe because of Faith/because I have faith." If you have a good reason to believe something, you don't need faith.
According to Skreeper here:You didn't get that straight - the statement implies they were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for something they had no good reason to believe (i.e. for faith).
... they were martyred because they gave excuses.Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason or justification for believing something.
Well, it’s well nigh two days already and no sight of Loudmouth.
This is not an isolated case, for I have if memory serves met this kind of a development with two posters here - but they turned up afterwards when the discussion went to another direction, some days after.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
For what and in what way are these things that you list evidence?Addendum:
From Pachomiuis, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence:
DNA.
On target of evidence:
From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples of evidence is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, or what is DNA evidence, evidence to?
Loudmouth waxes eloquent on what is DNA in his one example of evidence, but becomes completely silent and absent when I asked him, "Pray, what is the target of the DNA evidence?"
Again:
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for now two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
Okay, KTS, will you take up the challenge to discuss with me about evidence: what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.
You have the option to continue where Loudmouth takes to his leave of absence, and appropriate the so far only one statement of Loudmouth, his concept of evidence, scil., "Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Take notice of the term “falsifiable” in Loudmouth’s concept of evidence, I recall that you are a specialist in falsifiability, that makes you a scientist if your being a specialist in falsifiability is falsifiable.
No evidence at all from your viewpoint.
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?