The problem of evil

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Did not go through what?

Send from my Mac Pro.

Yay! I figured it out!

 

[amariselle]

Because in my experience, the lies I see are only coming from the theists on this board, I'm justified in my position. So my position is completely honest. Can you point to non-theists lying? It might change my mind...

They do so quite often, and they are quite accusatory and condescending when they do. However, it is against forum rules to antagonize people (such as by naming names), and it is quite disrespectful as well, so I will not be inserting specific quotes here. You are however free to search these forums for yourself. You will notice that people have been less than fair on BOTH sides.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Of course they have. What's your point? Are you suggesting that there's an atheist organization whose goal it is to misrepresent the bible in a deliberate and systematic fashion?

The reply was to Todd's claim that he only seen dishonesty on this forum from theists. It had nothing to do with organizations.

 

[amariselle]

Hey, how about that global warming issue? Scientist have been turning that into a political agenda. Blatant dishonesty on both sides. As far as the whole evolution/creation issue, there have been numerous frauds by scientist in order to disprove creationists. Anyone can do a quick Google search and find:

-The Ernst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud

-The "Piltdown Man hoax"

-The "Nebraska Man hoax"

-The "Java Man hoax"

-The "Orce Man"

These are just to name a few. Not trying to prove or disprove evolution. However, this is proof that dishonesty have been seen on both sides.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I will have to look into those particular hoaxes. It is honestly no surprise to me however that science has also been dishonest. Like I said, it's a HUMAN issue, it is not confined to one particular set of beliefs or viewpoints.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So you never seen any atheist ever misrepresent scripture to further their argument?

I'm not sure how you can gauge that someone is "misrepresenting" scripture. If you're meaning that you disagree with their interpretation, then you're not talking about dishonesty at all.

Perhaps an example would be in order...

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Isn't she the one who said she didn't care what the DI was doing?

She said that she did not care what they said because dishonesty is wrong regardless. She was trying to explain to everyone that there is absolutely no justification to dishonesty so whatever reason they have is meaningless. So she did not care about what they have to say. She did not say she did not care because she is OK with it.

 

[amariselle]

Scientists have processes for dealing with such issues. Creationists have a Statement of Faith, like that of AiG, which says the following:

As I recall, I challenged you to find a single reputable scientific organisation that has something resembling this statement of faith. How is that going?

I'm sorry...I missed that post. For some reason I don't get notifications for certain things.

In any case, I recognize that science may not have "a statement of faith" but it does have its theories and hypotheses. And scientist do place a certain amount of confidence in such things, just as Christians put their confidence in God. (Not exactly the same of course, but comparative, and I do also acknowledge that there are Christian scientists as well).

I'm not sure what the point of your "challenge" was. Are you attempting to point out that a "statement of faith" leads to the conclusion that faith in God is wrong?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

They do so quite often, and they are quite accusatory and condescending when they do. However, it is against forum rules to antagonize people (such as by naming names), and it is quite disrespectful as well, so I will not be inserting specific quotes here. You are however free to search these forums for yourself. You will notice that people have been less than fair on BOTH sides.

Accusatory and condescending isn't dishonest. And, I see that in equal measure from both sides.

Like I said, I've only seen the theists be blatantly dishonest. If you can't provide any specifics, I don't have any evidence to change that observation.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm not sure how you can gauge that someone is "misrepresenting" scripture. If you're meaning that you disagree with their interpretation, then you're not talking about dishonesty at all.

Perhaps an example would be in order...

Perhaps when I have more time I will dig one up for you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm sorry...I missed that post. For some reason I don't get notifications for certain things.

In any case, I recognize that science may not have "a statement of faith" but it does have its theories and hypotheses. And scientist do place a certain amount of confidence in such things, just as Christians put their confidence in God. (Not exactly the same of course, but comparative, and I do also acknowledge that there are Christian scientists as well).

The difference being that good science means that one is responsive to evidence, and therefore adjusts one's confidence when indicated. Such practice is anathema to religious dogma.

i'm not sure what the point of your "challenge" was. Are you attempting to point out that a "statement of faith" leads to the conclusion that faith in God is wrong?

No, I'm trying to get you to see the huge discrepancy between scientists and professional creationists. Right there, in their statement of faith, they declare that they are not open to be convinced. Does that seem like an honest and open approach to the matter to you?

 

[amariselle]

Accusatory and condescending isn't dishonest. And, I see that in equal measure from both sides.

Like I said, I've only seen the theists be blatantly dishonest. If you can't provide any specifics, I don't have any evidence to change that observation.

The evidence is on these forums (and elsewhere) for anyone who wants to look. I will not resort to antagonizing people just to prove my point. These forums are not a place for disrespect and finger pointing. If you choose not to take an honest look at both sides of the issue, that is YOUR choice.

 

[amariselle]

The difference being that good science means that one is responsive to evidence, and therefore adjusts one's confidence when indicated. Such practice is anathema to religious dogma.

I will not deny that there can be issues with "religious dogma". However, it is false to say that Christians are never open to "evidence."

No, I'm trying to get you to see the huge discrepancy between scientists and professional creationists. Right there, in their statement of faith, they declare that they are not open to be convinced. Does that seem like an honest and open approach to the matter to you?

I don't think close-mindedness is an honest approach to anything, not to science, and not to the Christian faith either.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Perhaps I should have provided references. But why does that matter? Is the information not relevant because it is not in my own words? No. Is this academia where my grades or attendance is at risk? No. The truth is, the information that was provided is not for you. Rather, it is for any other open minded reader who have truly wants to understand. Here is why.

When you ask a Christian why he or she believes something, the answer is simple. It is because, out of faith, they believe the bible and the posts that were provided explained what the bible says about the topic. No further explanation is needed. Christian believe what they believe because that is what the bible teaches...period. If yourself or any other skeptic is not satisfied with that fact, any further discussion is futile and the debate begins.

In a discussion, people with differing views exchange views in order to get a better understanding of the topic. Usually, both parties will learn from each other and hopefully leave with a mutual agreement. However, in a debate, two opponents argue against each other not to actually learn from each other but rather to "win" an arguement. The winner is decided by a judge. There are no official judges to declare a winner on these forums so the arguments continue in circles until one grows tired and moves on.

Faith based biblical explanations will never satisfy a skeptic because it is completely contrary to the nature of a sckepic. Christians believe something because they have faith. By deffinition, skeptics find faith irrational, illogical, and flawed. Hence, skeptics like yourself will never be satisfied with any biblical explanation and as a result, skeptics don't come here to have discussions. Rather, yourself and many others come here to debate.


There is no problem with having a debate here. Because this is a discussion and debate section. Just know that if you come here to debate, the information that I provide is not for you. It is for the readers who have genuine questions and truly want answers. The reader will Google the question and this tread will pop up. They will read it and see the information that both sides provided. The person who has convinced the reader is the winner. It does not matter if my opponent is convinced of anything. So it really doesn't matter to me if you think I am dishonest. The information provided is relevant and accurate and and that is all an open minded reader needs to make an informed decision.

A) We are asking for your answers, not the answers of someone else. If I wanted to debate with the guy who wrote those responses, I'd have found his website and emailed him. Passing off his work as your own is plagiarism.

B) Biblical explanations are completely fine for me, as long as you can provide good reason for why the bible is a reliable source. To date, I haven't seen a good reason though.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The evidence is on these forums (and elsewhere) for anyone who wants to look. I will not resort to antagonizing people just to prove my point. These forums are not a place for disrespect and finger pointing. If you choose not to take an honest look at both sides of the issue, that is YOUR choice.

Oh, believe me, I take an honest look at both sides. And my position still stands.

I find it interesting that you won't provide any examples, or even a hint at what you're talking about. It definitely makes me question if you're really remembering actual examples, or it you just perceive non-theists as dishonest...

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think we have all been dishonest at times, don't you? Why the need to point out another's mistakes in a condescending way? Is there no better way to go about this?

If I did something dishonest on here, I'd expect to be called out on it and held accountable.

Wouldn't you?

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, Eelhsa is right. Rather than accepting the fact that it was wrong. My stubbornness in admitting it was out of pride. This is my formal apology. I should have provided the reference.

Fair enough, it was good of you to apologize.

 

[amariselle]

Oh, believe me, I take an honest look at both sides. And my position still stands.

I find it interesting that you won't provide any examples, or even a hint at what you're talking about. It definitely makes me question if you're really remembering actual examples, or it you just perceive non-theists as dishonest...

Do you find it odd that I don't want to be rude or condescending to people by quoting them directly in one of my posts? If I do so I will be pointing my finger at them, they will get a notification that I quoted them, and they will come into this conversation without a single idea of what we are talking about. This would hardly be fair or kind, and I don't believe I am to act in this way just to prove my point.

I would rather have you question what I am saying (although you are perfectly able to search these forums for yourself) than be unkind to other members here.

If you honestly want to see what is said on both sides, then by all means, look at the conversations on these forums, that is your choice.

 

[amariselle]

If I did something dishonest on here, I'd expect to be called out on it and held accountable.

Wouldn't you?

Sure, but it should be done respectfully. That is how we should treat one another, because we ALL make mistakes.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hey, how about that global warming issue? Scientist have been turning that into a political agenda.

Well, if the data is correct, it would make sense to take it very seriously, would it not?

Blatant dishonesty on both sides. As far as the whole evolution/creation issue, there have been numerous frauds by scientist in order to disprove creationists. Anyone can do a quick Google search and find:

-The Ernst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud

-The "Piltdown Man hoax"

-The "Nebraska Man hoax"

-The "Java Man hoax"

-The "Orce Man"

These are just to name a few. Not trying to prove or disprove evolution. However, this is proof that dishonesty have been seen on both sides.

Yes, however two points to consider:

1) Christians are acting as representatives of a supposedly supreme moral being, and often present themselves as having superior morality. Science on the other hand makes no claims, in fact it's built around acknowledging that humans are fallible and sometimes dishonest, and tries to weed out all of the bad data.

2) All of the hoaxes you listed above were exposed by scientific research, and the findings were discarded. That is the self-correcting mechanism behind science that makes it effective.

If we had used faith as our epistemology, then they would all still be considered legitimate finds. Can you really call faith to be a reliable method for discerning truth with that in mind?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Oh, believe me, I take an honest look at both sides. And my position still stands.

I find it interesting that you won't provide any examples, or even a hint at what you're talking about. It definitely makes me question if you're really remembering actual examples, or it you just perceive non-theists as dishonest...

Not naming anyone, I do recall several times when an atheist misrepresented scripture to further an arguement . And several times myself and several other explained the misrepresentation only to find the same individuals misrepresenting the same scripture in the exact same way elsewhere. Would you call that honest?