The stumbling block for atheists.

AV1611VET · Jan 8, 2017

KTS said:
Do you know for a fact that God exists? As in, it's just as much a fact for you as it is a fact that one plus one equals two?

Yes.

Kylie · Jan 8, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Yes.

Well, maybe Paul's attempt to combat gnosticism wasn't that successful...

AV1611VET · Jan 8, 2017

KTS said:
Well, maybe Paul's attempt to combat gnosticism wasn't that successful...

Gnosticism resurfaced today in the form of the New Age Movement.

Kylie · Jan 9, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Gnosticism resurfaced today in the form of the New Age Movement.

What do you think "gnostic" means?

AV1611VET · Jan 9, 2017

dysert said:
I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should.

Why do you think that's not going to wash at their judgement?

Should God make an exception for them and allow them into Heaven sans the blood of Christ?

TagliatelliMonster · Jan 9, 2017

dysert said:
I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia.

Me not buying into christian claims has actually very little to do with how christians behave and everything with the contents of said claims and the total lack of evidential support for them.

To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult

For me, that is true. But, as said, that is not the reason for my atheism.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses.

Nope, that is simply incorrect.
First, atheism doesn't really assume anything... as it is just the lack of belief in theistic claims. It is not the assertion or belief of something else.

Secondly, for me personally, I'ld rephrase your statement that as a sceptic, I simply don't assume things to be real unless they can be shown to be real or at least be supported to be real beyond reasonable doubt.

Again, my unbelief of theism has nothing to do with whatever other things I do believe, but rather everything with the fact that theism can't live up to its burden of proof.

Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

As explained, there is no such assumption to be dropped in the first place.

If you wish to turn my atheism into theism, all you need to do is provide me with rational evidence for your beliefs.

AV1611VET · Jan 9, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
Me not buying into christian claims has actually very little to do with how christians behave ...

What's your take on atheist who do though?

TagliatelliMonster · Jan 9, 2017

Radrook said:
Their aversion to an ID is what I find to be their main stumbling block. Religious aversions stem from it.

Didn't you make a big deal in other threads about how your ID model isn't a religious model?

TagliatelliMonster · Jan 9, 2017

Radrook said:
Atheists have no aversion for towards the concept of an ID?

No.

If anything, you could say that atheists have an aversion to accepting faith-based claims as being accurate.

If so, why do they argue against it as soon as it is mentioned?

Because such nonsense models are presented as of they aren't nonsense but fact.
While they are anything but that.

I don't celebrate Christmas.

I do. Any excuse to paaaarttttyyyyy is fine by me.

TagliatelliMonster · Jan 9, 2017

Radrook said:
Wrong! The ID argument is an argument for Intelligent Design as manifested in nature which indicates a creative mind. What the nature of that mind is not part of the argument. True, there are those who might feign to be arguing non-religiously while their intention is religious.

Except, off course, for the fact that this "model" was invented and developed, by creationists, in a dishonest fashion with as only goal to get their biblical creationist nonsense into sciences classes, by disguising plain old creationism in a lab coat.
Hence the term cdesign proponentsists.

And they didn't try to get that into science class through doing the actual work, like any other idea in science has to. Nope. They tried to completely circumvent the scientific process and tried to get straight into high school textbooks. There even were courtcases about this. Which they lost, btw.

Every. Single. Time.

Yes, cdesign proponentsists, have done their very best to try and convince people that it "wasn't creationism" and that it "wasn't a religious model". But, as the court cases have shown black on white, that was nothing but propaganda and dishonesty.

And people like you......... you bought into that lie. You bought into the propaganda.
That's where the ID model literally comes from: dishonest creationists trying to slip their anti-science religious philosophy into high schools.

I have told you that before. For some reason, you simply refuse to accept this. But it is what it is. And with a bit of googling, you'ld see for yourself that that is exactly what the ID model is.

But that is just as true for atheists who push atheism via their propositions of a mindless abiogenesis while feigning to be defending science.

No. That's just science observed and studying the world.
What you said is as nonsensical as saying that "atheists push atheism via 'mindless' gravitation theory / germ theory of desease / plate tectonic theory / etc"

So I really don't think that you can take the moral high ground in that area.

Only because you refuse to accept the facts of reality, as described above.

Happy Hanukkah!

Happy Saturnalia.

TagliatelliMonster · Jan 9, 2017

AV1611VET said:
What's your take on atheist who do though?

That they aren't rational concerning that point.

Subduction Zone · Jan 9, 2017

AV1611VET said:
What's your take on atheist who do though?

If you found any such atheists your favorite Bible verse that you try to use against atheists might actually apply.

AV1611VET · Jan 9, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
If you found any such atheists your favorite Bible verse that you try to use against atheists might actually apply.

Aren't you one?

Radrook · Jan 9, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
Didn't you make a big deal in other threads about how your ID model isn't a religious model?

When I argue from an ID standpoint I don't bring in God, a god, goddesses or deities of any kind. I just argue from the standpoint of what nature indicates.

KCfromNC · Jan 9, 2017

Radrook said:
When I argue from an ID standpoint I don't bring in God, a god, goddesses or deities of any kind. I just argue from the standpoint of what nature indicates.

What nature indicated about God, gods or goddesses, right? Or are we just supposed to forget that ID is a transparent attempt to sneak Christian Protestant creationism into schools?

TagliatelliMonster · Jan 9, 2017

Radrook said:
When I argue from an ID standpoint I don't bring in God, a god, goddesses or deities of any kind. I just argue from the standpoint of what nature indicates.

Myeah.... you know.... as the many courtcases against cdesign proponentsists have clearly shown... simply not mentioning the word "god" and replacing it by the word "designer", doesn't actually change the fact that it is just plain old creationism and religion.

bhsmte · Jan 9, 2017

Radrook said:
When I argue from an ID standpoint I don't bring in God, a god, goddesses or deities of any kind. I just argue from the standpoint of what nature indicates.

But, you also dont bring in a scientific definition of this ID, or a falsifiable test to determine if this ID is present. Why is that?

Subduction Zone · Jan 9, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Aren't you one?

Of course not. I already explained that to you.

Radrook · Jan 9, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
Didn't you make a big deal in other threads about how your ID model isn't a religious model?

That deal was for the particular discussion at hand and not as a declaration that I would always treat the subject from a religiously neutral perspective. It depends on the thread. It also depends on how atheists respond. If they respond as if I am taking a religious perspective then I will begin react in harmony with that feedback if deemed necessary. For example, if the atheist brings in biblical issues then he will force me to deal with his objections from religious angle. So whether or not the subject remains neutral isn't completely up to me. In fact, some atheists cannot discuss an ID without immediately brining in religion and God. They seem too prefer to assume that is what is really being discussed..

HitchSlap · Jan 9, 2017

Radrook said:
When I argue from an ID standpoint I don't bring in God, a god, goddesses or deities of any kind. I just argue from the standpoint of what nature indicates.

Why not, that's the whole emphasis of the "Wedge Document."

The stumbling block for atheists.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency