The stumbling block for atheists.

[4x4toy]

I have high hopes that if I ever "experience conversation", I will have three things:
- The sources to demonstrate my former atheistic positions and questions - sources like this forum, where some 15 years of my thoughts are documented.
- A slew of reasonable explanations why I changed these positions and how my questions were either answered or shown to have been irrelevant.
- The integrity not to misrepresent my former position solely from my new interpretation.

What does a Mason know about being a Mason before he became one ?

 

[4x4toy]

Do you feel we shouldn´t be here?

Haha , I don't care ,no disrespect , just curious .. But I think I know

 

[Freodin]

What does a Mason know about being a Mason before he became one ?

What does a Mason know about not being a Mason before he became one?

 

[4x4toy]

What does a Mason know about not being a Mason before he became one?

 

[Freodin]

Serious question.
I am not a Mason. I live my life in complete absence of any Masonic concept. What I know about Masons is limited, based on the available sources. (Which, Masons being secretive, aren't much.)

But if I became a Mason, and would start to talk about my previous life in ways so that a non-Mason wouldn't recognize himself... wouldn't you say that my current view of my previous life was either very biased, or simply wrong?

 

[Dave RP]

Why are you on a Christian Forum ?

The forum has a section for non Christians and as I am dating a Christian I find it useful to discuss religious topics with those with similar beliefs. I always try to be respectful of others beliefs in my postings, I hope I haven't caused offence.

 

[quatona]

Haha , I don't care

Then why did you ask?

,no disrespect , just curious .. But I think I know

You seem to think you know a lot about other persons.

 

[KCfromNC]

Google ID.

Here's a quote from the first hit I found :

"In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, tried in 2005 in a Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, "intelligent design" was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore, unconstitutional to teach in American public schools."

Your point?

 

[KCfromNC]

We KNOW that coded information involves a coding mind.

Who is this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket?

 

[Radrook]

Exactly. They act as if "I don't know" is something to fear. For a scientist, "I don't know" is one of the most exciting phrases one can mutter.

That's straw man. Misrepresentation of another person's views.

 

[Loudmouth]

Claiming inability to reason isn't a rebuttal.

You claimed that you were using my reasoning to reach a conclusion. What reasoning would that be?

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem isn't responding-it is responding only to be told by the same individuals that they don't understand. So since I am being asked to tell these individuals over and over the same thing only to have them say they don't understand, I will simply not participate in this thread. That should solve the problem.

The problem is that you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence.

For example, you claim that only an intelligence can produce coded information. You confuse this claim with evidence. It isn't. It is a claim.

Do you understand this or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's straw man. Misrepresentation of another person's views.

How many times have you tried to evidence your intelligent designer by pointing to the fact that scientists don't know how life originated? At least 10, by my count.

 

[Loudmouth]

We KNOW that coded information involves a coding mind.

We know no such thing. That is a claim that you keep making, but you have yet to supply any evidence to support that claim.

Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?

So I guess we have the same basis for belief-knowing. The difference is that your KNOWING is a totally illogical basis for rejection of intelligent design since it involves inconsistency and selective blindness while my knowing is a perfectly logical basis for my inference of intelligent design because it does not. That's a very crucial difference!

The only one with selective blindness is you. You blind yourself to the natural processes that produce coded information, namely the natural processes of evolution.

 

[evoeth]

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

I'm sorry, atheism? Did you mean, "materialism?"

 

[HitchSlap]

That's straw man. Misrepresentation of another person's views.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

The behavior of christians toward christians and non-christians has absolutely no effect on my disbelief of god. If it makes you feel better, every christian could be super generous/loving/and turn the other cheek at every opportunity and it wouldn't make me believe any more than I do now.

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

Well not really....there's entire sections of the light spectrum that's not detectable by the senses

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

How do miracles "appear" if, according to you, they cannot be detected by the senses?

 

[Radrook]

How do miracles "appear" if, according to you, they cannot be detected by the senses?

How do you know about the undetectable light spectrum if it cannot be detected by the senses?

 

[Radrook]

You claimed that you were using my reasoning to reach a conclusion. What reasoning would that be?

Whatever reasoning it was that you used.

 

[Radrook]

We know no such thing. That is a claim that you keep making, but you have yet to supply any evidence to support that claim.

Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?



The only one with selective blindness is you. You blind yourself to the natural processes that produce coded information, namely the natural processes of evolution.

Strawman since I am not against theistic evolution.

Also, tagging things as natural doesn't nullify the evidence of a planning mind. It merely demonstrates the fanatical willingness to accept the preposterous for the sake of avoiding what is deemed to be repulsively unacceptable-an intelligent designer.


BTW
You disqualify anything that doesn't fit into an atheistic scheme as non-evidence.