The stumbling block for atheists.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The atheism is fight against FALSE gods (it means: idols). The false atheism is fight against the God.

That's news to me - whose definition is that?

 

[Freodin]

There is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.

Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

You really should know better than to use these verses when dealing with atheists.

No, you really should know better than to use these verses when dealing with anyone asking for backup for your claims.

You posted a video called "Is God a mathematician". Well now, as a mathematician, I will tell you something.

When you make a mathematical claim, and are asked to back it up, you present a mathematical proof. You do NOT say: "It is plain to all. It has been clearly seen. You are without excuse."

As long as you don't understand the difference, all your attempts to communicate with skeptics are moot.

 

[joinfree]

That's news to me - whose definition is that?

Look, one shall make sense of atheism. So, one shall see, what it is the denial of false gods. But True God is not the false one.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not on this science forum with the purpose of engaging atheists in long-drawn -out useless debates which accomplish nothing. I could get the same effect by having a recording constantly droning-

"I caint see!"

Then perhaps you should quit making claims that you cannot back up!

 

[Radrook]

r

Then perhaps you should quit making claims that you cannot back up!

Inability to back them up has nothing to do with it. That's like saying that I don't proceed to try to topple a brick wall with my head because I am unable to. Doesn't prove I don't have the means to if there were a chance of success.. It only proves that I am not going to bang my head up against an obviously impenetrable wall as requested.

BTW
It's called invincible ignorance.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

To be honest-I find it a boring exercise to attempt such a thing since it lacks the unexpected.

 

[Speedwell]

Inability to back them up has nothing to do with it. That's like saying that I don't proceed to try to topple a brick wall with my head because I am unable to. Doesn't prove I don't have the means. It only proves that I am not going to bang my head up against that wall as requested.

Maybe you are going about it in the wrong way. There are other ways of knocking down a brick wall besides using your head. Your argument (as I remember it--and please don't think I am trying to misrepresent you, I might just be mistaken) was that functional organization is identical to, or prima facie evidence of, intentional organization. You appear to regard this as a self-evident principle and refused all requests to explain how you reached your conclusion. Instead, you accused us of using that standard to detect design except where the design conclusion might lead to a creator god, where we hypocritically employ a different standard. That accusation is blatantly false and profoundly alienating. If you think you can knock down a brick wall with that line of discourse, you might just as well use your head.

 

[Ken-1122]

r
Inability to back them up has nothing to do with it. That's like saying that I don't proceed to try to topple a brick wall with my head because I am unable to. Doesn't prove I don't have the means to if there were a chance of success.. It only proves that I am not going to bang my head up against an obviously impenetrable wall as requested.

BTW
It's called invincible ignorance.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

To be honest-I find it a boring exercise to attempt such a thing since it lacks the unexpected.

That's your choice; but you should be aware that if you enter a debate forum making claims, eventually someone will ask you to back up those claims. If you choose not to and make excuses for why you won't, eventually you will not be taken seriously and people will probably start to see your responses as background noise; something to be ignored. If that sounds favorable to you, then carry on my friend

 

[Radrook]

That's your choice; but you should be aware that if you enter a debate forum making claims, eventually someone will ask you to back up those claims. If you choose not to and make excuses for why you won't, eventually you will not be taken seriously and people will probably start to see your responses as background noise; something to be ignored. If that sounds favorable to you, then carry on my friend

You are mistaken. This is a discussion forum in which a person can choose to either discuss, debate. or even just post in order to encourage fellow believers via sharing some vital information or helpful perspective as the Bible suggests.

Of course anyone is welcomed to try to make a debate of it. But no one should vehemently demand that a person either debate or else leave.

That is NOT part of the forum requirements..

BTW
I really don't expect anything. Each is free to take what I believe either seriously or as nonsense just as I am free to consider their view either rational or semi-insane.

 

[Ken-1122]

I wasn't suggesting you leave, I actually enjoyed the discussions we've had; I just wanted you to know why I responded the way I did

 

[Radrook]

Maybe you are going about it in the wrong way. There are other ways of knocking down a brick wall besides using your head. Your argument (as I remember it--and please don't think I am trying to misrepresent you, I might just be mistaken) was that functional organization is identical to, or prima facie evidence of, intentional organization. You appear to regard this as a self-evident principle and refused all requests to explain how you reached your conclusion. Instead, you accused us of using that standard to detect design except where the design conclusion might lead to a creator god, where we hypocritically employ a different standard. That accusation is blatantly false and profoundly alienating. If you think you can knock down a brick wall with that line of discourse, you might just as well use your head.

Well, a discourse doesn't produce a whopping headache but using my skull as a battering ram against the obviously unmoving will.

BTW
There was this fellow on a certain Caribbean island who used to charge spectators money each time they challenged him to break a bottle of their choosing over his own head. He had a brisk business going there for a while I was told. Wonder whatever became of him?

 

[quatona]

What exactly do you mean by the term "metaphysical"?



It was Lemaitre (and Friedmann) who first proposed the concept of "space expansion", which has to the be single most "metaphysical" claim about current cosmology theory, and it certainly is a primary foundation of LCDM theory. We can't "test" something like "space expansion" here on Earth, or inside or our solar system, or inside of our galaxy, or even inside of our local galaxy cluster, because "space expansion" never occurs there. It supposedly only happens somewhere (not really well defined by the way) between various galaxy clusters where humans can never *hope* to reach in a human lifetime. There's therefore never going to be any empirical experimental way to demonstrate that particular metaphysical claim.

How is that not a "metaphysical" belief? It also happens to be congruent with his other spiritual beliefs of course, but the core claim itself (space expansion) is also "metaphysical" in nature, and it opens up the barn door for other metaphysical concepts like inflation and dark energy. Which of his *other* spiritual beliefs were any "more" metaphysical than his "space expansion" claim?

And all that has got to do what with the question we were discussing?

 

[Michael]

And all that has got to do what with the question we were discussing?

They don´t ignore their scientific findings. Their metaphyiscal beliefs have never been the foundations of science.

At least one theist's metaphysical beliefs have indeed been the foundation of "science", or at least one so called "scientific" theory.

 

[Speedwell]

At least one theist's metaphysical beliefs have indeed been the foundation of "science", or at least one so called "scientific" theory.

A metaphysical belief not unique to right-wing fundamentalist Protestantism, AKA "creationism."

 

[quatona]

At least one theist's metaphysical beliefs have indeed been the foundation of "science", or at least one so called "scientific" theory.

I highlighted the giveaway.

 

[Radrook]

I highlighted the giveaway.

What does it give away?

 

[quatona]

What does it give away?

That Michael forgot what the question was we were discussing, and once again took the opportunity to switch to his pet peeve.

 

[Michael]

That Michael forgot what the question was we were discussing, and once again took the opportunity to switch to his pet peeve.

I simply pointed out to you that contrary to your statement, theists have and probably will continue to interject their metaphysical beliefs into the scientific discourse and 'dogma'. It's not like theists are the *only* ones interjecting metaphysical concepts into "science' of course, and that just brings up the irony of atheists acting like science is immune from metaphysical concepts, when in fact that is not the case.

That metaphysical aspect of science does tend to be a major "stumbling block" for atheists as they look to science as their surrogate source of truthiness, and they try to convince theists that "science" is somehow superior to religion by virtue of it's aversion to the metaphysical. Nothing could actually be further from the truth.

 

[quatona]

I simply pointed out to you that contrary to your statement, theists have and probably will continue to interject their metaphysical beliefs into the scientific discourse and 'dogma'. It's not like theists are the *only* ones interjecting metaphysical concepts into "science' of course, and that just brings up the irony of atheists acting like science is immune from metaphysical concepts, when in fact that is not the case.

That metaphysical aspect of science does tend to be a major "stumbling block" for atheists as they look to science as their surrogate source of truthiness, and they try to convince theists that "science" is somehow superior to religion by virtue of it's aversion to the metaphysical. Nothing could actually be further from the truth.

 

[Michael]

You're busted.

 

[Radrook]

At least one theist's metaphysical beliefs have indeed been the foundation of "science", or at least one so called "scientific" theory.

Which one was that?