I hereby award you...



Congratulations!

(April 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We always seem to come back to this line about proof. I'm certainly not saying proof is possible, I'd hope you get that by now. So where does this leave your contentions? Groundless it would seem.

We come back to this line about proof because like Kyuu said, it's the standard method of establishing the reality of something. If you want to approach your religion without using evidence, then you have to apply the same method of reasoning to everything else. The reason I don't go down that street is because if we take out evidence as the standard method for establishing a point, then what will use to believe in anything? We'd end up with everyone believing in anything and everything simply because they felt it was real.

If you can't provide proof of god and you don't think it's possible to provide proof of god, then you must provide a strong argument for why Christianity is any different from other unsubstantiated claims.

(April 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I hereby award you... Congratulations!

Yawn! You duck, you dive, you dodge but you simply can't avoid the fact that your argument is facile and that you are disingenuous.

Kyu

(April 4, 2009 at 1:15 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:

(April 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We always seem to come back to this line about proof. I'm certainly not saying proof is possible, I'd hope you get that by now. So where does this leave your contentions? Groundless it would seem.

We come back to this line about proof because like Kyuu said, it's the standard method of establishing the reality of something. If you want to approach your religion without using evidence, then you have to apply the same method of reasoning to everything else. The reason I don't go down that street is because if we take out evidence as the standard method for establishing a point, then what will use to believe in anything? We'd end up with everyone believing in anything and everything simply because they felt it was real.

If you can't provide proof of god and you don't think it's possible to provide proof of god, then you must provide a strong argument for why Christianity is any different from other unsubstantiated claims.

Christianity isn't in any way anything to do with the area of substantiating claims. It's about an entirely different subject, that is, how to live your life to the full. You've been derailed by illogical literalist hogwash about religious truths actually being about discernibly provable reality. It isn't, and until you face that fact, which seems very odd that as a non believer you cling to the literalist line, then you will continue going around in circles.


@ Kyu..

(April 4, 2009 at 4:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Christianity isn't in any way anything to do with the area of substantiating claims. It's about an entirely different subject, that is, how to live your life to the full. You've been derailed by illogical literalist hogwash about religious truths actually being about discernibly provable reality. It isn't, and until you face that fact, which seems very odd that as a non believer you cling to the literalist line, then you will continue going around in circles.

Well, if Christianity is simply about living life to the full, then it hardly matters whether we even call it Christianity.

Christianity is the religion of Christ - that is, it is made up of people who believe Jesus Christ was god, that he died and rose, that he is one with the father and the holy spirit, and that the only way to heaven is follow him.

It's a little more than "how to live your life to the full". When we ask for a claim to be backed up, we're not asking for your claim that it's about how to live your life to the full to be backed up. I agree that life should be lived to the full, I just disagree with you as to the means of achieving the "fullness".

Regardless of what Christianity is about, the question remains, why Christianity? Why not another religion?

(April 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ Kyu..

fr0d0, you can count this as an informal warning. Cut the crap, stop saying Kyu is avoiding your points, or going around in circles, or whatever the hell that dancing man was all about. Answer his refutations or go away. This is about discussion, and right now it looks like the discussion between you and Kyu is between Kyu and a brick wall. A brick wall that responds with funny but unnecessary pictures, but a brick wall nonetheless.

(April 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @EvF: the point of belief isn't a choice between equals. It's a process of rationalisation leading to a conclusion of an absolute stance one way or the other. It takes a lot of positive affirmation on the side of belief to tempt a person into considering switching sides to theism.

The positives to be gained from switching are very far removed from trivial or and derogatory analysis that you've made. None of those reasons are about superstition or make believe, but sound, solid benefits. A delusion is something 2 dimensional when compared to the complexity of belief.

'Existance', as you need to prove it, misses the point entirely, and should be the subject of a different discussion. It's mixed in here because you confuse science with religion on this topic.

You believe in your God and religion in particular. That 'makes sense' to you it seems....
How on earth though are my comparisons trivial? Many people of many different religions ALSO feel very strongly about THEIR God and THEIR religions...or even the same religion but a different image of God... - Christianity like you but a 'different kind' of Christianity or a 'different view' or God or whatever.

Many people feel strongly about many different Gods, many different religions, many different supernatural things....
But they all have in common the fact that their is no evidence for the Gods in ANY of those religions...

Now if it just 'makes sense' to you...it does no good to only say I am over simplifying it or making a 'trivial or and derogatory' analysis...
Give me one reason why your God or ANY supernatural God is really any more valid (in terms of actually existing objectively in reality) than Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus?

There's no evidence for any of those things, and there's no evidence for your God either.
It does no good to just say something like 'belief is more complicated than that' or 'it makes sense to me'. Because if its just a subjective thing here then your belief is no more valid than anyone else's subjective feelings in OTHER religions or OTHER God's.
And since feelings don't add any evidence to God's existence...
Then once again - your God is basically, practically; no more likely to exist than Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus.

Trivial matter? I think not...
I think holding onto a belief once you realise that...now THAT would be trivial!
I assume you haven't 'realised that' or IOW: - I assume you don't believe God is as improbable as Zeus, the FSM or Santa.

I don't see why one would still hold onto such a belief if they believed God was no more probable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus!! That there's no evidence for them and no evidence for God...
So I assume you must believe that your God is more likely to exist than them!!! (Assuming you don't believe they exist!!)

And assuming you believe your God is more likely...then...why?
Once again - if there can be no evidence of ANY God then give me one good reason why you should believe in YOUR God any more than any other....

Or indeed...give me one reason why you should believe in him anymore than Zeus, The FSM or Father Christmas.

EvF

(April 4, 2009 at 4:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Christianity isn't in any way anything to do with the area of substantiating claims. It's about an entirely different subject, that is, how to live your life to the full. You've been derailed by illogical literalist hogwash about religious truths actually being about discernibly provable reality. It isn't, and until you face that fact, which seems very odd that as a non believer you cling to the literalist line, then you will continue going around in circles.

Religions (all religions) make implicit claims about the universe we live in, a claim (any claim) can be examined and evaluated for its merit or lack thereof ... the significant difference between religious claims and scientific ones is that the former are usually (always?) wrong.

As for the picture and the implications it carries I repeat ... Yawn! You duck, you dive, you dodge but you simply can't avoid the fact that your argument is facile and that you are disingenuous.

Kyu

(April 4, 2009 at 9:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Many people feel strongly about many different Gods, many different religions, many different supernatural things....
But they all have in common the fact that their is no evidence for the Gods in ANY of those religions...

Now if it just 'makes sense' to you...it does no good to only say I am over simplifying it or making a 'trivial or and derogatory' analysis...
Give me one reason why your God or ANY supernatural God is really any more valid (in terms of actually existing objectively in reality) than Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus?

I'd just like to address this point as it covers everything you said I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong...

I like the way you put that. No, there is no single reason (in terms of actually existing objectively) my God is more valid. 100% correct. Spot on.

Which is why anything more you say on the subject is immaterial. We both accept that bit. Let's move on.

Kyu Wrote:Religions (all religions) make implicit claims about the universe we live in, a claim (any claim) can be examined and evaluated for its merit or lack thereof ... the significant difference between religious claims and scientific ones is that the former are usually (always?) wrong.

Like I said in the statement you quoted, you're referring to literalist hogwash there. I don't accept that hogwash, so those claims don't apply to me. You can't therefore use them against me. Use them about Christianity as a very wide definition, sure. But doing that you could say almost anything. I don't think it's helpful. I'm trying to present logical reasoning to you for my beliefs. Not someone else's. I can't justify those any more than I could justify yours.

I agree that religious claims in the area of science are wrong. I said so on this forum only yesterday. On this we agree.

(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 4, 2009 at 9:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Give me one reason why your God or ANY supernatural God is really any more valid (in terms of actually existing objectively in reality) than Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus?

I like the way you put that. No, there is no single reason (in terms of actually existing objectively) my God is more valid. 100% correct. Spot on.

Which brings us right back to the question I asked in another thread, Is it therefore valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied?

(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Which is why anything more you say on the subject is immaterial. We both accept that bit. Let's move on.

Until that point is addressed there is, for the rationalist, no moving on because nothing you can say about your god matters ... IOW, if the answer to my question is yes, it's a pointless philosophical conversation dealing with things that debatably might be but most likely are not.

(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 5, 2009 at 4:17 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Religions (all religions) make implicit claims about the universe we live in, a claim (any claim) can be examined and evaluated for its merit or lack thereof ... the significant difference between religious claims and scientific ones is that the former are usually (always?) wrong.

Like I said in the statement you quoted, you're referring to literalist hogwash there. I don't accept that hogwash, so those claims don't apply to me. You can't therefore use them against me. Use them about Christianity as a very wide definition, sure. But doing that you could say almost anything. I don't think it's helpful. I'm trying to present logical reasoning to you for my beliefs. Not someone else's. I can't justify those any more than I could justify yours.

Again that is a dodge ... I am not being literalist here, I am saying that any claim advanced has no more right to be excepted from the usual means of evaluation than any other. Unless you can justify why that exception is so it is nothing more than special pleading.

(April 5, 2009 at 5:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I agree that religious claims in the area of science are wrong. I said so on this forum only yesterday. On this we agree.

Not really (and I'm not even sure I said that) ... what I think is wrong is any implication that realms claimed by religion are IN ANY WAY AT ALL not the domain of science.

Kyu