(July 6, 2018 at 8:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: THIS WAS NEVER my argument. I keep getting sucked into stupid logic and conflating terms and then my answers are taken out of context three and four deep! THIS is my argument.

And how did that argument work out for you?

(July 6, 2018 at 8:56 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 4:04 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: So the fuck what? What you call the "intuition of the supernatural" is what gave humanity belief in superstition, witchcraft, healing crystals, gods and all manner of completely stupid shit. So, unless you wish to argue that it's "evidence" for all those other wacky, bullshit beliefs, you don't get to argue it as evidence for your particular wacky, bullshit belief.

THIS WAS NEVER my argument. I keep getting sucked into stupid logic and conflating terms and then my answers are taken out of context three and four deep! THIS is my argument.

I wasn't refuting your "argument." I was refuting your "evidence." You're the one who keeps using "intuition of the supernatural" as one of the props to your silly beliefs.

Quote:You're highly sophisticated objections will fit right in with a certain group at AF. Unfortunately, I am picky with whom I respond to. Sorry.

You're only picky about what objection you hide from because can't give a good or even antiquate answer to.So drop your pretentious bullshit your not half a smart as you like to believe yourself .

---

(July 6, 2018 at 10:07 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 8:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: THIS WAS NEVER my argument. I keep getting sucked into stupid logic and conflating terms and then my answers are taken out of context three and four deep! THIS is my argument.

I wasn't refuting your "argument." I was refuting your "evidence." You're the one who keeps using "intuition of the supernatural" as one of the props to your silly beliefs.

Which is bullshit but what can you expect from "reformed " epistemology( an apologist attempt to rewrite the rules because theists couldn't win )

So to recap Steve has provided zero evidence of god

About what I expected, Tiz.

He's done a good job of demonstrating that he is a world-class loon, though.

(July 6, 2018 at 10:10 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:You're highly sophisticated objections will fit right in with a certain group at AF. Unfortunately, I am picky with whom I respond to. Sorry.

You're only picky about what objection you hide from because can't give a good or even antiquate answer to.So drop your pretentious bullshit your not half a smart as you like to believe yourself .

I must admit that, IMO, Steve's "peanut gallery" comments do come off as negative and insulting.  Out of curiosity, when people refer to their opponents in this negative way, have they considered that their opponents may see them in a similar way? How can reasonable, meaningful dialog occur under such circumstances?

While it's fun to watch Steve spinning gold from straw, it's kinda sad that the fruit all his effort melts away in the light of reason, much like fairy gold in the light of dawn.

(July 7, 2018 at 12:37 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 10:10 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: You're only picky about what objection you hide from because can't give a good or even antiquate answer to.So drop your pretentious bullshit your not half a smart as you like to believe yourself .

I must admit that, IMO, Steve's "peanut gallery" comments do come off as negative and insulting.  Out of curiosity, when people refer to their opponents in this negative way, have they considered that their opponents may see them in a similar way? How can reasonable, meaningful dialog occur under such circumstances?

I'm under the impression that's how he sees me . I just don't care . I'll just state the truth and obliterate his nonsense really i think it's the only kind of dialog i can have with such a person .

(July 6, 2018 at 8:29 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 1:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Your arguments against other religions all seem to revolve around criteria that are favorable to your religion, and seem -- at least superficially -- hostile to theirs.  If that's the case, as I think it is, that's simply another version of special pleading.  I don't offhand know what the proper evaluation of a religion or its claims should be, aside from an obvious correspondence to the real world, but your criteria seem unnecessarily biased.

I think the list I made seeks to identify four tests that, if a religion were to fail them, they have a big gaping hole that would be hard to overcome--from a rational-belief perspective. Perhaps #3 is weaker than the others.

Beyond the point noted, the first three of your criteria detail what men do in response to knowledge of the gods. How exactly that is a question of the truth claims of a religious experience, or even of the religion, is something I don't fully understand. The gods may be real and yet men may react to them differently. The difference in cultures and theological assumptions explain the latter without impugning the former. So the first three criteria aren't really questions about the truth claims, but rather about how men have responded to revelations, with the clear implication that a Western, analytical tradition is superior. Coming from a Hindu background myself, I recognize that the differences between the theology of the west and that of India are largely products of cultural differences. That's a clear bias, as noted before. Religion in India was fundamentally pluralistic, whereas religion in the Christian tradition was viciously exclusive. Even if the Western analytical tradition was in some sense superior, that would not indicate that the revelations underlying those traditions were more likely true as a result. As to your fourth criteria, I find that both Christianity and Hinduism likely fail that test.

So, as criteria for the truth of revelation, you've posited three criteria which are specifically friendly to Christianity, yet generally irrelevant to the revelations themselves, and a fourth which doesn't really distinguish the two. It may be true that you've pointed out weaknesses in the religion as a religion, but we're not interested in the virtues of the religion as a religion but rather the likely truth or falsity of the underlying truth claims. With the possible exception of #4, which Christianity also does poorly on, none of your criteria are appropriately aimed.

(July 7, 2018 at 12:37 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 10:10 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: You're only picky about what objection you hide from because can't give a good or even antiquate answer to.So drop your pretentious bullshit your not half a smart as you like to believe yourself .

I must admit that, IMO, Steve's "peanut gallery" comments do come off as negative and insulting.  Out of curiosity, when people refer to their opponents in this negative way, have they considered that their opponents may see them in a similar way? How can reasonable, meaningful dialog occur under such circumstances?

Come on! A good half of all responses to my posts are meant to shut down discussion. Go ahead, look through them. This latest was off-topic and CLEARLY meant to correct me--not have a discussion. Why don't you police your own ranks and call them out when their goal is clearly way more negative, insulting, and anti-discussion? You can't--it would be a full time job.