(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: If I can touch it, feel it, see it, taste it, hear it or reasonably deduce it, I will consider it. 'Consider' is a key word.

So if touching it, deducing it, etc, and etc are only enough for you to consider something then what is your ultimate standard for discerning truth since apparently those are not your ultimate standard you use to discern truth.

Quote: Those are your words. Mine are: All that exists is natural. Simple as that. Whether or not we know of it or we are aware of it, it is natural.

Seems like you are redefining supernatural as something that cannot exist, I see that nowhere in the actual definition of supernatural.

Quote: There is nothing here that is not supposed to be. If something that is not supposed to be here exists, then it must be a part of existence and therefore must be natural and supposed to be here. NOT CIRCULAR.

Sure that statement is not necessarily circular but it is arbitrary which is even worse. How do you determine whether something is ‘supposed’ to be here or not? That implies purpose and design.

Quote: but if it exists, then it is natural.

According to whom?

Quote: Your god is supernatural, therefore it does not exist.

You have redefined the word “exist” to serve your argument, that’s a big no no.

(September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: I ain't got no mouse in my pocket!

Then who is “we”? I am quite alright with scripture being used as an ultimate authority.

(September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: Again, your words, not mine.

I was reducing your argument to absurdity by applying it to someone other than yourself and showing how you would not accept their position even though they are using your same form argumentation.

Quote: First, I never used the word rational. Secondly, I am referring to my own worldview, ergo "with my worldview".

I know you were referring to your own worldview, but If you are not going to allow someone else to use your same form of reasoning to present a position you don’t agree with then you should not be using that form of reasoning either. Fair is fair, there is no special pleading allowed.

Quote: If we (still no mouse) want to consider rational, then I am rational and you are irrational.

Not according to the arguments you have presented so far, they have been quite…well…irrational.

Quote: I am rational, because I am using sound logic, sound reasoning, and sound science to base my opinions on. Note, 'opinion' is another 'key' word.

I have not seen any sound logic used by you thus far. Science does not deal in the area of soundness, that’s a matter of deduction, science uses induction.

Quote: You, however, are irrational. Why? (Well I do not really know but...) You are basing your worldview on fairy tales written thousands of years ago. Not only that, but your have selectively accepted and declined various documents with no thought as to their validity except that a bunch of religious freaks in 400 some A.D. picked them for you and said "god wrote these.".

Nice mischaracterization of my position. I presuppose scripture’s infallibility thus making it my ultimate standard of truth. I then reason from this ultimate standard to other conclusions. This methodology is very rational I assure you. Since you have not even identified what your ultimate standard is the jury is still out whether you are completely rational or not.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It sure is going to be crowded with 2 billion people in there. That is the best god could do. Man, this guy is a wuss.

Where do you get the number 2 billion?

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Absolutely, (Damn, another absolute). Morals are relative to the world, society, government, life form, species, dimension, universe, whatever. Nature will cull on it's own.

You know this how?

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So, babies pissed off your god? Horses pissed off your god? Deer pissed off your god? Damn! It does not take much to piss off that dude, does it?

Sin is a serious thing, so I would say it takes a lot.

Evidence?

Sin is a serious thing, so I would say it takes a lot.

LOL

Sin is a useless meaningless construct of religion. SIN is the made up disese of religion they give you, so they can sell you the snake oil cure.
Mentioning SIN to an Atheist is like mentioning hell they are both equaly made up bullshit........

Hey buddy, I hate to tell you this, but you're terminally ill. Incredibly lucky coincidence that I have just the cure in the back of my pickup truck.

Marks, to the last man.

(September 26, 2011 at 6:57 am)Xyster Wrote: Sin is a serious thing, so I would say it takes a lot.

LOL

Sin is a useless meaningless construct of religion. SIN is the made up disese of religion they give you, so they can sell you the snake oil cure.
Mentioning SIN to an Atheist is like mentioning hell they are both equaly made up bullshit........

Evidence?

(September 26, 2011 at 7:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Evidence?

Certainly. For made up bullshit, I present Exhibit A:


My case rests itself.

(September 26, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Certainly. For made up bullshit, I present Exhibit A:

My case rests itself.

So when Rhythm asks for evidence it is cool with you but when I do it is not? Life must be easy with such self serving double standards.

Yes, humor is so subjective...

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: If I can touch it, feel it, see it, taste it, hear it or reasonably deduce it, I will consider it. 'Consider' is a key word.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So if touching it, deducing it, etc, and etc are only enough for you to consider something then what is your ultimate standard for discerning truth since apparently those are not your ultimate standard you use to discern truth.

I may be a 'brain-in-a-vat'. Nothing that I perceive is anything more than my imagination or all that 'exists' is only a construct of my awareness.

So, what is 'real'? I do not know! What is 'truth'? I do not know.

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: Those are your words. Mine are: All that exists is natural. Simple as that. Whether or not we know of it or we are aware of it, it is natural.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Seems like you are redefining supernatural as something that cannot exist, I see that nowhere in the actual definition of supernatural.

A 'definiton' does not make something real. There are definitions of fairies, goblins, werewolves and vampires. Are these real?

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: There is nothing here that is not supposed to be. If something that is not supposed to be here exists, then it must be a part of existence and therefore must be natural and supposed to be here. NOT CIRCULAR.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure that statement is not necessarily circular but it is arbitrary which is even worse. How do you determine whether something is ‘supposed’ to be here or not? That implies purpose and design.

I do not suppose that something is or is not supposed to be here, only that if it is here, then it is real, it exists.

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: but if it exists, then it is natural.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: According to whom?

Obviously not to you. If your god was real, would that not be the most natural thing of all?

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: Your god is supernatural, therefore it does not exist.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You have redefined the word “exist” to serve your argument, that’s a big no no.

Definition of EXIST:
ex·ist verb \ig-ˈzist\

intransitive verb
1
a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>
b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
2
: to continue to be <racism still exists in society>
3
a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen>
b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances <the hungry existing from day to day>

(September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: I ain't got no mouse in my pocket!

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Then who is “we”? I am quite alright with scripture being used as an ultimate authority.

And I am not, therefore "We do not agree". 'We" have not established that authority.

(September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: Again, your words, not mine.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I was reducing your argument to absurdity by applying it to someone other than yourself and showing how you would not accept their position even though they are using your same form argumentation.

Not necessarily so. Context is all important.

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: First, I never used the word rational. Secondly, I am referring to my own worldview, ergo "with my worldview".

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I know you were referring to your own worldview, but If you are not going to allow someone else to use your same form of reasoning to present a position you don’t agree with then you should not be using that form of reasoning either. Fair is fair, there is no special pleading allowed.

It is a question of authority. Proof is always fleeting (and authority changes, ergo 2000 year old proofs or authorities are just that). One could not 'prove' the heavens are anything more than a hologram.

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: If we (still no mouse) want to consider rational, then I am rational and you are irrational.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not according to the arguments you have presented so far, they have been quite…well…irrational.

I think not. May perhaps you disagree (which is fine), but they are rational. They do contradict the bible of course, but as stated, the bible lacks authority.

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: I am rational, because I am using sound logic, sound reasoning, and sound science to base my opinions on. Note, 'opinion' is another 'key' word.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have not seen any sound logic used by you thus far. Science does not deal in the area of soundness, that’s a matter of deduction, science uses induction.

Definition of SOUND
sound adj \ˈsau̇nd\
1
a : free from injury or disease
b : free from flaw, defect, or decay
2
: solid, firm; also : stable
3
a : free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension <sound reasoning>
b : exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience <sound scholarship>
c : legally valid <a sound title>
d : logically valid and having true premises
e : agreeing with accepted views : orthodox
4
a : thorough
b : deep and undisturbed <a sound sleep>
c : hard, severe <a sound whipping>
5
: showing good judgment or sense <sound advice>

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: You, however, are irrational. Why? (Well I do not really know but...) You are basing your worldview on fairy tales written thousands of years ago. Not only that, but your have selectively accepted and declined various documents with no thought as to their validity except that a bunch of religious freaks in 400 some A.D. picked them for you and said "god wrote these.".

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nice mischaracterization of my position. I presuppose scripture’s infallibility thus making it my ultimate standard of truth. I then reason from this ultimate standard to other conclusions. This methodology is very rational I assure you. Since you have not even identified what your ultimate standard is the jury is still out whether you are completely rational or not.

The fact that you incorporate the bible into your beliefs does invalidate your position on the existance of god. Throw the bible away, burn it, trash it, whatever, but get rid of it, out of your mind, then determine if god does exist. (Little voices in your head will not count)

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: It sure is going to be crowded with 2 billion people in there. That is the best god could do. Man, this guy is a wuss.

(September 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Where do you get the number 2 billion?

That was a reference to another poster that stated christians numbered to 2 billion.

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: Absolutely, (Damn, another absolute). Morals are relative to the world, society, government, life form, species, dimension, universe, whatever. Nature will cull on it's own.

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You know this how?

Of course they are relative. Take a world that you create where all is good and there is no evil or bad of any sort. Unless everybody is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL, there will still be different levels of morality.

(September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm)IATIA Wrote: So, babies pissed off your god? Horses pissed off your god? Deer pissed off your god? Damn! It does not take much to piss off that dude, does it?

(September 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sin is a serious thing, so I would say it takes a lot.

How did the horses, deer and babies sin?

(September 8, 2011 at 1:15 pm)Tim the plumber Wrote: Hi,

I have not posted here due to the problem of preaching to the converted. However since the Islamic Forum and the Christian Forum have banned me I wonder if you have any suggestions as to how to take the message to the enemies of reason?

When I say banned from the Christian Forum it's actually that the site will not allow me on... they have not had the guts to actually tell me if I am banned but I think I have got the idea.

That's not a problem, Tim. It's a solution.

Now you are banned from the sites of these idiots you are free to pursue your own road to happiness. Forget about God and get on with enjoying your life.

Whoopee!

Or be like me and do some "good works" and at least achieve something positive out of screwing your head up!