(March 22, 2012 at 9:38 am)mediamogul Wrote: Another thing is that people continue to use arguments from centuries ago that have been thoroughly refuted. First cause, teleological argument, argument from design, etc...

My favorite is when they try to argue for their specific flavor of religion based on scripture ot personal experience. It is usually after you ask them why they don't believe in any of the other religions. Then they usually dodge the next question which is "Don't all religions claim essentially the same thing?" The real answer is that yes all religions claiming a god or gods claim the same thing. What they claim is that they know god exists because their scripture says so. They know their scripture is true because they have experienced god in the way their scripture describes. It is circular. Scripture is true because god exists. God exists because scripture is true.

I also love when I say "why do you believe in god" and then someone says "look around you". That's so annoying.

In the bolded: this is sooo frustrating. I had Bible study group last week (I'm a closet atheist still) and someone studying history at university brought up the topic of Biblical contradictions and how he has to constantly write in his papers that the Bible is flawed, but he is still strong in faith because he's a believer. This was met with 'the Bible has paradoxes'...

Anyways, pretty much all that was said in defence of the Bible that night was exactly what you've outlined. I was trying to push the boundaries and test the people a bit. My friend said 'we believe in the truth. God doesn't lie'. I told him that's what every believer says about their religion. He asked me 'is God a perfect God'? I replied with 'yes'. Then he said 'then scripture must be the absolute truth' *smile*.... *FRUSTRATION*

(March 22, 2012 at 10:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(March 22, 2012 at 9:38 am)mediamogul Wrote: Another thing is that people continue to use arguments from centuries ago that have been thoroughly refuted. First cause, teleological argument, argument from design, etc...

My favorite is when they try to argue for their specific flavor of religion based on scripture ot personal experience. It is usually after you ask them why they don't believe in any of the other religions. Then they usually dodge the next question which is "Don't all religions claim essentially the same thing?" The real answer is that yes all religions claiming a god or gods claim the same thing. What they claim is that they know god exists because their scripture says so. They know their scripture is true because they have experienced god in the way their scripture describes. It is circular. Scripture is true because god exists. God exists because scripture is true.

I also love when I say "why do you believe in god" and then someone says "look around you". That's so annoying.

In the bolded: this is sooo frustrating. I had Bible study group last week (I'm a closet atheist still) and someone studying history at university brought up the topic of Biblical contradictions and how he has to constantly write in his papers that the Bible is flawed, but he is still strong in faith because he's a believer. This was met with 'the Bible has paradoxes'...

Anyways, pretty much all that was said in defence of the Bible that night was exactly what you've outlined. I was trying to push the boundaries and test the people a bit. My friend said 'we believe in the truth. God doesn't lie'. I told him that's what every believer says about their religion. He asked me 'is God a perfect God'? I replied with 'yes'. Then he said 'then scripture must be the absolute truth' *smile*.... *FRUSTRATION*

I don't know how you do it. My head would literally explode.

You can post in a month-old thread. It merely asks if you want to.

Go ahead....I do it all the time. Keeps things neater.

God exists because it says so in the bible, and the bible is true because it's the word of God.

(March 21, 2012 at 11:54 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: If you have any leads on actually being able to prove your god is real, then post it here. I'll be waiting.

I think it's pointless to convince an atheist of God's existence, just as trying to convince a theist of God's non-existence.

Tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain it.

(March 22, 2012 at 6:48 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(March 21, 2012 at 11:54 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: If you have any leads on actually being able to prove your god is real, then post it here. I'll be waiting.

I think it's pointless to convince an atheist of God's existence, just as trying to convince a theist of God's non-existence.

Except plenty of theists do actually de-convert. Religion is no more than santa for grown up, the percentage of believers will steadily decline, as it has done in the last decade.

(March 22, 2012 at 5:50 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Apparently all the cool kids these days are asking you to define what exact evidence you are looking for. Then they plan to say that you are too narrow minded in what you consider evidence. They think it’s a clever trick.

I guess “if the shoe fits wear it.” I’ll take that as a reference to the thread I titled ‘The Evidence Required Is…” My curiosity was sincere and I had no plan for calling anyone narrow-minded. And if you are referring to me, then I do not recall calling any one narrow-minded. Due to the direction that thread was going and the nature of the replies, I decided to pick-up my toys and start a different thread in the Philosophy section to discuss with the underlying issues.
This thread just looks like a shooting gallery. Theists are expected to throw ‘proofs’ up into the air so some people can amuse themselves by shooting them down. I’d rather have an intelligent conversation with people, theists and atheists alike, who value learning more than winning.

(March 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 22, 2012 at 5:50 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Apparently all the cool kids these days are asking you to define what exact evidence you are looking for. Then they plan to say that you are too narrow minded in what you consider evidence. They think it’s a clever trick.

I guess “if the shoe fits wear it.” I’ll take that as a reference to the thread I titled ‘The Evidence Required Is…” My curiosity was sincere and I had no plan for calling anyone narrow-minded. And if you are referring to me, then I do not recall calling any one narrow-minded. Due to the direction that thread was going and the nature of the replies, I decided to pick-up my toys and start a different thread in the Philosophy section to discuss with the underlying issues.
This thread just looks like a shooting gallery. Theists are expected to throw ‘proofs’ up into the air so some people can amuse themselves by shooting them down. I’d rather have an intelligent conversation with people, theists and atheists alike, who value learning more than winning.

I'm fairly certain it's directed at the "Evolution" thread, specifically at Drich.