(May 9, 2013 at 1:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote: My assumptions are based on logical deduction. Yours are based upon a refusal to think.

Your assumptions are based on mere faith, which is the veritable lack of evidence. Rather than do any real thinking, you would rather your brain stew in intellectual laziness. There is nothing reasonable about believing that fairy tales are real as opposed to being byproducts of overactive imaginations seeking comfort when faced with the unknown.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It has precisely nothing to do with what you were talking about Esq. That's my point. You've changed the subject to your own obsession, and abandoned the question at hand.

Yes mate, given the evidence right now, which you choose to ignore because you can't let yourself think about it, as your arguments would come crashing down around your ears.

It's ridiculous to make claims without knowledge. It's acting like an emu to bury your head in the sand and pretend that you are incapable of logical thought.

Like I said, every religious endeavour addresses the same subject. You are no where near the fine detail, so to you, they all may as well be exactly the same subject. How would you be able to tell the difference between them?

My assumptions are based on logical deduction. Yours are based upon a refusal to think. Again, how can you insist on your own solution in that case? Your family line should be extinct if that we're true. That's what's scientific about that.

There's being so sloppy in your thinking that your brains fall out. There's also being so obstinate in your thinking that your brain will disappear through lack of use.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It has precisely nothing to do with what you were talking about Esq. That's my point. You've changed the subject to your own obsession, and abandoned the question at hand.

Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?

Quote:Yes mate, given the evidence right now, which you choose to ignore because you can't let yourself think about it, as your arguments would come crashing down around your ears.

What, of the evidence we have, points to the existence of a god? You've been remarkably silent on this issue, especially given that you feel it's so conclusive.

Quote:It's ridiculous to make claims without knowledge. It's acting like an emu to bury your head in the sand and pretend that you are incapable of logical thought.

What claim am I making? Go back and look: when have I ever said a single thing beyond "I don't know the answers to these things, why do you think you do?"

Quote:Like I said, every religious endeavour addresses the same subject. You are no where near the fine detail, so to you, they all may as well be exactly the same subject. How would you be able to tell the difference between them?

I don't really care to. At the moment it's all just wanky fanfiction based on something nobody, least of all you, has been able to demonstrate, at all.

Quote:My assumptions are based on logical deduction. Yours are based upon a refusal to think. Again, how can you insist on your own solution in that case? Your family line should be extinct if that we're true. That's what's scientific about that.

What solution have I proposed? What hint have I given that I'm satisfied with "I don't know" as an answer? And, once again, logic is not an exclusive pathway to truth; it is only when it's supported by evidence. It's helpful, I'm not denying that, but since the perspective employing it can be flawed- you're necessarily within your own head and the limits of your knowledge dictate what you do or do not think is logical- it's hardly the sole criteria.

Quote:There's being so sloppy in your thinking that your brains fall out. There's also being so obstinate in your thinking that your brain will disappear through lack of use.

Is this the level of discourse I can expect from you in future? Condescending word salad based on unfounded assumptions you've made about the universe in general and about my position in particular, followed by smug insults? Are you proud of that?

(May 9, 2013 at 1:36 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Your assumptions are based on mere faith, which is the veritable lack of evidence.

Wrong. My assumptions are based upon logical deduction. Faith, in the Christian sense, is acting upon information you trust to be true.

---

@ Esq no smug insults, but concise observation. You are telling us that you refuse to think. How else do you expect a skeptic to respond to that?

(May 9, 2013 at 3:41 am)fr0d0 Wrote: @ Esq no smug insults, but concise observation. You are telling us that you refuse to think. How else do you expect a skeptic to respond to that?

I am questioning you on your pretensions to knowledge, and being intellectually honest enough to admit that I don't know the answer to these questions. How is that a refusal to think? All you're doing is putting words in my mouth while refusing to answer even the simplest of questions, leading me to believe that you understand how poorly your eventual justifications will serve you.

You are asking for material proof of the immaterial. Do you realise how logically bankrupt that question is? Then please stop putting yourself down.

(May 9, 2013 at 3:41 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Faith, in the Christian sense, is acting upon information you trust to be true.

Information that cannot be verified in any empirical sense, and thus unreliable as a source of knowledge.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:01 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Information that cannot be verified in any empirical sense, and thus unreliable as a source of knowledge.

Unreliable is an inaccurate classification.

Due to the nature of the information: that the decision must always remain a choice for all people, that information cannot be presented in a way that removes that choice.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Due to the nature of the information: that the decision must always remain a choice for all people, that information cannot be presented in a way that removes that choice.

The more you want it, the stronger it becomes. That does not mean it is in any way real. You are only wishing God into existence in your mind, deluding yourself into thinking God is real.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:10 am)Maelstrom Wrote: The more you want it, the stronger it becomes. That does not mean it is in any way real.

It has nothing to do with what you want to think, but about how convinced you are that the information is true. How the information competes with all other information.

Once you are convinced of the validity of the information, then a choice to act upon that information moves you to a position of belief.