(August 12, 2013 at 1:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Esq

It is the true answer if it's the only logical one.

Not if you're feeding in false premises, like... say, the existence of the supernatural. See, that's the thing: it's entirely possible your basal assumptions are just wrong, and thus whatever you're saying is logical would be anything but.

Quote:How many scientists replicating an answer does it take to declare a theory? Two?

The numbers aren't what makes a theory a theory. Sure, if something is good science it'll earn its consensus among scientists, but the key to that is that it is replicatable, testable and falsifiable, things your religious claims just aren't.

Quote:How many religious people replicating an answer does it take to declare a theory? There cannot be enough apparently.

By replicating, do you perhaps mean asserting? You've already stated that the evidence you have isn't verifiable; you don't get to pretend that the claims you make just 'cause you wanna are in the same ballpark as actual, verified and verifiable science.

Quote:I produce the bible as evidence. So according to you, "I have reason to be convinced"

The bible isn't evidence. The bible is your claim.

Quote:Circular reasoning, yes. You demand that unlike in the real world, you must have physical evidence of something that isn't physical.

We can only perceive the physical world; since you can't detect the non physical, you cannot possibly have a basis for believing that it exists. Are you getting this?

Quote:Do you see the circle? In denying the truth, you are able to support your assertion that this particular non physical thing cannot be logical.

Logical arguments are based on premises, and premises need to be demonstrated to be true. You agree with this and utilize it in every other aspect of your life, but because you have a presupposition that you really want to be true here, you let it slide. It's so terribly obvious; your position should leave you open to accepting every unevidenced claim, so long as it makes some kind of sense, but you don't. You just believe the one you've already decided was true before you started looking to see if it conformed with reality.

Quote:You insist that we must have evidence of this thing that cannot, by its nature, be evidenced. Again, circular reasoning.

No, my point, and the point of everyone else here that you've ignored, is that if something cannot be evidenced, then it also cannot be believable.

Quote:Wake up and smell the mustard Esq. It smells of shit, because you're full of it.

Please, tell me more about the things you believe that you admit don't have any evidence. That'll certainly distance you from looking like you're full of shit.

Esq

You keep making straw men, and I'm tired of continuously burning them down. There is no end to your doing that it seems. I'm ignoring you because it's the reasonable thing to do.

---

(August 12, 2013 at 2:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 12, 2013 at 2:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Sorry not no derail my own thread lover

That's not derailing. That is natural progression, you sexy beast.

Let's talk about the detail when it comes up. If there's a point that's of interest to you, then bring it up. I'm not going to think of a point for you. I have no interest in doing that.

(August 12, 2013 at 2:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Let's talk about the detail when it comes up. If there's a point that's of interest to you, then bring it up. I'm not going to think of a point for you. I have no interest in doing that.

I already brought up the point that is of interest to me. I want to know what should lead me to conclude that faith is a legitimate method of discovering truth, but if you don't want to discuss it here, fine.

It by definition isn't legitimate since

1. He's already stated that his position is illogical in both an irrational and contradictory sense.

2. He has stated that he has no verifiable evidence! Non-verifiable=non-detectable=not evident=not evidence= no reason to believe=he is believing for no reason= he might as well be believing in Santa Claus!

Why look at what I found. A thank you note from Fr0d0. You are so very welcome, Christian friend.

I read the first two pages and then skipped to this page. (If anything of interest came up in between, somebody please let me know.)

Like you I have no verifiable evidence for things I believe in, like myself. Science can't yet tell me how the 3 pounds of meat in my cranium produces consciousness or stitches together the narrative from which I garner my identity. Nonetheless, like you, I do trudge along in faith that I am someone .. verifiable or not.

If my brain can produce "me" I see no reason why yours can't also produce "god". That would of course mean that, if indeed God exists for you at all, I would assume He is in your head. I just wouldn't think of that as something derogatory.

(August 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 12, 2013 at 2:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Let's talk about the detail when it comes up. If there's a point that's of interest to you, then bring it up. I'm not going to think of a point for you. I have no interest in doing that.

I already brought up the point that is of interest to me. I want to know what should lead me to conclude that faith is a legitimate method of discovering truth, but if you don't want to discuss it here, fine.

Which one of the million points should I chose? Wait there I'll go decide...

(August 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: We internationally and cross-culturally agree that hearing voices in one's head is crazy. However, when these voices are attributed to God, that's the only time when it's okay. Take God out of the equation, and all we're left with is over 90% over our population with floating voices telling them what to do. We're fucked.

I like that you pulled up that earlier post of mine. I never even heard that bit by Sam Harris, and yet what I posted is simply what a person free of presuppositions would naturally come up with.

(August 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm)whateverist Wrote: Why look at what I found. A thank you note from Fr0d0. You are so very welcome, Christian friend.

I read the first two pages and then skipped to this page. (If anything of interest came up in between, somebody please let me know.)

Like you I have no verifiable evidence for things I believe in, like myself. Science can't yet tell me how the 3 pounds of meat in my cranium produces consciousness or stitches together the narrative from which I garner my identity. Nonetheless, like you, I do trudge along in faith that I am someone .. verifiable or not.

If my brain can produce "me" I see no reason why yours can't also produce "god". That would of course mean that, if indeed God exists for you at all, I would assume He is in your head. I just wouldn't think of that as something derogatory.

I think that has to be the nicest way anyone has ever told a Christian that God is all in their head.

---

(August 12, 2013 at 6:13 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I like that you pulled up that earlier post of mine. I never even heard that bit by Sam Harris, and yet what I posted is simply what a person free of presuppositions would naturally come up with.

That bit was during a morality debate with ole Bill Craig. I saw what you wrote, and I was surprised to see it was already on a meme. I didn't even have to do anything. I was rolling when I saw him say this the first time. The dude has class.

(August 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(August 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm)whateverist Wrote: Why look at what I found. A thank you note from Fr0d0. You are so very welcome, Christian friend.

I read the first two pages and then skipped to this page. (If anything of interest came up in between, somebody please let me know.)

Like you I have no verifiable evidence for things I believe in, like myself. Science can't yet tell me how the 3 pounds of meat in my cranium produces consciousness or stitches together the narrative from which I garner my identity. Nonetheless, like you, I do trudge along in faith that I am someone .. verifiable or not.

If my brain can produce "me" I see no reason why yours can't also produce "god". That would of course mean that, if indeed God exists for you at all, I would assume He is in your head. I just wouldn't think of that as something derogatory.

I think that has to be the nicest way anyone has ever told a Christian that God is all in their head.

But lots of great stuff exists in ones' head. Morality, altruism, generosity, beauty, kindness, love, friendship and, yes, even humor. If "I" exist only in my head, at least I am in some pretty good company. I think it makes a perfectly fine place to posit God, though one might have to let go of a few omni's. What's left over might still be some pretty good company.