Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 23, 2025, 11:20 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Theists, are you immune to being decieved?
|
Still can't quite pin you down, Chad. You are a mysterious fellow indeed.
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
 RE: Theists, are you immune to being decieved?
December 4, 2013 at 1:55 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2013 at 1:56 am by Lion IRC.)
(December 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:(December 3, 2013 at 8:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Yes but you wouldn't know you are out of touch with reality. From your perspective, you are in touch with reality. You wouldn't know that you were insane, if you were insane enough. I wouldn't have much difficulty finding debate material in which the prominent atheist raises the # of scientists who are atheists as an attempt to persuade. ...as if that made a difference to their case. Where in the bible does it say the earth is flat? I'm sure the bible mentions mountains and deep oceans and rivers running to the sea etc.  (December 3, 2013 at 7:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are completely mistaken though. Unlike the laws of nature, God is by definition a non-contingent, absolutely self-sufficient, and ultimately sufficient being. Such a being therefore requires no causal agent or mechanism in order to exist. I can however account for why I believe in the existence of such a being. You cannot account for why you believe in the existence of the laws of nature nor can you account for their origin since they are contingent laws. The laws are contingent on us, and our pursuit of understanding, and are a product of such. The idea of such an entity as you describe is itself only sustainable so long as our understanding of the natural universe, and the "laws" we use to describe it remain consistent. The moment our understanding changes, so then will your description of God. This is historically true. Your defense of your hypothesis of God is a product of scientific understanding, and it is convincing to you, only because to you, it seems to fill the gaps of science's understanding. But just like many others have failed to nail down God's hiding place, so have you. Often Athesits are accused of "worshiping science" or having "faith in science". I find the irony here laughable. Your entire defense of God hinges on laws that you think are absolute because you think science says so. You then see this as an opportunity to seize a gap of ignorance, and clumsily cram God into it. I imagine you very much like the idea of an "absolute anything" that is supported by scientific discovery because you think this "anything" can be attributed to the God of your creation so long as nobody else has a better solution. You mistakingly assume that these descriptive rules that the human mind has established are a "thing" at all, and you have mistaken them for objects that exists apart from a reflective mind giving them a purpose. The universe doesn't care about these "laws" that we use to describe it. The universe behaves, and we try to understand it by establishing what we think are norms. These norms are revisable and are not absolute as you desperately hope we will concede them to be. But these "laws" are helpful to us as general rules of understanding. They're not at all absolute because they are tools that we create to understand, they are not given to us by a celestial entity as you seem to think. They are a product of our intellect. These "laws" are helpful in our understanding of the observable, and are the best we have, and have proven to be helpful assumptions that allow us to continue to expand our understanding. Science has shown us that the laws you claim exclusive rights to are not at all absolute when we look at the material world on the molecular level. Particles, (matter) violate these "laws" that we've created constantly. Quantum randomness and entanglement are just two examples. But all of these things exist naturally in our material world. Invoking a God gets us no closer to understanding anything. It's a cognitive sinkhole.  
Bad Wolf
Compulsive procrastinator  Religious Views: Agnostic atheist, anti-theist, whovian, misanthrope? (December 4, 2013 at 1:55 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Where in the bible does it say the earth is flat? How has that got anything to do with a flat earth instead of a spherical earth? Or are you just trolling?
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House “Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom "If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
Revelation 7:1
"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree." Do spheres have corners? 
So you take the most symbol laden book and take it literally. You must be a total idiot.
It's only symbology to those that insist on trying to make sense of what is obviously no more than blatant primitive absurdities. I wouldn't be surprised to find an apologist of Homer making similar utterances, such as yours, directed at the lucid interpretations of those who doubt the theological claims written in The Odyssey. Idiots indeed.
 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
