Origin of Articles

[DeistPaladin]

I disagree with both.

Question everything!

...says the one who is content with GodDidIt as the ultimate answer. Still waiting, btw, for your answer to my question in the post you thanked me for. Why is God-Did-It so superior to We-Don't-Know or It-Just-Is?

In any event, you do know there is a point where skepticism becomes irrational? When you are presented with compelling evidence and you still call yourself a "skeptic" about it (like "skeptics" of evolution or "climate science skeptics" or 9/11 Truthers who are "skeptics of the official story"), the tables turn and the believers are the rational ones.

If you really believe "question everything" in the context of Zen's post, that compelling evidence has already been presented, then it sounds like you're embracing solipsism. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Frankly, presuppositional "apologetics" has always kind of smacked of solipsism to me anyway. It's like you start with the "we can't know anything outside of our mind" premise of solipsism and tacks on a "therefore we assume Jesus to make it all better" at the end.

Where's my miracle?

How would a miracle have to be performed for you to believe it by your standard?

I can't answer for Stimbo but for myself, I'd say how about the standards that we've been discussing for the whole thread?

If your memory fails you, I'll repeat. Do it as a repeatable experiment under scientific peer review.

[Epimethean]

"I disagree with both.

Question everything!"

And then cop out with a big, fat GODDIDIT.

This rubbish was old before the Industrial Revolution. There is no evidence for gods. The fact that some humans continue to bow down to fictional beings has been linked quite possibly to a genetic predisposition for religious behaviors. Evolution may or may not change this, but for the religious to suggest that their cop-out on science should be given any serious credit is simple selfish petulance and nothing more.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not difficult at all, ffs. Here, watch this, "justify your assertions", "compare your axioms to those of others". Ultimately PS is just a veneer thrown over the classics. A great example of this is the "preconditions" song and dance. PS would prefer to simply assert this a billion times over, but when pressed, they resort to a TAG. In the same way that apologists seem to feel that philosophy as a whole provides a fortress for their beliefs PS believes that axioms provide a fortress for their beliefs. Neither is an accurate assessment of reality.

[DeistPaladin]

In the same way that apologists seem to feel that philosophy as a whole provides a fortress for their beliefs...

I feel the need to take up for academic philosophy here and point out that the rubbish tossed about by apologists is junk philosophy the same way that the rubbish bandied around by creationists is junk science.

William Lane "Two Citations" Craig who fancies himself an academic philosopher is actually ignored by the real academic philosophers (evident by how little all his books are cited). He puts on an academic coat the same way ID proponents masquerade about as supposed scientists.

The reasons both are junk are related to the same root problem. When you start with an assumption and then look for evidence to support your preconception, as opposed to starting with evidence and basing your conclusion on it, you wind up with junk science and junk philosophy.

[Cyberman]

Where's my miracle?

How would a miracle have to be performed for you to believe it by your standard?

What DP said. Also please drop the condescending qualifiers; whatever "my" standard for reality will allow also shows up in "your" standard. In fact, there shouldn't really be individually tailored standards for accepting evidence, merely a sliding scale with basic evidence for mundane claims at the lower extreme, becoming increasingly more extraordinary as you go up the scale. As a sceptic I set the absolute minimum requirement somewhere above "things written about in a morally, historically and scientifically questionable and often demonstrably silly mythology". How about you?

---

Tangent: I always find it amusing whenever this tactic is employed. Here's how it looks from my point of view -

You: I have a magic coin from Atlantis that grants wishes.
Me: Really? Can you demonstrate it?
You: What kind of demonstration would be acceptable to you?
Me: Oh I don't know, how about showing me the coin with the word 'Atlantis' on it, then using it to grant a wish? Since that's what we're talking about?

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea Stimbo, is to keep you mired in sideline arguments and claims, any and every thing possible to avoid backing up the initial gibberish bandied about, because it is completely and utterly empty. That's why I've reached the point of "just show me the fucking god or stfu".

When people ask questions like "What would you accept as evidence of a miracle" they aren't actually interested in the least (and they were never prepared or willing to elaborate upon their claim to begin with). They're fishing for something else to argue over. End of.

[FallentoReason]

How would a miracle have to be performed for you to believe it by your standard?

According to the standard of a friend, I've experienced a miracle quite often. Long story short, he asked what he should make of his experience with God if he wasn't real. What happened was that he broke up with his girlfriend so he turned to the Bible for some guidance. He opened it up and voila, turned to the exact page that contained the remedy. To this I felt like replying what I should make of the occurence of turning to the right page in my maths and physics textbooks every once in a while.

[DeistPaladin]

Everyone has probably seen this famous cartoon that underscores the root cause of junk (creation) science and junk (apologetic) philosophy:



The journey to wisdom starts with the admission "I don't know", not with a presupposition.

[Angrboda]

It's not difficult at all, ffs. Here, watch this, "justify your assertions", "compare your axioms to those of others". Ultimately PS is just a veneer thrown over the classics. A great example of this is the "preconditions" song and dance. PS would prefer to simply assert this a billion times over, but when pressed, they resort to a TAG. In the same way that apologists seem to feel that philosophy as a whole provides a fortress for their beliefs PS believes that axioms provide a fortress for their beliefs. Neither is an accurate assessment of reality.

I sense a great deal of heat, but not so much light.

[Epimethean]

Playing the game, but christians are all about heat, and about the only light reference in their silly book that makes remains consistent is Lucifer.