(July 8, 2012 at 11:35 pm)KnockEmOuttt Wrote:(July 8, 2012 at 11:22 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Please... GET TO THE POINT.
I wasted most of yesterday seeing where this is going to go, but so far all you have done is ask 'but how do you know'? When I then ask you how does any of this work for your Jesus, you just shrug your shoulders... genius.
So what's the implication of all this? Convert me. I dare you.
This is exactly my problem. It's all about deciphering the religious banter and pseudo-philosophical blah blah, but the principle behind this whole thing is classic. Us, the atheists need to prove, and anything we have as proof isn't good enough. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot...
The problem with the whole thing is that atheists have got to provide proof in absolutes. We've got to mean what we say and say what we mean. The religious folks are allowed to bend and interpret and change the meanings of things to suit their needs. That is why I find most arguments on behalf of the religious to be nonsense. I need to provide an absolute, black and white, infallible statement of evidence. You get to point at an ancient book, whose inconsistencies do not matter just because. And really, that's the reason. Just because.
I couldn't agree more. I understand that there are limitations when it comes to knowledge in general, but the point he's trying to push is honestly analogous to someone that should be put into a straight jacket. Reality = irrational belief.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle