RE: Faith?
October 2, 2009 at 5:40 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2009 at 5:42 am by Ryft.)
theblindferrengi and fr0d0: I can't believe you guys are actually taking the time to explain that. Your patience is extraordinary.
![[Image: picard-facepalm.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=aristophrenium.com%2Fpicard-facepalm.png)
When you see atheists making statements like this, solarwave, call them on it. It's really faulty reasoning, like nails down a blackboard to the critical thinker. To conclude that something is false ("there really isn't a dragon") because it has not been proven true is a case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. A lack of evidence for P does not establish ¬P.
Me too. The sycophantic fanboy mentality that Dawkins and Hitchens display about science is embarrassing. When people like them and Stenger claim that science shows "there most certainly is not a God," and a review of the scientific literature reveals no such thing, the claim qualifies as delusional—"a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." Have you read Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Dr. Hugh Ross? It almost seems he had Stenger in mind when he wrote it (and in fact makes references to him).
Of course not. (I borrowed the book to read it, refusing to give that man so much as a dime.) Examining the sociological impact of religion with intellectual responsibility and integrity is anathema to his anti-religion bigotry, which he is by no means shy about. The idea is to vilify religion, not examine it honestly. He is a very gifted writer, to be sure, but eloquence is no substitute for scholarship.
I have yet to encounter a version of that argument that actually succeeds. If there is ANYONE here on this site who thinks the Problem of Evil argument can withstand the test of critical scrutiny (and I don't care whose version you employ), I would accept a formal debate challenge without a moment's hesitation. That is a permanently open invitation.
(September 30, 2009 at 3:48 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: And you would be justified in saying there really isn't a dragon in my garage because you can't verify for yourself, and you know I could also be lying or delusional.
When you see atheists making statements like this, solarwave, call them on it. It's really faulty reasoning, like nails down a blackboard to the critical thinker. To conclude that something is false ("there really isn't a dragon") because it has not been proven true is a case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. A lack of evidence for P does not establish ¬P.
(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: Science proves there is no God? I would like to hear that.
Me too. The sycophantic fanboy mentality that Dawkins and Hitchens display about science is embarrassing. When people like them and Stenger claim that science shows "there most certainly is not a God," and a review of the scientific literature reveals no such thing, the claim qualifies as delusional—"a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." Have you read Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Dr. Hugh Ross? It almost seems he had Stenger in mind when he wrote it (and in fact makes references to him).
(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: As for the second book, I bet he doesn't take into account the good by religion as well.
Of course not. (I borrowed the book to read it, refusing to give that man so much as a dime.) Examining the sociological impact of religion with intellectual responsibility and integrity is anathema to his anti-religion bigotry, which he is by no means shy about. The idea is to vilify religion, not examine it honestly. He is a very gifted writer, to be sure, but eloquence is no substitute for scholarship.
(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: The Problem of Evil is quite a big one, and not one I can answer at the moment.
I have yet to encounter a version of that argument that actually succeeds. If there is ANYONE here on this site who thinks the Problem of Evil argument can withstand the test of critical scrutiny (and I don't care whose version you employ), I would accept a formal debate challenge without a moment's hesitation. That is a permanently open invitation.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
