Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No, sorry. It is not circular because:


So you're making an claim of objective fact. As there is no evidence of such an occurance, it is not circular to dismiss it. Actually it's common sense.

In fact, reading through your posts, it seems that you're the one posting a lot of circular arguments.

That said, I find the term 'anti-supernaturalism' odd. It presumes that the 'supernatural' (never heard a consensual definition on this term) is a viable idea worthy of active debate. It's not until evidence comes forward that allows us to test and re-test the claims to provide verifiable (no repeatable) data sets. To me its just hokum.

What I dislike about atheism is that it requires one to reject reality.

And right off the bat you've made an incorrect assertion. Atheism makes no claims about 'reality' at all. show me where you've taken this from so I can debunk it.

As an aside, it's good to see you owning up to letting your personal preferences regarding your biases against a label cloud your judgement. It's something we rarely see from theists these days.

You have to deny history. You have to deny that God acts in this world today.

EVIDENCE dear.

Just because you believe that x happens doesn't mean that x thus does indeed happen.

You see, it's quite easy, atheism is a position on a god or gods, namely a lack of belief resulting from a lack of evidence.

Pragmatism, dear, pragmatism. Show us the evidence, let it hold up to scrutiny, then we'll have a discussion about denial.

You have to deny that science has limits.

I don't even know what you're referring to here? I'm going to guess (so correct me if i'm wrong) that you're saying this because of your bias mentioned above (^^). It almost goes without saying that this point is moot thanks to its own irrelevance.

Science explains the physical reality we currently inhabit. There is no evidence (again) that anything beyond the physical reality exists aside anecdote and personal faith that it is so.

So begin by admitting that your beliefs are not based on factual evidence and we can have an honest and open discussion. Otherwise you're simply undermining your own position dear chap

You have to have faith that you cannot know truth. You have to believe everything is relative. You have to start with the assumption of skepticism of things that are common sense and logical. You have to believe that this incredibly complex universe is just an accident. This is totally irrational. It is as if atheists start with a conclusion that God does not exist, and then work backward to make reality fit their conclusion.

I'll chalk this above paragraph down to that personal bias again.

But FWIW, skepticism is a virtue. Approaching things with the attitude of "ok, what's the context of this claim, and what is it trying to say? What do we get when we reduce it down to is base elements and examine the construction of the claim" is common sense to anyone attempting to forge a path to the truth.

"I believe it because it agrees with me" is the antithesis to this position, which sadly to say, is the current position you adhere to.

If Jesus did not exist, there would have been multiple people would would object and set the record straight. No one ever did. The early Church fathers like Irenaeus loved to stamp out heresy. They would have jumped on this with a vengeance. This "Jesus is a myth" myth started in the 1800's. It is not like the Christians didn't have enough time to refute Christ's existence. It would have been refuted by the second century.

Fallacy of argumentum ad populum, as well as a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

Just because something was held as 'right' for 1800 years by a number of people both in the past and today doesn't mean it is thus right.

Common sense, please, and less fallacies. I'd throw a fallacy of equivocation in there too as it appears you're comparing societal methods of evidence analysis 1800 years ago to the technological wonderland (comparative) that exists today.

If we'd continued for 1800 years without advancing one iota technologically then chances are nobody would even know about this Jesus character outside of the middle east, Western Asia and the Mediterranean. But i'll let that one slide because that will begin another debate about the shaky (at best) evidence that exists for the existence of a Jewish man who really was the son of a very localised deity (nay, the deity itself).

This is a web site I like. http://www.strangenotions.com/jesus-existed/
20 Arguments For God’s Existence:
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/
I really don't have enough time to participate in this forum. It's been fun.

So long, farewell...you know the song. I also didn't see a reply to my highlighting of the fact you were using circular reasoning to justify your claims, but whatever.

But FWIW, arguments aren't evidence