Which Comes First?

[fr0d0]

@ Eilonnwy: Wrong again. It's the question that would be wrong. If you ask the wrong thing or in the wrong way of course you aren't going to get an answer or what you request.

---

If you can't test, how can you know? Pure faith?

You can't have scientific data. You can test.

[Retorth]

Why or how is it wrong? Please enlighten me.

[Eilonnwy]

@ Eilonnwy: Wrong again. It's the question that would be wrong. If you ask the wrong thing or in the wrong way of course you aren't going to get an answer or what you request.

Of course, now why didn't I think of that?



Seriously, Fr0d0, that's bullshit. You have no evidence to back up anything you've said.

[fr0d0]

What strange logic you work with Eilonnwy. You think asking for something impractical or unrealistic is acceptable or somehow ok? And you want evidence for my position on that!?!

[solarwave]

Whether you want to challenge this supposed god or not, however you want to put it should not make a difference if he truly exists and if you are sincere, as you say.

Sorry I cant read this sentance lol

Eilonnwy:

And you'd be wrong. I base my entire life on accepting the truths of science, believing things when there's testable and reliable evidence to back it up. Do I get wrong at times? Of course, but I do the best I can to be appropriately skeptical.

Do you not believe in history, which has evidence, but not testable data like science. Don't you believe that I or the people you meet everyday are real people, or at least you act as if they are. How about right and wrong, or do you act morally simply because of the law? Or if a friend tells you something do you believe them or get a polygraph test on them and then data on their claim before believing them?

I dont mean to sound like Im having a go at you if it does sound that way, Im just making that point that no one lives that way and that all people live by a certain amount of faith (otherwise known as trust).

I can because it is.

It's called a fallacy because the logic is faulty. I did not assert circular reasoning, I asserted Fr0d0 was making the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Even if we say that fr0d0's proposition is true (which I do not accept for an instant) it's still based on a fallacy and not demonstrably convincing. For example, the popularity fallacy, most people believe the world is round. And it is. However to assert the world is round because most people believe it is, does not actually make it true. It's true because science says so. Not long ago the population believed it was flat.

It may be the case that some people when they attempt to pray, are not being genuine and are not getting answers. I totally accept that in that case his assertion might be true, but you're still making a fallacy. He's saying that everyone who prays and doesn't get an answer is not a true believer. That is absurd. Regardless, fr0d0 makes assertions that we didn't really believe when we were Christians which is fallacious because a) fr0d0 can't read minds and b) he's making a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but could it not still be true that people who pray and arn't answered arn't true believers reguardless of how bad an arguement it is?

Im not saying I believe this at all.

[LukeMC]

You can't have scientific data. You can test.

You have my undivided attention. Outline the method of testing.

[Eilonnwy]

What strange logic you work with Eilonnwy. You think asking for something impractical or unrealistic is acceptable or somehow ok? And you want evidence for my position on that!?!

What strange logic I work off of? I demand evidence before believing something, which is perfectly reasonable. Meanwhile you claim there can't be but then turn around and say you believe because of evidence. We have done tests on prayer and nothing demonstrable was shown. Either prayer doesn't exist or your God just sucks at answering them.

---

Do you not believe in history, which has evidence, but not testable data like science. Don't you believe that I or the people you meet everyday are real people, or at least you act as if they are. How about right and wrong, or do you act morally simply because of the law? Or if a friend tells you something do you believe them or get a polygraph test on them and then data on their claim before believing them?

I dont mean to sound like Im having a go at you if it does sound that way, Im just making that point that no one lives that way and that all people live by a certain amount of faith (otherwise known as trust).

History can be confirmed scientifically. We use things like carbon dating to determine age, archeological evidence to study ancient societies. And yes, we rely on documents by people. It may be imperfect but we can get as close to the truth as possible using these methods, verifying events by corroborating documents and so forth.

When I say I do my best to be skeptical and live by science, I mean that I do what I can to believe things such as matters of religion, science, medicine, history, etc... on the best methods of truth seeking which is the scientific method. Of course I don't question every person I meet and demand a polygraph. Your questions are absurd and not at all what I was referring to. I'm talking about my belief system not every interaction with everyone I ever met. I wrote an article once on standards of evidence, maybe that will help you better understand my stance.

I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but could it not still be true that people who pray and arn't answered arn't true believers reguardless of how bad an arguement it is?

Im not saying I believe this at all.

Doesn't matter. It's an unverified claim that is based on a fallacy, which means it's logically unsound. Unless you can demonstrate the truth of that claim, it's not a convincing argument and there's no reason to accept it as true.

[fr0d0]

@ E:

You deny the non scientific. I don't. Logic would suggest that science doesn't answer every question in human understanding. I've already shown why scientific tests would not show anything. You haven't countered that just repeated your statement. Maybe you don't understand how God answers.

[Rhizomorph13]

Or if a friend tells you something do you believe them or get a polygraph test on them and then data on their claim before believing them?

Solarwave,

We believe the people we believe because of our experiences from the past. The veracity of their past claims allow us to model how true their current claims are likely to be. Ergo, we do not have "faith" in people we know; we are going off of past data to calculate the probability of their being right. We believe because of our knowledge not faith. This is much like your chair example in another thread.

Rhizo

[LukeMC]

@ E:

You deny the non scientific. I don't. Logic would suggest that science doesn't answer every question in human understanding. I've already shown why scientific tests would not show anything. You haven't countered that just repeated your statement. Maybe you don't understand how God answers.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-2031-pos...l#pid35813

This cannot wait, fr0d0. The fate of the world could potentially be resting in your hands with this information you have. Outline the test!