Posts: 3022
Threads: 34
Joined: May 11, 2013
Reputation:
30
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 9:15 am
We have never ignored any 'proof' (and I use that word in the loosest sense) you have offered us. We have simply dismissed it.
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 9:24 am
Abiogenesis is the problem for me.
That first creature, however simple, had to be formed by chemical means. Whilst that is possible the question is - how did it reproduce?
For this first creature, uniquely, it would have to have been created one way but reproduce using an entirely different mechanism. There is no model in biology for this, and, obviously, no examples we can use.
It is too much of a stretch to say that BOTH initial creation AND reproduction could have happened through natural processes.
Therefore God.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 9:47 am
Your critiques of Christianity are rather weak. If you really want to understand God, you need to open your heart, study, and he will provide the truth to you.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 9:52 am
(January 13, 2014 at 9:10 am)Drich Wrote: So do you see the problem? To use the standard arguments calling for 'proof' while ignoring existing proof would make me portray the atheist as a hypocritical moron. Yet the irony is I was planing to use arguments I have already faced
Well, except that the issue isn't ignoring existing proof, really; it's understanding that the type of proof being presented is insufficient as verification of the types of claims being made, if we're talking religious claims specifically and not, say, just whether or not Jesus existed.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 9:59 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2014 at 10:09 am by Drich.)
(January 13, 2014 at 9:15 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: We have never ignored any 'proof' (and I use that word in the loosest sense) you have offered us. We have simply dismissed it.
er.. I mean of course not all of it is always examined and 'we' change our understandings to match only the purest form of facts.
(January 13, 2014 at 9:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: (January 13, 2014 at 9:10 am)Drich Wrote: So do you see the problem? To use the standard arguments calling for 'proof' while ignoring existing proof would make me portray the atheist as a hypocritical moron. Yet the irony is I was planing to use arguments I have already faced
Well, except that the issue isn't ignoring existing proof, really; it's understanding that the type of proof being presented is insufficient as verification of the types of claims being made, if we're talking religious claims specifically and not, say, just whether or not Jesus existed. Well, that is an issue considering the sheer volume is it not?
For if Christ is the most written about person of that era with the most period manuscripts verifying his existance and deeds, and all that is written is still not enough. This means everyone else who isn't better documented with period writtings have absolutly no hope of being confirmed as being real either, which is everyone elses in that time period.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 10:58 am
(January 13, 2014 at 9:59 am)Drich Wrote: Well, that is an issue considering the sheer volume is it not?
For if Christ is the most written about person of that era with the most period manuscripts verifying his existance and deeds, and all that is written is still not enough. This means everyone else who isn't better documented with period writtings have absolutly no hope of being confirmed as being real either, which is everyone elses in that time period.
I submit to you that "There was a man called Jesus," and "There was a magical god-avatar called Jesus," are two different claims, and that the documentation you have for the man only supports the former claim. If you wish to believe it supports the latter one, then documentation would also be sufficient for all those other religions you don't think are true.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 12:05 pm
(January 13, 2014 at 10:58 am)Esquilax Wrote: (January 13, 2014 at 9:59 am)Drich Wrote: Well, that is an issue considering the sheer volume is it not?
For if Christ is the most written about person of that era with the most period manuscripts verifying his existance and deeds, and all that is written is still not enough. This means everyone else who isn't better documented with period writtings have absolutly no hope of being confirmed as being real either, which is everyone elses in that time period.
I submit to you that "There was a man called Jesus," and "There was a magical god-avatar called Jesus," are two different claims, and that the documentation you have for the man only supports the former claim. If you wish to believe it supports the latter one, then documentation would also be sufficient for all those other religions you don't think are true.
I am good with that so long as in the end we support the majority of what was written, and not focous in on the obscure.
Posts: 2471
Threads: 21
Joined: December 7, 2013
Reputation:
43
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 12:11 pm
(January 13, 2014 at 3:12 am)Drich Wrote: I've tried 6 different times and the arguments are so foolish they all read like parodies. To you and me both brother.
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 12:15 pm
It's revealing to see who in this thread refused to play this game.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Devil's Advocate
January 13, 2014 at 12:21 pm
if they did not play how do we know they refused?
|
