Hi from Eleazar

[Cinjin]

Hi folks, I'm a Christian from the UK, brought up in the Church of England by my mum, and now still an Anglican despite a few twists and turns along the way. I'm here to find out what makes you tick, have some serious discussion about the different views we hold and have some fun getting to know you. Eleazar's not my real name, but it's related to my avatar ( available for anyone who can spot the connection!). My main interests are theology and philosophy, though I have a Maths degree which allows me to be somewhat conversant with scientific matters. I love reading (I'm currently working my way through the thoroughly-recommendable OUP Very Short Introductions to Hume, Kant, Russell, etc.), chess, eclectic music and poetry and a decent pint!

Well, lets see what you're made of. Fundies don't seem to last too long around here.


welcome.

[JohnDG]

Hi folks, I'm a Christian from the UK, brought up in the Church of England by my mum, and now still an Anglican despite a few twists and turns along the way. I'm here to find out what makes you tick, have some serious discussion about the different views we hold and have some fun getting to know you. Eleazar's not my real name, but it's related to my avatar ( available for anyone who can spot the connection!). My main interests are theology and philosophy, though I have a Maths degree which allows me to be somewhat conversant with scientific matters. I love reading (I'm currently working my way through the thoroughly-recommendable OUP Very Short Introductions to Hume, Kant, Russell, etc.), chess, eclectic music and poetry and a decent pint!

Actually, your here to find out what makes you tick, we simply realized the truth therefore we have nothing to be ticked about. Except these dam pink martha stewart monsters that follow us around(or is that just me?). Your welcome to the forum.

Read the lyrics. This guy speaks the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ffxUT7Pu...re=related

[Eleazar]

Thanks for your welcomes (both conditional and unconditional ) Aerzia, padraic, Minimalist, tackattack, fr0d0, Cinjin and John.

padraic: My mind is open to any sound argument, and closed to any unsound one.

Minimalist: I'll start a thread about your claim that "there's no evidence". But to summarize the points I'll make, even if one accepts the premise that there is no evidence (whatever definition of evidence you are using) that doesn't constitute an argument; you need another premise (something like "if there's no evidence for something, then it doesn't exist" or "if God existed, then there would be evidence X, Y, Z"). The argument may also have to presuppose a non-theistic account of rationality, which would beg the question.

fr0d0: I'm a low-church Anglican, so cookies are on the house!

Cinjin: I'm made of atoms (so at least I'm not a Cartesian dualist fundie ).

John: This guy seems pretty ticked off, but with good reason.

[Minimalist]

you need another premise

No. I don't. You assert that you believe in some preposterous god. I ask for evidence of that god's existence and all I ever seem to get is a lot of pie-in-the-sky horseshit from people who are desperate to believe that they have some sort of invisible friend looking out for them.

'God' is your claim. The burden of proof is yours to show that he is not a figment of your imagination.

I'll see what you come up with but I don't have much hope that it will be any different from what I've seen before.

[Eleazar]

No. I don't. You assert that you believe in some preposterous god. I ask for evidence of that god's existence and all I ever seem to get is a lot of pie-in-the-sky horseshit from people who are desperate to believe that they have some sort of invisible friend looking out for them.

'God' is your claim. The burden of proof is yours to show that he is not a figment of your imagination.

I'll see what you come up with but I don't have much hope that it will be any different from what I've seen before.

I haven't made any assertions or claims about God's existence. I'm not here to convince you (or anyone else for that matter) that God meets your own particular personal criteria for whether you should believe that He exists. Frankly, I don't care whether you believe that God exists or not. However, you are claiming (by implication) that evidence is necessary to be rational in believing that God exists, and if you want to hold my beliefs to your subjective standards you'd better shoulder your end of the "burden of proof" bargain and tell me why I should take your standards seriously whatsoever. I'm rather tired of people playing the "atheism is just a lack of belief" card as if that is sufficient to avoid having to make any arguments in support of their epistemological views.

[Minimalist]

So you wish to portray yourself as a "christian" who does not believe in god? Yeah...that's a new one.

And yes..."evidence" is necessary is to back up an assertion. Otherwise I could assert invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in a Tiajuana bar at Mardi Gras. Somehow I doubt you would simply believe that on my say so.

Same goes for your god....or any of the other thousands of gods which mankind has created...in its own image.

[Cinjin]

I haven't made any assertions or claims about God's existence. I'm not here to convince you (or anyone else for that matter) that God meets your own particular personal criteria for whether you should believe that He exists. Frankly, I don't care whether you believe that God exists or not. However, you are claiming (by implication) that evidence is necessary to be rational in believing that God exists, and if you want to hold my beliefs to your subjective standards you'd better shoulder your end of the "burden of proof" bargain and tell me why I should take your standards seriously whatsoever.

So let me get this right ---- you want to be allowed to use ANY argument that you see fit to use as evidence should you deem it worthy by your standards???
There's nothing subjective about the standards we use in judging "evidence" of anything that does or does not exist, whether it be your god or the sun's gravitational pull. The standards are the same and they don't change or bend just because you want one of your silly ideas to be considered "evidence".

I'm rather tired of people playing the "atheism is just a lack of belief" card as if that is sufficient to avoid having to make any arguments in support of their epistemological views.

No matter how many times you say it - the answer is always the same ... the burden of proof lies only with you, but I can still assure you of this ... you'll get an argument in support of our views. Oh you can be damn sure of that.

[Violet]

Please don't use the word 'subjective' when you don't understand what it means... it makes me sigh to see it done (And so often!).

[Eleazar]

So you wish to portray yourself as a "christian" who does not believe in god? Yeah...that's a new one.

And yes..."evidence" is necessary is to back up an assertion. Otherwise I could assert invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in a Tiajuana bar at Mardi Gras. Somehow I doubt you would simply believe that on my say so.

Same goes for your god....or any of the other thousands of gods which mankind has created...in its own image.

No...I wish to portray myself as a Christian who is not here to wave about placards imploring you to become classical theists. I don't believe that God exists because of any particular evidence (though I do think there is evidence given certain definitions of 'evidence'), or that my belief is any more irrational than believing that the universe is more than 5 minutes old or that my wife loves me. And I don't expect you to agree - how could you, given that you don't hold a theistic account of rationality?

The reason that belief that IPUs exist is irrational is because it is a completely arbitrary (not to mention incoherent) belief that no one actually holds or would hold in any normal situation. It has nothing to do with evidence, because you wouldn't expect IPUs to leave any evidence. You seem to expect God to provide you with evidence that satisfies you - perhaps you could give Him some hints as to what might pass muster?

[Cinjin]

Please don't use the word 'subjective' when you don't understand what it means... it makes me sigh to see it done (And so often!).

nit pick - there are multiple and varied definitiions for the word subjective.
(which is actually kind of funny since the word's definition in itself is rather - subjective)