Respecting Christians

[Mycroft]

I want to see the excuses that the believers come up with.

If that's true, then it matters to you too.

Would that be the delusion that I am living in reality? Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion or are you going to carry on with your meaningless sniping?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

If it bothers you when someone else does it, maybe you should consider not doing it yourself.

 

[dafydd]

If that's true, then it matters to you too.



Pot. Kettle. Black.

If it bothers you when someone else does it, maybe you should consider not doing it yourself.

I will stop asking questions that you consider to be meaningless sniping. Asking a believer for proof that the bible is true and pointing out the many fallacies in the document is beyond the pale. I apologize.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Paint sprayers. Stick em on ceiling, and cover every inch of room in blue paint. They are stuffed then. That'll get 'em. If no annoyed blue gnomes appear, none in there. Gnome man's land. Game over gnomes: falsification triumphs?

cj x

Invisible teflon gnome hats. That's why they're cones, paint rolls right off em.

 

[Mycroft]

I will stop asking questions that you consider to be meaningless sniping. Asking a believer for proof that the bible is true and pointing out the many fallacies in the document is beyond the pale. I apologize.

Spare us the teen-aged angst. That's not what I called you on. Demanding evidence and pointing out fallacies are good things. Behaving as a git is not. Working out the difference should be easy.

 

[dafydd]

Spare us the teen-aged angst. That's not what I called you on. Demanding evidence and pointing out fallacies are good things. Behaving as a git is not. Working out the difference should be easy.

Oh dear. It's a long time since I was a teenager. I failed to spot any teen age angst in my post, please point it out to me. Please quote a post of mine that was sniping.

 

[westprog]

Why?

Consider the size of the human brain. Consider the size of the universe. Is it logical to assume that the model that exists in the human brain can accurately describe the entire universe?

 

[westprog]

Paint sprayers. Stick em on ceiling, and cover every inch of room in blue paint. They are stuffed then. That'll get 'em. If no annoyed blue gnomes appear, none in there. Gnome man's land. Game over gnomes: falsification triumphs?

cj x

They will simply disguise themselves as Smurfs.

 

[dafydd]

Consider the size of the human brain. Consider the size of the universe. Is it logical to assume that the model that exists in the human brain can accurately describe the entire universe?

When we have the complete model, yes.

 

[Tricky]

Oh dear. It's a long time since I was a teenager. I failed to spot any teen age angst in my post, please point it out to me. Please quote a post of mine that was sniping.

I'd say that the posts below are good examples of meaningless sniping. They say nothing besides, "Theists are soooo stoopid".

As an atheist, I share your feeling that religions have no explanatory value regarding natural phenomena, but many of your posts are little more than flaming hate pills with no points and no attempt at polite discussion. Yes, Mycroft is correct about the color of your pot.

Does it matter? It's all a fantasy, like all religions.

I want to see the excuses that the believers come up with.

Why should there be a then what? Reilgion fascinates me, that is all. I want to see how far people will go in fostering a delusion.

 

[dafydd]

I'd say that the posts below are good examples of meaningless sniping. They say nothing besides, "Theists are soooo stoopid".

As an atheist, I share your feeling that religions have no explanatory value regarding natural phenomena, but many of your posts are little more than flaming hate pills with no points and no attempt at polite discussion. Yes, Mycroft is correct about the color of your pot.

I beg to differ. Fair comment. I give them a chance to present proof and convert me, but no dice.

 

[Tricky]

I beg to differ. Fair comment. I give them a chance to present proof and convert me, but no dice.

Nobody's going to convert you. Me either, for that matter. That doesn't mean you have to insult them every chance you get. There are a number of theists here on this thread who have tried very hard to be polite. No, not all, but I respect the polite ones more. Same goes for atheists.

 

[dafydd]

Nobody's going to convert you. Me either, for that matter. That doesn't mean you have to insult them every chance you get. There are a number of theists here on this thread who have tried very hard to be polite. No, not all, but I respect the polite ones more. Same goes for atheists.

If I have insulted any theists then i apologize, it was not my intention, I just believe in plain speaking.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If I have insulted any theists then i apologize, it was not my intention, I just believe in plain speaking.

I'm very surprised to hear you say this.

I honestly assumed your constant, content-free sniping to be intended as trolling.

If that's not the case, then I apologize for giving up on you too soon.

If I may offer a suggestion.

We know you're an atheist. Coming into threads discussing specific elements of Christian doctrine or other philosophical theories just to say, "It's all rubbish and I don't believe in any of it" really doesn't add anything to those discussions. You might consider accepting the assumptions of the thread, and pointing out specific problems or contradictions, instead of attacking the thread's premise.

 

[dafydd]

I'm very surprised to hear you say this.

I honestly assumed your constant, content-free sniping to be intended as trolling.

If that's not the case, then I apologize for giving up on you too soon.

If I may offer a suggestion.

We know you're an atheist. Coming into threads discussing specific elements of Christian doctrine or other philosophical theories just to say, "It's all rubbish and I don't believe in any of it" really doesn't add anything to those discussions. You might consider accepting the assumptions of the thread, and pointing out specific problems or contradictions, instead of attacking the thread's premise.

I am not a troll. I think the problem may be that my debating style was forged in the rugby clubs and pubs of the Welsh Valleys, where the discussions were friendly but with no holds barred. It's the Celtic blood in me.

 

[cj.23]

No offense taken. I've argued theology in an Aberystwyth boozer, and chatted about Gods in Llandridnod Wells a few times. Good times I'm sorry of my gnome comments seem silly and pointless: but I had a point - invisible gnomes would be naturalistic entities. We can deal with them scientifically. I'm aware of little evidence for them: but if they exist they are subject to study, call them paranormal if you like.

Supernatural entities are far, far more problematic. We can't study them empirically by science (though there are attempts). Don't mean we can't discuss the possibilities though:we can use rationalism when we move beyond empiricism, The latter observes phenomena and draws conclusions; the former is the attempt to build a logical system of premises and conclusions. Both are dodgy in humans, cos we did not evolve for discovering truth: but hey we are surprisingly good at it

cj x

 

[dafydd]

No offense taken. I've argued theology in an Aberystwyth boozer, and chatted about Gods in Llandridnod Wells a few times. Good times I'm sorry of my gnome comments seem silly and pointless: but I had a point - invisible gnomes would be naturalistic entities. We can deal with them scientifically. I'm aware of little evidence for them: but if they exist they are subject to study, call them paranormal if you like.

Supernatural entities are far, far more problematic. We can't study them empirically by science (though there are attempts). Don't mean we can't discuss the possibilities though:we can use rationalism when we move beyond empiricism, The latter observes phenomena and draws conclusions; the former is the attempt to build a logical system of premises and conclusions. Both are dodgy in humans, cos we did not evolve for discovering truth: but hey we are surprisingly good at it

cj x

I've been in a few Aberystwyth watering holes when my brother was in uni up there. I am willing to bet that the truth, when discovered, is that there are no supernatural entities. No harm in discussing the subject here, but fingers-in-the-ears believers to tend to get on my Bristols, no matter which religion they proselytize.

 

[Delvo]

The same could be said of our models of the laws of physics.

It could be said, but not honestly.

They are derived from the same principles ultimately: induction, deduction, trial and error etc

Induction & deduction only work if the person using them is starting from sound facts, not just stuff somebody made up from nothing. And religion doesn't have any sort of testing; if the religious really applied that to religion, they wouldn't be religious and religion would cease to exist.

An entity external to space/time could theoretically
a) program our Universe
b) intervene in our universe at will
c) reset our universe

No, that doesn't make any sense. To declare something to be separate from our universe and then talk about it interacting with our universe is completely self-contradictory.

invisible gnomes would be naturalistic entities. We can deal with them scientifically... Supernatural entities are far, far more problematic. We can't study them empirically by science (though there are attempts).

By that logic, a believer in the gnomes could move them out of bounds by countering every suggested test with a supernatural excuse for why the test won't work: they can move without making flames flicker, they can dodge the paint or choose to let it pass through them, and so on. And that would be exactly what religions have been doing with their gods for ages.

Don't mean we can't discuss the possibilities though:we can use rationalism when we move beyond empiricism

Without empiricism, you've got nothing but stuff that somebody made up, and no amount of discussing & pondering that made-up stuff will ever add up to being rational.

The latter observes phenomena and draws conclusions; the former is the attempt to build a logical system of premises and conclusions.

And what is a premise that doesn't come from observed phenomena? Stuff somebody made up.

 

[cj.23]

It could be said, but not honestly.
Induction & deduction only work if the person using them is starting from sound facts, not just stuff somebody made up from nothing. And religion doesn't have any sort of testing; if the religious really applied that to religion, they wouldn't be religious and religion would cease to exist.

I cite from this week --
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...uidelines-on-apparitions-private-revelations/

No, that doesn't make any sense. To declare something to be separate from our universe and then talk about it interacting with our universe is completely self-contradictory.

I cite various models of string theory, or quantum fluctuations producing ye olde Big Bang. Both result in something outside our universe impinging there upon?

By that logic, a believer in the gnomes could move them out of bounds by countering every suggested test with a supernatural excuse for why the test won't work: they can move without making flames flicker, they can dodge the paint or choose to let it pass through them, and so on. And that would be exactly what religions have been doing with their gods for ages.

A supernatural gnome would be outside of science: based on the principle of methodological naturalism, science could say nothing about it. Phenomena derived from the actions of the gnome in our universe would be naturalistic and hence subject to scientific scrutiny. My gnomes are paranormal, not supernatural.

Without empiricism, you've got nothing but stuff that somebody made up, and no amount of discussing & pondering that made-up stuff will ever add up to being rational.

Yet the standard model, much comsogony and maths work just fine while not being based on empiricism but on rationalism applied ot entities outside the limits of empirical observation?

And what is a premise that doesn't come from observed phenomena? Stuff somebody made up.

Mathematics, logic, any of the rationalist rather than empirical sciences?

cj x

 

[Multivac]

What about a believer whose concern is about your future and well-being and wants to share that with you? Do you consider that to be "bugging" you?

If they continue after politely telling them that I'm not interested, then yes.

 

[Multivac]

I only ever bring up my own atheism (and the reasons for it) if someone directly asks me, or if they start proselytizing to me and claiming their beliefs are objectively correct. And if they want to end the conversation at any point, I don't press the issue.

Otherwise, I'm perfectly content to let people believe whatever they want, even if I personally know that they're dead wrong.

Exactly.