Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Huntster]

"Faith in the evidence" is different than "trust in the evidence"?

Who needs a dictionary?

Yes, there is a major difference between faith and trust.

And that is.......................................?

(Please cite your dictionary to back your claim).

I’m taking your silence, about the remainder of my post, as indication that I was correct.

You'd be better off taking my silence as an indication that you are still not worth responding to.

I'm responding to your "dictionary" charges for pure entertainment.

I want to see what "your" dictionary says.................

 

[joobz]

And thus, I "reasonably conclude" that you are unreasonable.



Yet you find a way to make it a controversy.

Thus, I "reasonably conclude" that you are unreasonable.



You're in a space right now, and one I would not wish to share (if it has anything to do with your psyche).



And quite unreasonable.

But why is his doubt of the evidence as proof any less unreasonable than those in the mid ages who doubted the evidence as proof?

The evidence they had was quite compelling as to be considered proof by any reasonable person.

I think Randfan is just presenting the fact that your seperation between proof and evidence is missplaced.

 

[RandFan]

And thus, I "reasonably conclude" that you are unreasonable.

No, I'm sorry but you are not being reasonable. There is no basis for you to draw that conclusion. I reasonably accept modern evidence for the reasons stated. To turn around and declare that as unreasonable without any reason is silly.

Yet you find a way to make it a controversy.

Sorry, no. The controversy is in your head.

You're in a space right now, and one I would not wish to share (if it has anything to do with your psyche).

Ad hominem.

You have not made a single argument to rebut mine. You have simply fallen back on ad hominem and rhetoric. I guess your position just wasn't worth defending or you simply lack the ability to rebut the arguments.

 

[RandFan]

And I stand by those words.

No. That is not correct.

1. The premises that I enumerated are not reasonably debatable.
2. There is only one conclusion that can reasonably be arrived at based on all 3 premises.

Only if you accept his premises. His premises ARE reasonably debatable.

I don't have the funds to do so. Therefore it is not incontrovertible to me.

This is not something that I cannot reasonably do. It is not incontrovertible proof to me.

I accept that it is incontrovertable proof to those who have done so. It is reasonable to accept the testimony of those who have done so. You will ignore me, again, but I will say one more time that it is reasonable to accept modern evidence because,

1. No one has offered evidence to the contrary.
2. There is just so damn much of it that is not controversial.

1. This is not argument.
2. My premise is correct.

Actually, my statement is one of fact. I have never been to space. I've never gone from pole to pole and around the equator. To state that the evidence is not direct to me is a factual statement.

Interesting because there IS some controversy about the lunar landings.

I accept that the lunar landings were NOT a hoax. Please see Phil Plaits Bad Astronomer website for why I believe we did go to the Moon.

The stuff Huntster coveniently edits out of my posts.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And thus, I "reasonably conclude" that you are unreasonable.

Yet you find a way to make it a controversy.

Thus, I "reasonably conclude" that you are unreasonable.

But why is his doubt of the evidence as proof any less unreasonable than those in the mid ages who doubted the evidence as proof?

He accept's Aristotle's evidence, rejects Aquinas' evidence, then casts doubt of the absolute proof of global circumnavigation and physical orbit of the Earth by both man and machine with the statement that he personally hasn't done so.

The evidence they had was quite compelling as to be considered proof by any reasonable person.

It was compelling evidence, and was accepted by many.

Global circumnavigation was proof, and he still casts doubts upon it.

I think Randfan is just presenting the fact that your seperation between proof and evidence is missplaced.

And I believe he is attempting to do so unreasonably.

 

[Huntster]

The stuff Huntster coveniently edits out of my posts.

Correct.

"Stuff":

–noun
1. the material of which anything is made: a hard, crystalline stuff.
2. material to be worked upon or to be used in making something: wood, steel, and other stuff for building.
3. material of some unspecified kind: a cushion filled with some soft stuff.
4. Chiefly British. woven material or fabric, esp. wool.
5. property, as personal belongings or equipment; things.
6. something to be swallowed, as food, drink, or medicine.
7. inward character, qualities, or capabilities: to have good stuff in one.
8. Informal. action or talk of a particular kind: kid stuff; Cut out the rough stuff.
9. worthless things or matter: to clean the stuff out of a closet.
10. worthless or foolish ideas, talk, or writing: a lot of stuff and nonsense.

 

[joobz]

He accept's Aristotle's evidence, rejects Aquinas' evidence, then casts doubt of the absolute proof of global circumnavigation and physical orbit of the Earth by both man and machine with the statement that he personally hasn't done so.

I think he reject's Aquinas' premise that god is not detectable/material. Or perhaps more fully, he reject's the notion that there is anything that could be forever, non-detectable.

In truth, I think I'm willing to accept the notion that god is not detectable, but then what does that mean for god and our existence with him? Or maybe that he is not yet detectable, which means he exists in the gaps of our knowledge.
Yet, simultaneously I will say that I do not accept the complete version of god that the bible presents. There are just too many instances that I find grotesque to think that such a being is worthy of worship. All I can say is that I hope the bible's details of him are horribly horribly wrong.

 

[RandFan]

And I stand by those words.

No. That is not correct.

1. The premises that I enumerated are not reasonably debatable.
2. There is only one conclusion that can reasonably be arrived at based on all 3 premises.

Only if you accept his premises. His premises ARE reasonably debatable.

I don't have the funds to do so. Therefore it is not incontrovertible to me.

This is not something that I cannot reasonably do. It is not incontrovertible proof to me.

I accept that it is incontrovertable proof to those who have done so. It is reasonable to accept the testimony of those who have done so. You will ignore me, again, but I will say one more time that it is reasonable to accept modern evidence because,

1. No one has offered evidence to the contrary.
2. There is just so damn much of it that is not controversial.

1. This is not argument.
2. My premise is correct.

Actually, my statement is one of fact. I have never been to space. I've never gone from pole to pole and around the equator. To state that the evidence is not direct to me is a factual statement.

Interesting because there IS some controversy about the lunar landings.

I accept that the lunar landings were NOT a hoax. Please see Phil Plaits Bad Astronomer website for why I believe we did go to the Moon.

The VALID ARGUMENTS that Huntster has edited out of my post.

{sigh} You are playing games Huntster.

 

[RandFan]

I think he reject's Aquinas' premise that god is not detectable/material. Or perhaps more fully, he reject's the notion that there is anything that could be forever, non-detectable.

Aristotles premises are not arguable.
Aquinas' premises are.

It's that simple.

 

[RandFan]

He accept's Aristotle's evidence, rejects Aquinas' evidence...

The premises of Aquinas are debatable.
The premises that I enumerated are not.

End of story.

...then casts doubt of the absolute proof of global circumnavigation and physical orbit of the Earth by both man and machine with the statement that he personally hasn't done so.

No. No. No.

You are displaying your ignorance. If I could go from pole to pole and circumnavigate the globe that WOULD be incontrovertable proof to me. If could go to outerspace then that WOULD be incontrovertable proof to me.

In regards to this issue I am only making a singe argument. I CAN'T DIRECTLY PROVE IT TO MYSELF USING THESE METHODS.

Thats it. End of story. The conclusions you are drawing are NOT warranted.

Others HAVE done these things. I accept their evidence because it is reasonable to accept them.

I have stated this over and over. You just lack the decency and intelectualy honesty to state what I believe. You edit out my arguments.

It was compelling evidence, and was accepted by many.

THE PREMISES CAN'T BE ARGUED AGAINST!

Global circumnavigation was proof, and he still casts doubts upon it.

NO! I do not cast doubt on it. This is a lie. I state plainly that I can't transnavigate the globe (circumnaviation is not enough you must go from pole to pole and around the equator to verify the globe is a sphere).

And I believe he is attempting to do so unreasonably.

You haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[Huntster]

....You haven't a leg to stand on.

Keep typing, clown. I don't need legs to stand on as long as you keep going.

 

[RandFan]

Keep typing, clown. I don't need legs to stand on as long as you keep going.

So, in the other thread h3ll would just need to call you a clown and declare that as long as you "keep going" he doesn't need to respond to your arguments?

How utterly dishonest of you Huntster. My arguments are valid. I can't help but notice that you have NO argument.

 

[RandFan]

1. Aristotle's premises are not arguable.
2. Aquinas' premises are.

It's that simple.

Huntster, you can't even deal with an argument as simple as this. Two premises. Only two. Yet you have difficulty mounting a rebutal. You can only attack me personaly. That is what I call intelectual dishonesty.

 

[Tricky]

Don't tell me you're a Cowboy fan...

Pro football is an apostasy.

I can't. I don't have the authority to state 100% that God exists.

I do have the authority to believe that God exists, and I do.

And how do you rate your chances of being correct about the existence of God? I was saying that what you call "denialists" are simply rounding their chances of being correct to the nearest whole number.

Who claims that picking one's nose will lead to the answers to everything?
I pick it when it needs pickin' for purely physical reasons.

Who claims that worshipping God will lead to the answers to everything? Since nothing beyond the physical has ever been conclusively demonstrated, it might be said that we all do everything for purely physical reasons.

I don't like or dislike it. I find it lacking.

How many things that you like do you describe as "found lacking"? Is it 99% correct, but lacks that last one percent?

Nope.
It's a desire to please those whom I love.

What, does "peer pressure" not describe that well enough for you? Okay, how about "pressure from loved ones"? I agree, this is a valid reason for pretending to believe. I've done it myself from time to time. I gave the euology in church at my Mom's funeral, and I did in fact mention God. Call me a hypocrite if you like, I don't care. It made my Christian loved ones feel better.

But if you're only doing it to make yourself feel better, then it gets back to the fear thing.

Opportunity loss.

Faulty logic. It can be shown that it is possible to make financial gain through seizing opportunity, because many people have done it, provably and objectively. No one has every been shown to go to heaven, nirvana, or any sort of afterlife, so you have no idea if there is any opportunity loss. Besides, Pascal's Wager has been debunked many times here. Your making virtually the same argument.

It's this simple:

I believe God exists, and I want to enjoy spiritual life with Him and the blessed.

And how do you know you wouldn't enjoy this whether or not you believe? Do you fear you won't enjoy these things if you don't believe?

You're right. It is very simple. Just imagine for a moment that you didn't believe. I'm not asking you to actually stop believing, but just to imagine it. Now imagine, what would be the consequences?

That's right. Many things might never be proven to be so.

Exactly. So how you decide which of those things without evidence to believe? It appears to me that you decide based on the consequences. Carrot and stick. Fear of the stick And fear of not getting the carrot.

Because I believe it is important for my spiritual growth and future to consider it more than other issues which may never be proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spiritual growth", since I don't know what you mean by "spirit". But if you are saying it helps you to be moral and thoughtful, then good on you. But it still doesn't address the issue of whether this thing which inspires you actually exists.

Near death testimony is evidence of the soul.

And you call phenomena like near death testimony to be flimsy evidence?

I do call it flimsy, and I don't regard a bunch of statements from a believer's site to be very convincing either. Yes, NDE's occur. Many of their traits can be simulated with drugs. We might learn more with more study but obviously, it would be unethical to bring a person actually near death in order to study them more. Do they indicate an afterlife? It seems very unlikely. If it did, then there would be more similarity between NDEs, but they are just all over the board. And of course, they are still NDEs. That says nothing about ADE's (After Death Experiences).

Right
You seem to be getting it...

LOL. I've always "gotten it", Huntster. I've been there. Also I've had these discussions before. I know it so well that I can predict the kind of evasion you will take when asked such a question.

Patience is good. I like it.

I know you do, or else you wouldn't still be posting here.

Proof? Nope.

Nor do the theories that you advocate.

You know how I feel about "proof". But the theories I have studied, like tectonic theory, do have a lot of evidence for them. Not proof. They help explain how parts of the universe work, and they are objective, verifiable and repeatable.

Evidence for Survival After Death Index

Something that we call an NDE happens (sometimes) as a person approaches death. I've not seen anything that strongly indicates an afterlife.

As people draw closer to death, they often become more spiritual. Big surprise. Death is very scary. Scumbag evangelists make fortunes off of old people who want to go to heaven.

 

[The Atheist]

Pro football is an apostasy.

Sounds a lot like professional rugby.

Something that we call an NDE happens (sometimes) as a person approaches death. I've not seen anything that strongly indicates an afterlife.

Kerry Packer, who is now permanently dead, once famously "died" for six minutes after suffering a heart attack during a polo game. Upon recovery, and being told that his heart had stopped beating for that time period, he was asked about the experience. He replied, "I have good news and bad news. The good news is, there's no hell."

"And the bad news?" asked the reporter.

"There's no heaven, either", Packer replied, "Nothing at all."

That was his take on it. Great man, he was. Archetypal rich bastard who changed the face of Australia.

As people draw closer to death, they often become more spiritual. Big surprise. Death is very scary. Scumbag evangelists make fortunes off of old people who want to go to heaven.

Just take a look at any mainstream church congregation to prove that point. Here's a nice, RCC one:

Fear of death is the only sales pitch they have. Fundy churches seem to be more into party/brainwashing mode to con their younger converts, but the old churches have old congergations. I don't blame them. As a drowning man will clutch at a straw, a dying one will clutch at the vestments of a preacher.

I know that my own father, who had been a bit of a lifelong heathen, felt the need to get absolution before he died, when he was in the late stages of terminal cancer. It'll never make it true, however.

 

[Paulhoff]

I see you guys are still going around and around with Huntster, all he has on his side is turning around what you said into a lie about what you said. That is his only tool.

Paul

 

[joobz]

I see you guys are still going around and around with him, all he has on his side is turning around what you said into a lie about what you said. That is his only tool.

Paul

Did you just say that you only tell lies and he has a big tool?

 

[Ossai]

Huntster

"Faith in the evidence" is different than "trust in the evidence"?

Who needs a dictionary?

Yes, there is a major difference between faith and trust.

And that is.......................................?

(Please cite your dictionary to back your claim).

Merriam-Webster
Faith
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Trust
1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something b : one in which confidence is placed
2 a : dependence on something future or contingent : HOPE b : reliance on future payment for property (as merchandise) delivered : CREDIT <bought furniture on trust>
3 a : a property interest held by one person for the benefit of another b : a combination of firms or corporations formed by a legal agreement; especially : one that reduces or threatens to reduce competition
4 archaic : TRUSTWORTHINESS
5 a (1) : a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence or as a condition of some relationship (2) : something committed or entrusted to one to be used or cared for in the interest of another b : responsible charge or office c : CARE, CUSTODY <the child committed to her trust>

You'd be better off taking my silence as an indication that you are still not worth responding to.

Yet you write that in a response to me. Either you’re completely mental or my previous point is valid.


Ossai

 

[Tricky]

I see you guys are still going around and around with Huntster, all he has on his side is turning around what you said into a lie about what you said. That is his only tool.

Then don't participate.
I enjoy my conversations with Huntster. And if you want to be scrupulously honest, we atheists too take something someone has said and extrapolate on it. At least I do.

One man's "following your arguments to their conclusion" is another man's "twisting my words into a lie".

 

[Darth Rotor]

I enjoy my conversations with Huntster. And if you want to be scrupulously honest, we atheists too take something someone has said and extrapolate on it. At least I do.

One man's "following your arguments to their conclusion" is another man's "twisting my words into a lie".

Paul has neither the wit, nor integrity, to embrace that subtlety, Tricky. He's seems to be more interested in name calling and not ignoring people on his ignore list.

You, RandFan and Hunster, on the other hand, are good theater as you toss rocks back and forth, so:

Lay on MacDuff, and damned be he who first cries "Hold, enough!"

Since there have been no bumper stickers of late in this Bumper Sticker Thread . . .

If the body is a temple
All mine has left is the wailing wall

PS: I think the Cowboys moved to Cleveland, they are doing that December Dump again.

DR