{duplicate}
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AuldSoul
{duplicate}
-
Shining One
Abaddon,
Cygnus is right you know....
>So, you're going to ignore the obvious and gaping holes in your belief structure?
No, I get tired of wasting time arguing the same points with people who have no intent of trying to reach a point of agreement.
>I even provided you with a list in case you were finding keeping track of all the areas you are utterly wrong on difficult.
Your assertion is unsupported by facts and I am not going to argue the same points time after time when outnumbered 50 to 1 by dogmatic naturalists.
>But a lack of change on your part is not really surprising; you did that before this discussion and I make no claim to being unable to unseat the presuppositions those beliefs are based upon.
Yet you deny that you also have presuppositions, you insist that you are merely presenting 'facts'. I don't buy it, Pal.
>It is however a lot easier to show they are presuppositions with your assistance than it is writing about it in essay format. Cheers!
Back on you.....
>I have to say though, I find it endlessly curious that those who make the greatest claims to being right about god always deny the possibility of similarity to those making similar but different claims,
That's because you refuse to see the difference between apples and oranges. Most umbelieving scholars have this rule that science and relgion reside in completely different realms. They insist that we cannot use any evidence from scripture because it is 'from scripture'! This assertion puts the believer at a distinct disadvantage when he tries to defend what he believes. I do not accept this artificial barrier to investigation. If you remember the famous, 'Jesus Seminar', there was a host of the most liberal, unbelieving 'scholars' trying to discover what Jesus actually said as opposed to scripture. One of the first rules the agreed upon was that,'no supernatural events can have occurred since we have never experienced any'! The same tactic is used by alleged scholars to discount prophecies in Daniel by automatically redating the book to the second century b.c., conveniently AFTER the occurence of the prophetic portions of Daniel!
>and fail to see how in the end the arguments they make all boil down to their opinion. God gets shuffled into a corner as they vainly protest that THEY are right. It's all about you Rex, not about god. Ironic, eh? Not that you'll agree, but that don't mean a thing (QED).
I am simply presenting apologia and defense of what I believe to be true. You (like other skeptics) take the moral 'high ground' when you have no right to do so. You take a look at how many different people and how many types of insult and arguments that I deal with. One could be the greatest football player of all time yet never gain a yard of round when everyone is 'piling on'.
I am not a specialist in this type of ministry, yet I seem to fend off a lot of attacks with fairly good reasoning, plus calling in some quotes from various professional apologists. Some people here seem to think that because every point and nuance of an argument is not answered, they have somehow 'won'. All of us commit logical fallacies yet only mine are 'spotlighted'.
Let me tell you what I see what appears to be the primary goal of several of the most vocal unbelievers here. They roost here like vultures on a high branch, picking off people who are coming out of a cult, destroying any remnant of faith in God with ceaseless, out of context, assaults on scripture. There are even people here who say they are Christians yet typically degenerate scripture at every opportunity.
That is my view from the outside of the elite clique. It is subject to error yet it is as valid as any other opinion expressed here.
Rex -
Shining One
AuldSoul,
You are just another one of the gang who follow the leader and lampoon with impunity. You are amazingly arrogant and have no right to such lofty status as you claim. I don my armor and fight for what I believe in without compromising my principles. Even when I fight to a draw I am victorious because my God has already won the victory in some person's heart. I am just obedient to His will and He gets the victory, not me. You've no idea of what goes on behind the scenes. In fact, it is your new set of beliefs that is in question when I raise issues. You just projected your own fears into my character. Do you realize that?
Rex -
Cygnus
: They roost here like vultures on a high branch, picking off people who are coming out of a cult, destroying any remnant of faith in God with ceaseless, out of context, assaults on scripture.
Well, not really. Those that disagree with theism are allowed a platform here on which to give their opinion. The natural result is that the opinion of those who see things similarly will be non-xians, as christians can't get their own act together. And when they do, they turn into JWs.
: There are even people here who say they are Christians yet typically degenerate scripture at every opportunity.
Typically? So it is typical for nominal Christians to denegrate the Bible? el oh el I know what you meant. Usually though the Bible does damage to itself when actually read and not read into.
*** Rbi8 John 13:36 ***
Simon Peter said to him: "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered: "Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterwards.
*** Rbi8 John 14:5 ***
Thomas said to him: "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How do we know the way?"
*** Rbi8 John 16:5 ***
But now I am going to him that sent me, and yet not one of YOU asks me, ‘Where are you going?’
Like that. -
plmkrzy
I thought God was a naturalist.
-
AuldSoul
You are amazingly arrogant and have no right to such lofty status as you claim.
Shining One, what lofty status did I claim? Please, quote from a post of mine where I claim a lofty status. That request made, I must offer my thanks for immediately proving what I said to be true:
For a "man of God" he becomes abusive and peevish very quickly. In my opinion, he is not a very good spokesperson for his professed faith. Hey, maybe it makes him feel better about himself for preaching at the Godless.
I am not Godless, but I watch what you do. You have no basis for your ad hominem. I have your posts all over this forum as basis for my assessment of you. Do you think your posts are examples of what true Christianity inspires in followers of Christ? If so, no wonder when you preach atheists they leave the conversation feeling glad they're atheist.
AuldSoul
-
jgnat
Shining One, you are the most amazing projectionist I have ever met. I can barely distinguish the attacks you level at the athiests from the ones you level at the fellow Christians here. Is everyone your enemy?
-
Abaddon
Rex, it isn't about Cygnus being right. It is about you being incapable of proving you are right, despite your claims to the contrary.
As for;
No, I get tired of wasting time arguing the same points with people who have no intent of trying to reach a point of agreement.
A tad hyporcritical on your part don't you think? You clearly have no "no intent of trying to reach a point of agreement", yet criticise others for the same (not saying you are right in your accusations, just that the pot is calling the kettle black).
>I even provided you with a list in case you were finding keeping track of all the areas you are utterly wrong on difficult.
Your assertion is unsupported by facts
I can give you the URL of the list in this thread, you could then rebutt properly, but no, you are asserting something is so because you say it is so. Colour me unsurprised.
and I am not going to argue the same points time after time when outnumbered 50 to 1 by dogmatic naturalists
And now you want sympathy? Truth need not hide Rex, it isn't about how many people have it. It is about how demonstrable it is. You cannot demonstrate you have the truth, although you claim it. If you had 'truth', the odds could be 1,000,000 to 1 and you would triumph. You don't so you can't, and merely whine about being outnumbered to cover the fact you can't prove your claims.
>But a lack of change on your part is not really surprising; you did that before this discussion and I make no claim to being unable to unseat the presuppositions those beliefs are based upon.
Yet you deny that you also have presuppositions, you insist that you are merely presenting 'facts'. I don't buy it, Pal.
Oh, I have presuppositons, but none I have seen you make valid claims about. For example, my presuppostion is that if something is not provable as a fact as in a court of law, then it is probably not a fact. I presuppose that a claim something is really really true is worthless without evidence. My presuppostions seem to be quite reasonable.
>It is however a lot easier to show they are presuppositions with your assistance than it is writing about it in essay format. Cheers!
Back on you.....
Again, you've not proved a damn thing, you just say you have.
And I haven't even listed the various points against your arguments I and other have made that you haven't responded to in this thread.
>I have to say though, I find it endlessly curious that those who make the greatest claims to being right about god always deny the possibility of similarity to those making similar but different claims, That's because you refuse to see the difference between apples and oranges.
Oh, they're different, but they are both FRUIT. Buhhdists and Christians are different, but they are both still UNPROVABLE BELIEF SYSTEMS. You can no more prove your claims of human origins are correct than a believer in Hindu Creationism can prove they are right.
Most umbelieving scholars have this rule that science and relgion reside in completely different realms.
Pay attention: I was comparing you to other religionists.
They insist that we cannot use any evidence from scripture because it is 'from scripture'!
No, not because it is "scripture", but because it is mostly unverifiable as being accurate or a true record. It could be "Jingboodlewat", and IF it was unverifiable as being accurate or a true record it would not be allowed as evidence.
This assertion puts the believer at a distinct disadvantage when he tries to defend what he believes.
Well, having stripped your whine of its vaugeness and shown what you complain about to be a completely reasonable analysis of evidental accuracy, you being at a disadvantage because of your choice of belief verification is tough fecal matter. I can't bring myself to feel sorry for you. Besides, you're doing SUCH a good job yourself.
I do not accept this artificial barrier to investigation. If you remember the famous, 'Jesus Seminar', there was a host of the most liberal, unbelieving 'scholars' trying to discover what Jesus actually said as opposed to scripture. One of the first rules the agreed upon was that,'no supernatural events can have occurred since we have never experienced any'!
No Rex, you make a misrepresentation. It wasn't just because THEY had never expereineced any, it was because there is not one supernatural event that has ever stood up to scientific investigation. If a class of event has NEVER been proved to have taken place, why should the mere fact yet another person claims they have make any difference?
The same tactic is used by alleged scholars to discount prophecies in Daniel by automatically redating the book to the second century b.c., conveniently AFTER the occurence of the prophetic portions of Daniel!
I see it as the utter failure of fantasists to prove the book was written before the prophecy. You even make your 'sides' failings the fault of the other 'side'! Hilarious!!
>and fail to see how in the end the arguments they make all boil down to their opinion. God gets shuffled into a corner as they vainly protest that THEY are right. It's all about you Rex, not about god. Ironic, eh? Not that you'll agree, but that don't mean a thing (QED). I am simply presenting apologia and defense of what I believe to be true.
And I am simply pointing out you have equal claim to what you believe being true as most types of religionist.
You (like other skeptics) take the moral 'high ground' when you have no right to do so.
Hey, even if you believe errant nonsence your entire life, I don't say it makes you a 'bad' person. A judgemental hypocrite with poor analytical ability when it comes to the difference between beliefs founded in facts and beliefs founded in faith, maybe. You imply 'badness' in anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion, as you claim (yet cannot prove) that you know what god's "truth" is.
You take a look at how many different people and how many types of insult and arguments that I deal with. One could be the greatest football player of all time yet never gain a yard of round when everyone is 'piling on'.
More sympathising with yourself. Poor you. Get over it. And so modest, comparing yourself to "the greatest football player of all time". If you had the truth nuclear missles couldn't prove otherwise. Stop whining. I don't remember Paul saying "Wah, there's too many Athenians, I can't prove anything, boo-hoo, unfair".
I am not a specialist in this type of ministry, yet I seem to fend off a lot of attacks with fairly good reasoning,
FEND? You call THIS "fending"? At best you avoid, but that is because there is such a target rich environment in discussing things with you some issues get left by the way side. Mostly it works on the basis of you saying you are right, thwacking in a so-called-proof, and then having it ripped to shreds by the people here, but you NEVER changing your opinion.
plus calling in some quotes from various professional apologists.
You missed out the bit about falsely claiming you studied evolution to some degree of competence and then demonstrating you couldn't even define it when you attempted to describe part of its process. You failed to respond to my question regarding being a Christian and being deceptive about your abilities.
Some people here seem to think that because every point and nuance of an argument is not answered, they have somehow 'won'. All of us commit logical fallacies yet only mine are 'spotlighted'.
Do you want a violin? It would add poignioncy to your complaints. You CAN'T answer every point of the argument, yet still claim you are right; that is part of the point.
Let me tell you what I see what appears to be the primary goal of several of the most vocal unbelievers here. They roost here like vultures on a high branch, picking off people who are coming out of a cult, destroying any remnant of faith in God with ceaseless, out of context, assaults on scripture. There are even people here who say they are Christians yet typically degenerate scripture at every opportunity.
Ah, and I suppose you are the vulture from the species Believicus inus myus versius christianicus. You 'swoop' on people exiting a cult before they develop the thinking tools that will stop them falling for a unprovable, man-made religion again. Isn't it a bit hypocritical that you want the 'fresh meat' for yourself (you make it obvious you regard this as a 'ministry'), but criticise others for doing the same kind of thing (except we have facts and reliable evidentary paradigms, and don't whine when we get beat in a fair discussion).
That is my view from the outside of the elite clique.
I was going to say something rude about exactly WHERE your view originates from, but I see something potentially wonderful;
It is subject to error yet it is as valid as any other opinion expressed here.
So, you agree you might not be right? That, maybe, another version of Christianity is "righter"? Or maybe another religion altogether? Or maybe us horrid humanists?
To me Rex, this is the crux. And a major break-through if you actually mean what I paraphrase your last quote above as. You can believe what you like for whatever reasons you wish. But standing on a soap box and say "I am the rightest, all others are wrong" when you cannot prove it is just foolishness.
If you believe FROM FAITH, then do just that.
Don't try to make the circle of facts fit the square of belief. Actually HAVE faith. Admit that you use a different paradigm, and that you understand others use other paradigms, but that you prefer yours even if other paradigms might dispute your paradigms verifiability.
So what if we don't validate your paradigm? You accept your paradigm FROM FAITH, not evidence, don't you?
Or are your beliefs based on FACTS instead of FAITH?
Do that (actaully accept you believe from faith) and you will find you earn a lot of respect... and will not have to tie yourself in the convoluted knots 'squaring the circle' to fit your FAITH without the FACTS to back it.
These last few paragraphs are (to me at any rate) key issues and I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.
-
Shining One
Abaddon,
We can go round and round wasting each other's time when we have no point of agreement to draw upon. Your questions from above:
>So, you agree you might not be right? That, maybe, another version of Christianity is "righter"? Or maybe another religion altogether? Or maybe us horrid humanists?
Let me put it this way: I have a relationship with the risen Lord. I can only assert that though I do believe it with all of my heart. I cannot prove that to anyone else. I can and will point to facts that I believe back up my assertions.
>To me Rex, this is the crux. And a major break-through if you actually mean what I paraphrase your last quote above as. You can believe what you like for whatever reasons you wish. But standing on a soap box and say "I am the rightest, all others are wrong" when you cannot prove it is just foolishness.
I do not accept any assertion that limits my use of history, science or the logical reasoning that is the basis for hermeneutics with regards to 'why I believe as I do'. It is my obligation to use whatever ethical means to defend my beliefs.
>If you believe FROM FAITH, then do just that.
As I said above, I do not accept any limits that are placed upon my 'apologia' efforts by those who oppose me in debate.
>Don't try to make the circle of facts fit the square of belief. Actually HAVE faith. Admit that you use a different paradigm, and that you understand others use other paradigms, but that you prefer yours even if other paradigms might dispute your paradigms verifiability.
I do 'actually have faith' and do understand that I can only give you the reasons for my beliefs. I simply assert that they seem to offer the best explanation for whom is behind the intelligent design in nature.
>So what if we don't validate your paradigm? You accept your paradigm FROM FAITH, not evidence, don't you?
The beginning of my faith comes from the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not circular reasoning. It begins with a person and not a notion. See R.C. Sproul for that basic reasoning.
>Or are your beliefs based on FACTS instead of FAITH?
My beliefs are based on the historicity of Jesus Christ. I have both faith and facts to back them up.
>Do that (actaully accept you believe from faith) and you will find you earn a lot of respect... and will not have to tie yourself in the convoluted knots 'squaring the circle' to fit your FAITH without the FACTS to back it.
I do not need to 'earn respect' nor bow to any peer pressure. I do see what you are saying though and I am not superior to anyone here. I appreciate your outreach to me. I realize that there is subjective evidence for my faith in Christ and I cannot prove that He is God. I can only show you my reasoning and try to convince you (and others) to investigate the case for Christ, the case for creation and the case for faith......the author, Lee Strobel would be an excellent read to get you started.
>These last few paragraphs are (to me at any rate) key issues and I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.
I don't know if you will like them but there they are!
Rex