Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

stonebeard wrote: Textbook wrote: Mike/Ivan: Seriously guys, just have sex already.

The T wrote: stonebeard wrote: Textbook wrote: Mike/Ivan: Seriously guys, just have sex already. It would be a problem though... The religious differences here will cause trouble deciding the kind of protective measures to be employed....

The only think they'd really want is a gag to keep from arguing during the act.


Edited by stonebeard - November 10 2010 at 12:39

Nightshine wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that. Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend. I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said  teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable Iván Faith is not concrete evidence.  Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence.  The bible is a simple work of fiction. How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships?

YOu are of course, welcome to your opinion, but I think your insistence on what you term concrete evidence and what you classify as such is misguided. Most believe believe in things without concrete evidence, and I bet you do too in some form or another. I believe in free will, love, truth, justice and that reality is not an illusion (the matrix!) None of those can be objectively proven to exist, but I believe them because of personal experience. How is this different from someone believing in God due to their personal experiences?
Of course, maybe you're one of those crazy people like Textbook who doesn't believe in any of the things I mentioned, but if so you are in an extreme minority and I just plain think you're wrong.

thellama73 wrote: Nightshine wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that. Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend. I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said  teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable Iván Faith is not concrete evidence.  Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence.  The bible is a simple work of fiction. How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships? YOu are of course, welcome to your opinion, but I think your insistence on what you term concrete evidence and what you classify as such is misguided. Most believe believe in things without concrete evidence, and I bet you do too in some form or another. I believe in free will, love, truth, justice and that reality is not an illusion (the matrix!) None of those can be objectively proven to exist, but I believe them because of personal experience. How is this different from someone believing in God due to their personal experiences? Of course, maybe you're one of those crazy people like Textbook who doesn't believe in any of the things I mentioned, but if so you are in an extreme minority and I just plain think you're wrong.

Nightshine wrote: "Good" is an adjective.  "Just" is an adjective.  We know of these concepts because of the fact that we use them to describe the self and our observations.

And justice is a noun.  What did this grammar lesson achieve, exactly?

Nightshine wrote: thellama73 wrote: Nightshine wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that. Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend. I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said  teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable Iván Faith is not concrete evidence.  Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence.  The bible is a simple work of fiction. How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships? YOu are of course, welcome to your opinion, but I think your insistence on what you term concrete evidence and what you classify as such is misguided. Most believe believe in things without concrete evidence, and I bet you do too in some form or another. I believe in free will, love, truth, justice and that reality is not an illusion (the matrix!) None of those can be objectively proven to exist, but I believe them because of personal experience. How is this different from someone believing in God due to their personal experiences? Of course, maybe you're one of those crazy people like Textbook who doesn't believe in any of the things I mentioned, but if so you are in an extreme minority and I just plain think you're wrong. Let's go back to grade 2 and talk about adjectives and nouns now shall we? "Good" is an adjective.  "Just" is an adjective.  We know of these concepts because of the fact that we use them to describe the self and our observations. "God" is a noun.  Nouns have to be proven in existence by matter or proof of matter existing thereof. There ya go.  Any questions?

I didn't mention any adjectives in the list of things I believe in without concrete evidence, so I'm not sure what your point is. Read my post again, all of those are nouns.

ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions.

Nightshine wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions. These forums aren't -worth- proper arguments, dood.  I can just make a statement and watch everyone fly and cry.

Sounds like an excuse from someone who doesn't have a proper argument to make ot me.

Nightshine wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions. These forums aren't -worth- proper arguments, dood.  I can just make a statement and watch everyone fly and cry.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 10 2010 at 20:26

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that. Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend. I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said  teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable Iván