- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Baylor University Survey On Religion: 'Almost No Atheists Voted For Trump'
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:53 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:53 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
but being a Christian is typically a result of believing in the Christian god (the topic of discussion).
Is that the statement you made? Shall I re-post to clarify? You said "a large majority of "people" worldwide do not believe in the Bible." Removing any religious connotation. See I believe there is an overwhelming majority that believe in "God" but do not want to live by His standards, so therefore deny the Bible as His infallible Word.
1
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:56 pm to Lg
quote:
Is that the statement you made?
In the context of the conversation, yes.
quote:
You said "a large majority of "people" worldwide do not believe in the Bible."
You said you do not "believe in God" and "do not want to live by His standards."
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:02 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Keep on praying to your invisible sky fairy in the hopes that you can stave off the fear of death another day.
You pack more lack of knowledge and understand in such concise terms than anyone I have seen in my memory...the term "false premise" comes to mind in spades.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
In the context of the conversation, yes.
No it wasn't. Where in Wolfhounds post was belief in the Christian God mentioned?
You are stepping pretty close to being on BamaAtl's level.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:12 pm to Lg
quote:
No it wasn't.
Yes, it was.
quote:
Where in Wolfhounds post was belief in the Christian God mentioned?
Your issue is that you jumped into the middle of a conversation that you've shown you are not capable of having. Fix that.
quote:
You are stepping pretty close to being on BamaAtl's level.
BamaAtl is well above your level so far. Chew on that...
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:20 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Yes, it was.
It's okay. I understand you can't answer the question honestly. That's typical. Just shows you have no foundation and have to talk in circles. Answer questions with questions.
If that's what it takes to be on yours and Bama's level then I'll stay down here. At least I'm honest.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:25 pm to Lg
quote:
I understand you can't answer the question honestly.
I'm not sure which question you're referring to. You asked several, and as far as I know, I answered or at least addressed all of them.
quote:
Answer questions with questions.
I don't remember asking you a single question.
quote:
At least I'm honest.
So far, you've shown the opposite.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:25 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:The statements I've seen by yourself and other agnostics have centered around trusted, verifiable knowledge about the existence or non-existence of God. The statements are not about faith and belief, but knowledge of absolutes. You are an agnostic because you don't know for certain one way or the other.
And again. You miss every single point. I'm not sure why you are so insistent that my uncommitted stance is evidence that I have no interest at all. I'm undecided, not uninterested. Why is that so hard for you to get?
I didn't say that you have no interest, only that agnostics don't tend to join in the discussion between atheists and theists because the agnostic position is simply "we don't know". Taking a position in the argument tends to strengthen or weaken your belief one way or the other.
What I was saying originally was that I don't think agnosticism is a real thing that is different from atheism or theism since agnostics either profess faith in the existence of God (or a god or gods) or they say they don't have faith in God (or a god or gods) and then qualify their belief or unbelief with the "I don't know". It's to that point I asked you directly if you hold to a belief in the existence of God. I'm curious because a lot of agnostics I've interacted with like to wax eloquent about the differences between atheism and agnosticism as a philosophical position but don't usually talk about their personal belief about the existence of God.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:30 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Sorry but you don't define a word by stating the word again. You can use google if you are having a hard time describing your criteria for evidence.
Evidence
With any debate or discussion, it's most helpful to define the terms. If you and your opponent have different meanings for the same word, it becomes easy to talk past each other and not understand what the other means. You have to have a point of agreement before you can have a meaningful discussion. That's why I asked you to define what "evidence" means, because clearly you have a different understanding of the word than I do.
quote:While I disagree completely with you on this point, you've yet to provide your definition of "evidence", so like I said, we are talking past each other.
There is not. You have absolutely nothing that you can point to as evidence for the Christian God. The Bible is not evidence, it's a book of fairy tales.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:32 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I'm not sure which question you're referring to.
How about this one?
quote:
Where in Wolfhounds post was belief in the Christian God mentioned?
Your answer shows me that you can't answer it honestly.
quote:
Your issue is that you jumped into the middle of a conversation that you've shown you are not capable of having. Fix that.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:34 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:Not much. But you are always good for a laugh between bannings
Miss me, snowflake?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:42 pm to Lg
quote:
How about this one?
Already addressed.
quote:
Your answer shows me that you can't answer it honestly.
My answer shows that you asked a stupid question. If you want better answers, ask better questions.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:44 pm to ShortyRob
quote:If the claim is that God exists and that God upholds the universe in an orderly and consistent fashion, with immaterial laws that should not exist in the absence of God, then "order in the universe" is certainly an evidence to support that claim. Just because an evidence can support more than one proposition does not mean that it ceases to be evidence of one of those propositions.
Is merely information that could point to myriad possibilities. You assigning it a particular possibility doesn't actually make it evidence of that possibility.
ETA: If one evidence is not sufficient to convince you, you look at more.
quote:Not at all, at least not as I'm using them. My premise is that there is a God and those evidences are consistent with the existence of the God I believe in. Perhaps the issue is that your premise is that there is no God and therefore interpret those things differently, but that doesn't negate my argument. Facts aren't brute but require interpretation. All evidence requires interpretation and that interpretation is typically driven by the worldview of the interpreter.
I sense a pattern here.
They are all fancy "God of the Gaps" arguments
Each of the evidences I provided could be worthy of their own discussion threads. I don't have the time to dive into each of them in the detail I'm sure you'd like, but I was asked for evidences and I provided them. Further discussion could be had there.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:48 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
There is not. You have absolutely nothing that you can point to as evidence for the Christian God. The Bible is not evidence, it's a book of fairy tales.
And you have zero evidence that there is no God. Everything you believe is a book of fairy tales. You have a blind faith one that only uneducated people have. You have zero evidence there is no God.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If the claim is that God exists and that God upholds the universe in an orderly and consistent fashion, with immaterial laws that should not exist in the absence of God
The problem is that you can replace the word "God" in the above sentence with myriad other things and the claim remains the same. Heck, even the word "God" is problematic. Do we mean the God of the Bible? Do we mean ANY all powerful being even if not the God of the Bible? Do we mean simply a ridiculously advanced race capable of creating a universe? For each of those three, the "evidence" would be equally compelling.
quote:And my point is that they are consistent with hundreds of other explanations too.
Not at all, at least not as I'm using them. My premise is that there is a God and those evidences are consistent with the existence of the God I believe in
quote:First off, I find that before I can accept your characterization of my premise, I need to know what the word "God" means when you use it.
Perhaps the issue is that your premise is that there is no God and therefore interpret those things differently
But, even assuming we're talking VERY generally, my "premise" is that if evidence supports 50 possible assertions, then saying that it is evidence of ONE of those possible assertions is incorrect.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 1:55 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
If you want better answers, ask better questions.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:12 pm to Wolfhound45
I have a couple of questions for clarity.
1. If a person believes the God of the Bible to be a completely refutable absurdity, does that make the person an "atheist"?
2. Do the theists in here think that proving that there could be A creator of some sort refutes #1's belief?
1. If a person believes the God of the Bible to be a completely refutable absurdity, does that make the person an "atheist"?
2. Do the theists in here think that proving that there could be A creator of some sort refutes #1's belief?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:20 pm to ShortyRob
quote:If starting with nothing, you can substitute any "divine" being you want, yes. The universe has qualities that a "creator" would need to transcend in order to be able to create it; they would have to be outside of the created universe in order to create the universe. That alone adds characteristics to this "creator" that would limit the number of possible options.
The problem is that you can replace the word "God" in the above sentence with myriad other things and the claim remains the same.
In order to "uphold" the universe, there would have to be some sort of omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent characteristics involved, which further limits the options we would have when trying to figure out who this "creator" is and makes them further transcendent above humanity.
quote:I don't see how a created being (advanced race) could create the universe and be created, themselves, but even if that option is eliminated, you're right that a generic argument for the God of the Bible or any all powerful being could be made from that evidence, but that's sort of my point. A God of some kind can be deducted from the evidence of the universe itself, even if specific characteristics are harder to formulate. In order to get to the God of the Bible, you have to go beyond just that one evidence, but I'm glad you admit that the it would be compelling by itself for some sort of generic deity (I doubt you meant it that way, though).
Heck, even the word "God" is problematic. Do we mean the God of the Bible? Do we mean ANY all powerful being even if not the God of the Bible? Do we mean simply a ridiculously advanced race capable of creating a universe? For each of those three, the "evidence" would be equally compelling
quote:While any of those evidences individually may not point to the specific God of the Bible, I believe all of them (and others not listed) point to the Biblical God as a whole. There are certain characteristics a being would have to possess in order to accomplish all of those things that eliminates a large number of those options. I believe that the Biblical God is the God of the universe, but even if I were to assume for the sake of argument that the Biblical God was just one option, there would have to be a very short list of options that meet the demands of those evidences that would have to have at least the characteristics of the Biblical God if not others.
And my point is that they are consistent with hundreds of other explanations too.
quote:My belief is in the God of the Bible, but for the sake of argument, I can step back to consider any "god" that has characteristics necessary to be a creator and sustainer of the universe, namely omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence.
First off, I find that before I can accept your characterization of my premise, I need to know what the word "God" means when you use it.
quote:I disagree. Evidence of many does not negate evidence of one of those many.
But, even assuming we're talking VERY generally, my "premise" is that if evidence supports 50 possible assertions, then saying that it is evidence of ONE of those possible assertions is incorrect.
Perhaps a poor analogy but if an eye-witness saw a perpetrator of a crime briefly and described them as a tall, slim male with a light complexion, and dark hair, that evidence is not eliminated or discounted just because it could describe a dozen people in the area of the crime at the same time. All it means is that it's not sufficient evidence by itself to convict an individual of a crime. Likewise, just because an evidence of the Biblical God could also apply to other options does not mean that it isn't an evidence for the Biblical God. It just means that evidence isn't exclusive to the Biblical God. That's why other evidences need to be examined and all evidences must be weighed in their totality.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:27 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If starting with nothing, you can substitute any "divine" being you want, yes. The universe has qualities that a "creator" would need to transcend in order to be able to create it; they would have to be outside of the created universe in order to create the universe. That alone adds characteristics to this "creator" that would limit the number of possible options.
Well, it limits it, but the number of options is not insignificant. Heck, I listed 3.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "uphold" here? So, I can't answer. But, I will say creating a universe doesn't, by default, mean omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent
In order to "uphold" the universe, there would have to be some sort of omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent characteristics involved
quote:Two things. 1. I said nothing about them not being created by something else. Hell, I'll even let you go with them being created by an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent being. Alas, if that being created the beings that later created us, then being "religious" about it would be kinda silly.
I don't see how a created being (advanced race) could create the universe and be created, themselves,
quote:False. Even if you 100% accept that there had to be a God to "begin" everything, that could be entirely unrelated to OUR universe. Hell, it could have occurred trillions of years before our universe. We could be like a 100th hand creation by the 100th super advanced race to sprout from the original creation. And, there's no saying that the ORIGINAL creator only did it once. Dude could've done it millions of times. We could be the 100th hand creation within ONE of millions of original creations that are all being ignored as the God moves on to the next one. Hell, we could be his billionth failed experiment in a line of billions.
A God of some kind can be deducted from the evidence of the universe itself, even if specific characteristics are harder to formulate.
You see the problem yet?
quote:
While any of those evidences individually may not point to the specific God of the Bible, I believe all of them (and others not listed) point to the Biblical God as a whole.
Well now we've completely leapt from evidence back to pure faith.
You'll note that at no point am I insulting here. I'm not THAT atheist.
quote:Absolutely correct.
Perhaps a poor analogy but if an eye-witness saw a perpetrator of a crime briefly and described them as a tall, slim male with a light complexion, and dark hair, that evidence is not eliminated or discounted just because it could describe a dozen people in the area of the crime at the same time.
BUT. If you say, "Hey, based on that evidence, I know it was JOHN, I'm going to point out to you that you know no such thing".
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The universe has qualities that a "creator" would need to transcend in order to be able to create it
No, it doesn't. A lack of explanation does not equal a creator. The rest of your nonsense can be categorized similarly.
Page 17 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News