This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Naturalism, atheism, and requests for extraordinary evidence. Illogical?

#81Proudclad(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2013 5:28:39 PM
fudrick posted...
Proudclad posted...
An obligation? If you insist on participating in this kind of discourse, it's intellectually honest to address them. But an obligation? Obligated to who? God? Society? At this point we'd talk about morality and obligation and that topic always sucks, lol.

I think it's enough for me to say that I disagree with them, don't you think? In what way would I have to address those atheists in order to remain intellectually honest?

If they are wrong and you know that they are wrong and you tolerate their incorrect argumentation, wouldn't that indicate that you're dishonest? If a theist says something wrong, would you correct them or contradict them?
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
#82JonWood007Posted 1/22/2013 5:34:35 PM
1) You just restated the point I was arguing against. It's not a strawman, you're saying to know God I have to make an effort, he doesnt just reveal himself, and here, you can always say if people dont know they didnt try hard enough.

2) The point is you might as well be speaking a different language, arguing like that. What's convincing to believers, is not convincing to nonbelievers. And I'm very familiar with the code believers speak in, and I know that the entire thing betrays a bias.

3) No, the point is you're not demonstrating your claim. If God talk to you himself, why could you not show him to me? As for just interpreting things that way coming from others, coincidences, that doesnt count at all.

4) "Eat of this fruit and you will surely die". Apparently they did...800 years later.

5) Observation is the big thing behind science. Granted science is more rigorous, point is, you're not getting very far just by thinking. Science helps refine thinking though. it helps us to avoid fallacies. id likely still be a christian if science didnt exist, because looking at things unscientifically can give you a flawed view of the world.

6) I have anecdotes that speak differently. The thing about anecdotes is that they're not necessarily reliable or speak to the truth. Also, most anecdotes are coincidences, etc. Some are flat out lies. Tell me, do you believe every anecdote about alien abductions is true? if so, I have a bridge to sell you. I dont deny there's no possibility of God speaking to people, but I'm not convinced without hard evidence. Anyone can make up an anecdote.

All illusion? Everything you see now can be an illusion. Even your atheistic naturalistic worldview. You have blind faith that your senses are trustworthy.

I have no reason to beleive I'm a brain in a jar, I could be, but have no reason to believe so, and it's pretty irrelevant to my current situation.

No one said that not knowing the cause means God did it. Yet another strawman. You've argued a lot of strawmen here. I never argued God-of-the-gaps. I've routinely said I want to pursue God so that I can see God to impossible things. Not things that are merely unexplained. You're assuming a science-of-the-gaps, it seems, where you think everything must necessarily have a natural explanation. This is a jump in logic.

Yeah, you did. You do something and then you say you didn't, and then reiterate the same viewpoint with the fallacy.

You seem big on the whole concept that because God has not been disproven, you don't know that it's not real (or absence of evidence, not evidence of absence). Also, a lot of these so called claims about something definitely coming from God ARE god of gaps fallacies. People will say, it happened, I dont know how, but it did, God did it. Every Christian in my life, including myself, has done this.

You're contradicting yourself. You said that God revealed himself to people in the OT, and now you're arguing that God showed himself only 2,000 years ago. Make up your mind and decide which argument you are making.

That's kind of a pithy and irrelevant point to me. The Bible was completed 2000 years ago. The entire fruition of his plans happened 2000 years ago. What about the sins of everyone before that?
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#83fudrickPosted 1/22/2013 5:40:38 PM
Proudclad posted...
If they are wrong and you know that they are wrong and you tolerate their incorrect argumentation, wouldn't that indicate that you're dishonest? If a theist says something wrong, would you correct them or contradict them?

It completely depends on the circumstance. If an atheist professes a positive belief in the nonexistence of a deity, I would probably not contradict the atheist. If a theist professes a positive belief in the existence of a deity, I would probably not contradict the theist. If either one of them begins to attempt to support their claims, and I disagree with that support (as I likely would), then I would become more likely to contradict either one of them,
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#84JonWood007Posted 1/22/2013 5:40:45 PM

We can both argue with links all day long. Christians don't say it's one big book because it very clearly isn't. I've studied it in context and perhaps you should stop being condescending. Secular studies on the Bible necessarily date or assume things as having been written after the fact, given that prophecies are auto-deemed impossible or necessary fabrications.

I will admit that infidels link is biased, but that yale link is reliable. It's scholarly. I recommend you listen to the lectures in their NT/OT classes and you'll learn a lot. The thing is, your link is garbage, you wanna say the same about infidels, fair enough, but the OYC course is something you should pay attention to.

Animals, plants, and viruses don't have souls. What sets us apart from other life is our extended mental faculties. In other words, Logos. If you take ANYTHING, including science, outside of its context naturally it's going to spin on its head.

What exactly does intelligence have to do with having an eternal soul and experiencing the afterlife? How does that work?

First solve the problem of humanity's evil and then you can ask God why he lets people die. Furthermore, finite suffering is not an argument against the God who would've also established an eternal heaven.

What does eternal hell have to do with this? I'm just saying, creatures suffered before we were around to sin.

Other than that, that's not really an argument, just a catchy way to try to shut an atheist up. It's a legit question, and you're not giving it a reasoned answer. Stop dodging the question.

It doesn't allow rape. Circumcision wasn't even a crucial part of Judaism, and God wanted circumcised hearts, not body parts. If someone wanted to make a mark on their flesh, it's their choice. I firmly oppose circumcision. The death penalty was to show the severity of breaking the covenant, yet people had sacrifices to do away with the death penalty. If they didn't have a way out, all the Jews would've died since everyone was guilty of something.

If you have to do away or suspend a law in some way because everyone would suffer the death penalty for it, you have a bad law. I suggest that you really weigh the consequences of our sins vs the weird and screwed up punishments your god apparently demands for them. If you have to kill everyone to prevent everyone from sinning, you're not governing properly.

Also, I'm addressing Judaism, because Christianity is based on it. When you mean the law, Christians normally mean the law of moses. You're dodging the question.
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#85XjphPosted 1/23/2013 8:38:39 AM
Subernatural (adj): Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Once we understand it, it is no longer supernatural. Going back to your original post, I would edit your "circle" of events as follows:

1) The atheist asks for extraordinary evidence of a supernatural phenomenon.
2) Those things which would be extraordinary evidence are those things that defy our current understanding of natural laws.
3) The atheist is asking for something that wouldn't exist within currently understood natural laws.
4) Thus the atheist investigates the supernatural and if presented with definitive evidence, determines the laws which govern it, making it no loner supernatural.
--- - Too Much Steam In Too Little Space
Playing all my Steam games, at long last. (On Hiatus)
#86JonWood007Posted 1/23/2013 10:02:28 AM
Well, when you really think about it, does God HAVE to be supernatural? If we found God in the cycle above, he wouldnt be supernatural, but he'd still be God...and an integral part of this universe.
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768