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

Okay, so let's get to the bottom of this

#211JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/9/2013 11:10:18 PM
To be fair, JC kind of has an abrasive approach himself. He literally puts words in my mouth and strawmans my perspective. He acts like we atheists are too dumb and one dimensional to "get it" and that he;s oh so superior because he's open to other means to finding truth. Except he doesn't really propose anything worth mentioning and simply attacks my view.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#212Faust_8Posted 5/9/2013 11:10:58 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
JonWood007 posted...
It's not condescending or arrogant, in a forum discussing religion that is not a strictly christian site or whatever, to ask for reasons for belief.

I don't have a problem with asking for beliefs. I was referring to things like Faust's recent post which said JC's methods were hot air, and didn't contribute anything to mankind's understanding (whatever that means).

If JC used a particular method to come to his beliefs, who are you guys to judge them so harshly? If you guys are interested in our beliefs, accept them for what they are; don't make the environment so hostile.


Maybe it wouldn't seem so rude if you actually read what I put.

I'm saying that IF he can't even show a single example where his "method" discovered a real truth, then he has nothing to stand on.

Any rudeness you feel is because we've spent pages on this and he has yet to really support his side, he just--rather arrogantly IMO--demands that his method get the same recognition and respect as science when he is simply refusing to show WHY it earns that status.

Because so far he's been accusing us of assuming too many things when he apparently assumes his position so hard, he thinks all he has to do is insist it's good enough and that's that.

He's been saying science doesn't work for everything. All right. Show us something else that works better. He has not explained what a non-scientific truth is. He has not explained how we go about finding them out. He just says they exist and we can. Somehow.

So far all I've gotten is a non-scientific truth...isn't a scientific truth. And we find out about them by...reading the Bible.

He has yet to try harder than that. Frankly, I find that much more rude than (gasp!) calling it hot air if he doesn't shape up.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#213Moorish_IdolPosted 5/9/2013 11:21:48 PM
Okay. I read through the past couple pages again. I feel like JC's points aren't much far off from mine (minus all the Bible stuff, of course), and I do think you guys may be misunderstanding him (and us), truthfully. I'm not saying he's explained himself perfectly, though.

But regardless of any of that, at this point I think JC just needs to say the reasons for his beliefs. Simply because I think it will illustrate his point better if you guys actually have reasons to match his approach. Then we'll see if there are still any misunderstandings.

So I apologize for saying you were acting arrogant.
#214kozlo100Posted 5/9/2013 11:30:35 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
I still love you. <3


I know you do... Just have to make the point sometimes. ;-)

I would like to see some responses to my math post though. I feel like that is an aspect of this debate that shouldn't be overlooked.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#215JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/9/2013 11:39:27 PM(edited)
^^Yep. I'm getting tired of this "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" approach. And I know that statement is gonna rub people the wrong way, but it's basically a quote I lifted from elsewhere. I still find it relevant. Not all knowledge is equal, not all methods are equal. The guy just attacks our worldview as limited and one dimensional while not doing anything to actually support his view. And the little he has shown is not promising. Quoting Bible verses is not gonna convince someone who is skeptical of the Bible. He also said he starts out his worldview assuming God exists...but he doesn't give a good reason for why he does it. He just assumes it and thinks that this is somehow equally valid to not assuming it like we do. Which isn't true at all because if he actually honestly applied that logic everywhere, he'd be accepting a ton of contradictory bullcrap that isn't true. IMO, the second you begin assuming one thing for no good reason, you might as well accept them all. otherwise you're just being a hypocrite. And if you do have a reason for assuming that one thing, why not show us?

You see, JC's approach is PRECISELY why I am acting this way in this topic. I got tired of this on every other topic, between many of the theists pulling this crap. And this is why I'm being so hardheaded. I'm to the point where my approach basically amounts to "pics or get out", except said in a more intellectual manner. Again, I'm tired of the crap. I'm tired of the evasive answers, mental acrobatics, and mind games theists try to pull on this board. I want straight talk. And I'm not getting it. Heck, I make a topic asking for straight talk and more people end up complaining about this than actually going there. it's very frustrating. This is exactly where i did not want this topic to go. I want straight answers. So I'm gonna ask JC one more time, DO YOU HAVE A VALID REASON TO BELIEVE IN GOD THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? If so, then do so. No acrobatics, no evasive bullcrap attacking my worldview for being one dimensional when not proposing diddly squat to support his own. If not, then get the heck out of my topic, you're wasting my time. And if your evidence is anecdotal, that's nice, I respect your reasons to believe, but at the same time you can't expect them to convince me, so we're at an impasse. At that point let's just agree to disagree.


...seriously. I'm tired of trying to nail jello to the wall here.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#216Moorish_IdolPosted 5/9/2013 11:56:32 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Moorish_Idol posted...
I still love you. <3


I know you do... Just have to make the point sometimes. ;-)

I would like to see some responses to my math post though. I feel like that is an aspect of this debate that shouldn't be overlooked.

I agreed with your post entirely. Particularly:

"I don't think any of that really says anything regarding spiritual knowledge, but I do feel it shows that there are paths to knowledge that don't involve the hypothesize-test-observe methodology of science and empiricism."

I've said before that empiricism isn't the only way to know things. I personally would extend faith and trust (what could perhaps be called "spiritual knowledge") into categories of knowledge as well. After all, when someone says "I love you" to me, it'd be awful to think "I'll believe it when I see the brain scans." I trust that they are telling the truth; I recognize how I feel, how they feel -- I "know" they love me.

(Sorry if that was a bit of a sappy extrapolation from your point about math.)

If I may speak for the Christians, I reckon they similarly trust God loves them, because they believe in the Bible which says, plainly, that he does; and since they have determined God was the author, why would they need further evidence? For them, it is a truth without empirical proof. They know God loves them.

And for me personally, as a deist/theist, I trust that philosophical discourse can teach me about things of which "knowledge" would otherwise be unobtainable.

As someone who's occupation and education deal with purely materialist knowledge, I'm quite thankful for the various means of knowledge outside of empiricism. When it comes to spiritual things, spiritual qualities like the above-mentioned love, the materialist interpretation is just so... boring. :P
#217WelshGamer82Posted 5/10/2013 2:28:54 AM
Moorish_Idol posted...

I like you.
#218gamestop27Posted 5/10/2013 6:08:52 AM(edited)
JonWood007 posted...
Offer your best reasons to believe in God. No bullcrap. No "you gotta have faith", no vague responses or dancing around the issue. Just valid reasons to believe in God. Go, go, GO!


The supposed "best" reasons to believe in a god boil down to bullcrap, which is what I'm guessing is filled throughout the pages of this thread.
---
The one weakness of any protagonist or hero-like character is a Cut Scene.~ KaiserNeko
#219JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 5/10/2013 9:31:01 AM
"I don't think any of that really says anything regarding spiritual knowledge, but I do feel it shows that there are paths to knowledge that don't involve the hypothesize-test-observe methodology of science and empiricism."

I've said before that empiricism isn't the only way to know things. I personally would extend faith and trust (what could perhaps be called "spiritual knowledge") into categories of knowledge as well. After all, when someone says "I love you" to me, it'd be awful to think "I'll believe it when I see the brain scans." I trust that they are telling the truth; I recognize how I feel, how they feel -- I "know" they love me.

(Sorry if that was a bit of a sappy extrapolation from your point about math.)

If I may speak for the Christians, I reckon they similarly trust God loves them, because they believe in the Bible which says, plainly, that he does; and since they have determined God was the author, why would they need further evidence? For them, it is a truth without empirical proof. They know God loves them.


And while that's all well and good, looking around at the universe I see absolutely nothing to support this. Only an illusory way of looking at the world, similar to the matrix or the shadows in plato's cave. There's no real evidence that the Christian view is correct, honestly, IMO it poses a lot of problems, and if you apply occam's razor, I think we should just do away with such views because they are unfounded and just add complexity for no real reason. A lot of feelings of trust, etc., are more psychological IMO than real.

I mean, when you have a person who says they love you, you can see them. With God, you can't. You don't actually know if they're there or not. You're just believing something without any evidence. I tried this before, it didn't work, and I felt like to keep this up was to be willfully ignorant.

What you're referring to as knowledge here is not knowledge. It's a bunch of assumptions. I mean, I can grow to accept philosophy, given a valid argument for something is posed, but this stuff you're referring to right here isn't knowledge. No more than (blacks ops spoilers) Mason "knew" Reznov was there at lwast. Seriously. Religion comes off sorta like that at this point to me.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#220Moorish_IdolPosted 5/10/2013 10:27:49 AM
JonWood007 posted...
There's no real evidence that the Christian view is correct, honestly, IMO it poses a lot of problems, and if you apply occam's razor, I think we should just do away with such views because they are unfounded and just add complexity for no real reason.

Do away with spiritual and Christian views? So much for wanting to hear arguments for themů

I mean, when you have a person who says they love you, you can see them. With God, you can't. You don't actually know if they're there or not. You're just believing something without any evidence. I tried this before, it didn't work, and I felt like to keep this up was to be willfully ignorant.

Without empirical evidence, sure. But Christians are okay with that, and many are fairly certain they feel God's love to boot. You can psychoanalyze their feelings all you want from your worldview and come up with non-god explanations, and if you don't feel good there then you are free to leave Christianity anytime you want (which you did).

I don't see why this is a problem. It's just an opposing worldview. Unless you count that as a problem.

What you're referring to as knowledge here is not knowledge.

This is precisely what Kozlo was saying; and also what I and JC have been saying. You define knowledge as "empirical knowledge only"; we define it as more than that. Even if you disagree with doing so, you have to learn to acknowledge our point of view otherwise you're not going to understand where we're coming from.

Nobody is asking you to adopt our worldview. We're trying to help you understand it, but you are resisting that by saying things like the above quote.