Justforfun000 wrote:That does not in any way show me to be a bigot. there is a completely different essence of points of view between people who accept things on faith OVER logic. A definite believer is going to think that logic must be wrong in favour of their belief no matter HOW well presented. So their own belief system precludes them from being objective. Atheists are by and large very rational people that will accept ANY point of view that can be backed up by logic and evidence. Including claims of religion. So it is a perfectly fair statement.
No it's not. It's assuming that all atheists are rational and logical and that Christians are illogical. You are saying that I am wrong to say that faith and logic are compatible, but are then advising me to listen to atheists when they say that because faith and logic cannot co-exist. Circular reasoning.
Funny that so many people on a board like this that would react like this. It's hardly an objective group. There are plenty of people outside of here who agree with me. Your numbers are irrelevant. All that matters is the logic and veracity of arguments. So far, the bulk of comments have been ridiculing arguments I have not made and deriding attitudes I do not have.
Oh? Now who's making judgements? Why do you think you have the right to claim people on here are not an objective group?
Because of the way that they act. Because they hold an opinion on the subject which therefore makes them no more objective than me.
They have shown nothing BUT objectivity.
That would be funny if you didn't believe it. If they were objective, they would read my arguments and respond intelligently to them, rather than responding with flames to arguments they pretend I have made.
I have already explained how there is still differing viewpoints between members on this board but they still do not reject logic when it is presented to them with a firm backing.
My experience has shown that they would prefer not to see the evidence, instead seeing arguments I have not made. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding, but when you've tried to correct these misunderstandings a dozen times, it gets hard to believe.
Of COURSE there are many people out there who agree with you. the point is WHY they agree with you. Is it because of sharing the same FAITH or because you proved your views?
I can't speak for everyone. A lot of people agree with me because the evidence has lead them to the same conclusion.
As far as ridiculing your arguments, people would not be ABLE to ridicule them if they were intrinsically sound. You repeatedly post premises without foundation and you expect people to accept them as proof. That is why they are being ridiculed. Again, you do not seem to comprehend what constitutes valid proof, or even logical thought in it's entirety.
That's simply not true. A lot of the time I have been attacked, it is over a point I have
not made, but that people claim I have. When I challenge people to show where I made the point, I am ignored or just called an idiot.
You demonstrated that is EXACTLY what you believe by your blanket statement above: "Funny that so many people on a board like this that would react like this. It's hardly an objective group."
How would you take that comment? Looks like you are lumping people together into a catch-all category quite nicely to me.
It's similar to saying that everyone here is human. If you hold an opinion on a subject, you're not going to be entirely objective. If you state that something is impossible having previously said that it is impossible to prove or disprove it, then you're certainly not being objective. In fact, you're being self-contradictory.
Well...That may be true for SOME things you have posted. I wouldn't know because I did not read every debate you have been involved in, but from what I HAVE read you are definitely guilty of my last inference regarding many arguments you have posted.
Not true. I suggest you go back and read all the posts here because most of my arguments have been misrepresented from the beginning by other people.
Jonathan. No. Everyone here is listening to you.
See above for some reasons why you are mistaken on that point.
The problem is you are trying to equate the word listen with "agree".
No I'm not. Unless you mean 'agree that i said something' If I call a pen blue and everyone else says I've just called it red, is it unreasonable for me to get annoyed and think they're not listening?
The other problem is that when you are making certain arguments in your favour, you are using both faith-related anecdotes and blanket statements such as the Bible's are backed by more evidence than almost anything in our recorded history. The very vagueness of your claims are why people may be interpreting what you believe by what you are saying. You have to be more cogent and specific in your points to people or they are naturally going to interpret what you say by their understanding of your wording.
I have been quite cogent. Unless I start using one-syllable words, I don't see what the problem is. I say i think I'm as guilty of sin as everyone else and no better than anyone here, then people accuse me of taking the moral high ground and assuming superiority over everyone. I'm not sure how to make that any simpler for people to understand. The problem isn't the words - it's the mindset of the people reading them.
As for the evidence for the bible, I've repeatedly stated that I'm putting the evidence together. I'm very busy however and such a task takes time. You may, however, be pleased to hear that the last article on page 18 contains the beginnings of my evidence.
And you are deliberately fibbing, albeit probably unintentionally, when you claim that people's viewpoints are not more objective than yours.
? You're contradicting yourself and being incredibly cynical there.
You have one big problem with claiming to be objective here. You admit that you believe the bible to be truthful. So anytime there is a conflict between what the Bible says and our known reality,
What 'known reality'? What occasions are you thinking of?
you try to justify it by saying that in some cases it is being poetic or allegorical, and in others it's the fault of translation, and so forth.
Which are all perfectly valid. Whether I am correct or not as a matter of opinion unless you were there at the writing of the bible and know the intentions of the author.
This is NOT being objective because YOUR MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP. Don't you see this? You are stating your arguments from the FOREGONE CONCLUSION that the Bible is inerrant. This is why you are not being objective.
I have come to that conclusion based on evidence. I did not start with it as an unquestionable premise, unlike what others have claimed. Ignore what Wong says about me and read my posts for yourself. The people here have made up their minds and call their opinions facts when they say that it is impossible for the bible to be correct - they do not see any other possible interpretations other than the ones they have drawn. They think that they are the ultimate arbiters of morality and more knowledgeable about historical accuracy than men who have devoted decades to studying the subject. Why can't you see that?
It is my
opinion, based on the
evidence of history (among other things) that the bible is correct. It is a
subjective view, taken as a conclusion from
objective sources. I have said in the past that there are other possible conclusion which can be drawn from the objective evidence. I think the other conclusions are wrong, but I acknowledge that it is possible to draw them. the majority of people I have spoken to here say that their conclusion is the only possible one. That is what I have trouble with.
The people here have said quite fairly that they do NOT deride people for having faith in spiritual matters even though they choose themselves not to believe in the possibility. They only ask that you admit that where objective reasoning is possible, you accept that it is the final say because that is only what is sensible. You could drop apples from a tree all day long telling people below that they aren't really hitting them in the head because you believe that God plucked them from the sky before hitting them, but to everyone ELSE you will look like an idiot because the proof is in what is *drumroll* objectively happening.
Actually, if God
was dropping them, then that would be the objective reality and your example falls to pieces. The thing is, unless god has said he's dropping them, there's no reason to think he is, which is why they would be an idiot.
This may seem like a trite example, but it is still completely applicable to the difference between faith and reality. Some things are unseen and untestable and therefore are fair game for faith and belief. No scientist in the world worth his salt would argue that they have no right to say you are wrong. But anything that CAN be measured and evaluated by our physical universe IS in their bailiwick and their judgements are supreme.
All a scientist can do is say how he thinks the universe appears to work. He can not ever be certain that that is how to does work. Neither can he by his observations constrain the power of the supernatural. Science has no business dictating to religion. God is not constrained by science. that doesn't mean science isn't useful, it just means that God doesn't have to obey it.
For God's sake man, even from your point of view this is the world God made and the universe he set his OWN laws in. Would you say that he is going to deliberately deceive everyone as to the nature of reality?
As I have said countless times, I do not believe that the universe was made only 6000 years ago. however, I would not regard it as a deception if it had been. God never claimed it was 15 billion years old. It would have to appear pretty old in order to support life. If he'd plonked man down onto a 6 year old world, there'd be no plants or animals to feed him. If plants and animals were created already several years old (and man for that matter), why not the rest of the universe?
I made it quite clear in my application and interview how important my beliefs were to me. Fortunately people here are tolerant enough to think that people here don't discriminate on the bass of belief. Merit and ability are far more important. such a pity the same attitude isn't to be found everywhere in the world, don't you think?
Just because they accept that you have personal beliefs, don't for a second think that they would allow you to use them as an excuse to say something is the way it is because the Bible says so. Try it and see how quickly they insist you learn what your textbooks say instead.[/quote]
As I have said countless times before,
,I do not make scientific claims based on the evidence of the Bible. What is so hard to understand about that? Science models the way the world appears to work. If god says it works a different way, it doesn't matter, as long as our laws and theories still model the way it appears to. There is
no conflict. I do not use science to tell me who God is and I do not use God to form scientific theories. Stop acting like I do.
