Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

atheism attempting to redefine evidence?

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 12:57:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have encountered many atheist outlets both on the internet and here on this forum that appear to be trying to redefine the definition of evidence to exclude all evidence for Christianity.

First,
What is Evidence?
From the Oxford Dictionaries –
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Now this is a well-established definition of evidence.

You might wonder why post the definition?

Atheism attempts to refute this long held common definition of the English-speaking world.

Let me state the obvious of the definition.

-Personal testimonies are and have always been used as valid forms of evidence.
-Documents are and have always been used as valid forms of evidence.
-Material objects are and have always been used as valid forms of evidence.

You might again ask why state the obvious?

Straightforward, atheism is attempting throw out ‘documentation' and ‘personal testimonies' to rest solely on ‘material objects' as valid forms of evidence.

They will deny traditional valid forms of evidence and claim them invalid.

Most will then ask why would an atheist do this?
The primary reason is their desire to eliminate the massive amounts of direct evidence for non-physical or non-natural or non-material entities that support the existence of God.

This will range across metaphysics assertion of numbers as ‘real objects', to self-awareness being ‘real' to Christianity and our assertion of a non-physical God being real.

Typically, the rationale is to eliminate the actual evidence for the non-physical entities that truly exist and assert a positive case for atheism.

How would this new definition play out during a discussion with an atheist? If these atheistic responses sound logical to you, you might have been indoctrinated by a militant atheist….


Historical Metaphysicist's Assertion - Numbers are real, numerical values are real objects.. They have real properties though they do not have "material" or physical properties.

Atheistic response – they are not real, show me this essence of a number.

Metaphysicists response – we see the commutative properties of multiplication for example. Numbers interact as real objects, in an indirect way, not in a material way. You cannot change/affect, that is to say, touch or even ‘harm' these transcendent objects, however they play a very indirect ‘real' role in your life. They possess a non-material but ‘real' essence.

What you appear to be asking for is a material essence for numerical values. They are not material and do not have a material essence.

Atheistic response – you cannot give "actual" evidence for numbers. Just some non-physical property? That is not evidence.

Metaphysicists response – You cannot demand material evidence for a ‘real' non-material object. That is absurd. That is merely presupposing that to be ‘real' something must be material. That is stating that existence is limited to the material.



It can be seen through this illustration, that if the definition of evidence is ONLY material objects, then anything that is not material or physical gets eliminated.

A militant atheist will disregard any non-material evidence out of hand.

I will use a second illustration


Christian theist assertion – God is real. Christians interact with their God all of the time.

Atheist response – Give me evidence for this God.

Christian theist response - Well, the fact that the Christian Church exists, and the vast majority of historical theologians have interacted with the God. You can ask countless Christians that have interacted with God that are living right this minute. We have many documents compiled into a Bible about past historical interactions with God.

Atheist response – A 2000 year old document does not equate as evidence. I could write anything I want on a document. Testimonies are not evidence. Testimonies are unreliable. Anyone can make up, lie or say anything they want. Do you have any actual evidence?

Christian theist response – The documents span over 3500 years. There are even more documents claimed to be older. These documents are not written by just anyone. They have been handed down from the people who had the power and authority from generation to generation. We are not talking about letters found or made up that people just blindly believe in them. These are handed down from the Church Fathers.
As to testimonies, we are not talking about citing the claims of liars and deviants of society. We are talking highly educated pastors, priest, monks and theologians. These people claim God interacts with them. You cannot toss out authoritative testimony on a whim.



These illustrations show that the atheist must limit the definition of evidence or the atheistic philosophy is forced to deal with an overwhelming quantitative and qualitative amount of evidence.

Quality – We are not citing drug addicts, hucksters and social deviants claims of interaction with God but countless educated, well adjusted Pastors, Priests, Theologians and Monks claim this interaction.
The documents are well attested to by early church fathers, tested by history and validated by current Pastors, Priests, Theologians and Monks.

Quantity – you can directly go to these people, get the testimony for yourself. You can haul in countless individuals and document their claims. You can examine both the recorded and present claims to then see the overarching consistency that permeates the claims.

Disassociative claims – Any of the claims of other gods can be categorized and be easily delineated that indeed these people have encountered different gods.

Falsifiable – Now atheists will claim none of the non-material claims are scientifically falsifiable. This is not genuine to the reality of the circumstance. The reason elements of testimonies are un-falsifiable is the fact that we as humans are limited beings. We simply cannot go back in time. That does not mean they are not ‘recordable' and comparable. Scientists daily compare recorded data.
-Testimonies are ‘recordable' and comparable despite our being limited by time.
-Documents are recordings of the past. The quality and quantity of documents can easily be compared.

Contamination – The atheists will point to contamination in documentation and testimonies repeatedly. Anything can be made up and anyone can lie.
They will point out that in courtrooms across the world people lie and documentation is falsified.
This first denies the fact that material falsifications occur repeatedly in equal proportions.
(Global Warming data falsification, scientists making up their studies etc..)
It also denies that interpretations of material data are often inaccurate or within statistical variations and guardrails.
-To compound this problem to deny testimony as a whole is making anecdotal personal assessments on the character of millions of people fallaciously.
-Turning known liars against their cohorts brings about most lies within courtroom testimony. This is different than a scholar's testimony.
-It is also makes anecdotal assessments of the qualities and veracity of documentation fallaciously.

To summarize,
Christianity has a massive quality of source.
Both the Bible and the claims of personal experience with God have been vetted by countless millions of scholars throughout history.

No worldview can boast the quantity and quality of scholasticism comparable to Christianity.

Christianities have clear evidence that is quality evidence, massive quantities of recorded evidence for review, evidence that is falsifiable due to the quality and quantity of the recordings, little to no contamination in the vetted evidence and any disassociate claims assert the Christian narrative of supernatural enemies of God.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:33:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally testify that your god doesn't exist.

If you're not an atheist now, then that demonstrates the objective value you place on personal testimonies.

Q.E.D.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:33:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
I personally testify that your god doesn't exist.

If you're not an atheist now, then that demonstrates the objective value you place on personal testimonies.

Q.E.D.

No it doesn't. His argument rests on the sheer size and age of such testimonies.

But seriously: stop it! JUST STOP IT! Stop before you're ahead! TURN BACK NOW!
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:35:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:28:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
*inb4 atheists facepalm*

Lol, Dawkins is clearly led by cowardice and fear.
He runs around yelling 'they got nothing' when Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.

Facepalm at this point only equates to slapping yourself.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:37:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:35:14 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:28:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
*inb4 atheists facepalm*

Lol, Dawkins is clearly led by cowardice and fear.
He runs around yelling 'they got nothing' when Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.

You know, you throw around these atheist names as if we worship them and I'll be honest - haven't read any of their stuff. Come to my conclusion on my own, so stop throwing all that around. That'd be like me saying that obviously you take all of your lessons from Leo X. :P


Facepalm at this point only equates to slapping yourself.

Wow. You know what a facepalm is. +1 forum point
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.

I applaud the idea not to partake of a discussion to avoid a tumult, however 'boycotting' is an act of aggression and was clearly meant to be in that fashion.

To attempt to divert to the 'highroad' so suddenly does not due your position credit. A more smooth transition would be warranted in the future rather than a quick jerking action.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:35:14 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:28:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
*inb4 atheists facepalm*

Lol, Dawkins is clearly led by cowardice and fear.
He runs around yelling 'they got nothing' when Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.

Facepalm at this point only equates to slapping yourself.

I'm not a fan of Dawkins either and I think if many atheists had their way they would outlaw religion, which doesn't sit well with me and I'm anti-clerical.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:39:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:33:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
I personally testify that your god doesn't exist.

If you're not an atheist now, then that demonstrates the objective value you place on personal testimonies.

Q.E.D.

As stated earlier the testimonies are not known hucksters and frauds.

All claims and testimonies =/= liars, frauds and hucksters.

The world does not function as you suggest in your reply, albeit pithy.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:37:06 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:35:14 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:28:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
*inb4 atheists facepalm*

Lol, Dawkins is clearly led by cowardice and fear.
He runs around yelling 'they got nothing' when Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.

You know, you throw around these atheist names as if we worship them and I'll be honest - haven't read any of their stuff. Come to my conclusion on my own, so stop throwing all that around. That'd be like me saying that obviously you take all of your lessons from Leo X. :P


Facepalm at this point only equates to slapping yourself.

Wow. You know what a facepalm is. +1 forum point

Amazing similiarity to your inert tactics and overall conclusions. Simply Amazing! Will miracles never cease?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:43:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:39:00 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:35:14 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:28:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
*inb4 atheists facepalm*

Lol, Dawkins is clearly led by cowardice and fear.
He runs around yelling 'they got nothing' when Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.

Facepalm at this point only equates to slapping yourself.

I'm not a fan of Dawkins either and I think if many atheists had their way they would outlaw religion, which doesn't sit well with me and I'm anti-clerical.

Fair enough. I am just tired of the atheist mantra. I love having educated discussions with all people of merit, but I constantly have certain periphery discussions about how Christians have 'no evidence'!

Nothing could be further from the truth.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:44:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:38:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.

I applaud the idea not to partake of a discussion to avoid a tumult, however 'boycotting' is an act of aggression and was clearly meant to be in that fashion.

Think of it as saving you the headache of a bunch of young, naive, ignorant atheists (as you see it) giving you the arguments you've already heard many times before and solved (I assume).


To attempt to divert to the 'highroad' so suddenly does not due your position credit. A more smooth transition would be warranted in the future rather than a quick jerking action.

I don't think it does - I recognize you have extraordinary faith, and are proud of this, about your religion. I doubt we meek and yet-to-experience-revelation youth will change your experienced, logical, and correct conclusions, Gil. How could I believe "taking the highroad" would support atheism?

Gil, I want to ask you to join me then, if it is the highroad. I can recognize differences, and I personally think if the differences make you a good person, the differences aren't bad. What do you say, Gil?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:47:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:43:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:39:00 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:35:14 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:28:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
*inb4 atheists facepalm*

Lol, Dawkins is clearly led by cowardice and fear.
He runs around yelling 'they got nothing' when Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.

Facepalm at this point only equates to slapping yourself.

I'm not a fan of Dawkins either and I think if many atheists had their way they would outlaw religion, which doesn't sit well with me and I'm anti-clerical.

Fair enough. I am just tired of the atheist mantra. I love having educated discussions with all people of merit, but I constantly have certain periphery discussions about how Christians have 'no evidence'!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well I'm not a christian so I could argue you don't have much evidence, but I won't go there. :P
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:49:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:44:12 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:38:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.

I applaud the idea not to partake of a discussion to avoid a tumult, however 'boycotting' is an act of aggression and was clearly meant to be in that fashion.

Think of it as saving you the headache of a bunch of young, naive, ignorant atheists (as you see it) giving you the arguments you've already heard many times before and solved (I assume).

I have no desire to save a headache I do not possess.



To attempt to divert to the 'highroad' so suddenly does not due your position credit. A more smooth transition would be warranted in the future rather than a quick jerking action.

I don't think it does - I recognize you have extraordinary faith, and are proud of this, about your religion. I doubt we meek and yet-to-experience-revelation youth will change your experienced, logical, and correct conclusions, Gil. How could I believe "taking the highroad" would support atheism?

You dodged to the intellectual 'highroad' when you ridicule attempt did not come off correctly.


Gil, I want to ask you to join me then, if it is the highroad. I can recognize differences, and I personally think if the differences make you a good person, the differences aren't bad. What do you say, Gil?

I believe we are on a debate forum, for the purpose of debating ideas and developing arguments.
Why on earth would you recommend that silence would be the best approach to such a concept within such a location?

Why try and bring me upon this 'highroad' with you?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:53:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:47:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:43:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:39:00 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:35:14 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:28:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
*inb4 atheists facepalm*

Lol, Dawkins is clearly led by cowardice and fear.
He runs around yelling 'they got nothing' when Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.

Facepalm at this point only equates to slapping yourself.

I'm not a fan of Dawkins either and I think if many atheists had their way they would outlaw religion, which doesn't sit well with me and I'm anti-clerical.

Fair enough. I am just tired of the atheist mantra. I love having educated discussions with all people of merit, but I constantly have certain periphery discussions about how Christians have 'no evidence'!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well I'm not a christian so I could argue you don't have much evidence, but I won't go there. :P

Lacking or not having much evidence would be different than Zero evidence as militant periphery atheists 'chant'.

Additionally, your ability to weigh or determine valid evidence would need to be assessed prior to citing yourself as an authority in the process of determining the validity of evidence.

Your opionion =/= little evidence for Christianity.

A key component to the OP and any scientific process is the "quality of source".
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:57:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:49:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:44:12 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:38:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.

I applaud the idea not to partake of a discussion to avoid a tumult, however 'boycotting' is an act of aggression and was clearly meant to be in that fashion.

Think of it as saving you the headache of a bunch of young, naive, ignorant atheists (as you see it) giving you the arguments you've already heard many times before and solved (I assume).

I have no desire to save a headache I do not possess.



To attempt to divert to the 'highroad' so suddenly does not due your position credit. A more smooth transition would be warranted in the future rather than a quick jerking action.

I don't think it does - I recognize you have extraordinary faith, and are proud of this, about your religion. I doubt we meek and yet-to-experience-revelation youth will change your experienced, logical, and correct conclusions, Gil. How could I believe "taking the highroad" would support atheism?

You dodged to the intellectual 'highroad' when you ridicule attempt did not come off correctly.

Of course - this IS the best way to win a losing argument. You know me all too well Gil!



Gil, I want to ask you to join me then, if it is the highroad. I can recognize differences, and I personally think if the differences make you a good person, the differences aren't bad. What do you say, Gil?

I believe we are on a debate forum, for the purpose of debating ideas and developing arguments.
Why on earth would you recommend that silence would be the best approach to such a concept within such a location?

Gil. I feel a tinge of contempt here. Think it's my imagination... do you not love me?


Why try and bring me upon this 'highroad' with you?

Okay. Fine. Jesus and I will sit up on the highroad, and chill.

I expect you further to explain how the above is me ignoring the arguments, or for my ridicule not working right and me trying to change it, or whatever you wanna say. But I RESPECT your right to say it!

So go ahead Gil: tell me what you wanna tell. Speak to me. Show me the truth. I am ready Gil. Unleash your logical comb upon the unruly mess that is me! I implore you!
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 1:58:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:08:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:57:19 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:49:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:44:12 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:38:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.

I applaud the idea not to partake of a discussion to avoid a tumult, however 'boycotting' is an act of aggression and was clearly meant to be in that fashion.

Think of it as saving you the headache of a bunch of young, naive, ignorant atheists (as you see it) giving you the arguments you've already heard many times before and solved (I assume).

I have no desire to save a headache I do not possess.



To attempt to divert to the 'highroad' so suddenly does not due your position credit. A more smooth transition would be warranted in the future rather than a quick jerking action.

I don't think it does - I recognize you have extraordinary faith, and are proud of this, about your religion. I doubt we meek and yet-to-experience-revelation youth will change your experienced, logical, and correct conclusions, Gil. How could I believe "taking the highroad" would support atheism?

You dodged to the intellectual 'highroad' when you ridicule attempt did not come off correctly.

Of course - this IS the best way to win a losing argument. You know me all too well Gil!

That is a sound debate tactic. Ridicule wins political campaigns every season. You just failed to pull it off as I was certain to slam back with reductio ad absurdum.




Gil, I want to ask you to join me then, if it is the highroad. I can recognize differences, and I personally think if the differences make you a good person, the differences aren't bad. What do you say, Gil?

I believe we are on a debate forum, for the purpose of debating ideas and developing arguments.
Why on earth would you recommend that silence would be the best approach to such a concept within such a location?

Gil. I feel a tinge of contempt here. Think it's my imagination... do you not love me?

I am certain that I Agape all people, I have no idea what contempt you felt. I would avoid placing personal emotions upon text as inflection rarely comes acrosss and is easily 'read into' a forum post.



Why try and bring me upon this 'highroad' with you?

Okay. Fine. Jesus and I will sit up on the highroad, and chill.
Yep Jesus, the pacifist, who beat people in the temple, combatted verbally the pharisees and saducees and was crucified because he would not "shut up" and take the high road...

Did you read the Bible?


I expect you further to explain how the above is me ignoring the arguments, or for my ridicule not working right and me trying to change it, or whatever you wanna say. But I RESPECT your right to say it!

So go ahead Gil: tell me what you wanna tell. Speak to me. Show me the truth. I am ready Gil. Unleash your logical comb upon the unruly mess that is me! I implore you!

You need a counselor, for your 'unruly mess' not a debate forum.

A call to ignore a post that is calling to account a large misconception from an alternate viewpoint looks like a concern or worry on your part to my mind.

Trying to create a 'reason' to not respond typically = no response.
As in the case with Dawkins.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 1:58:47 PM, M.Torres wrote:


My God that was a horrible song. If you played that in person I do not know that I would not have outright assualted you for playing it, lol.

I gather you are saying that debate is like war?

Debate =/= war.

In fact, I would rightly suggest it does a great job of preventing it.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:19:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 2:08:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:57:19 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:49:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:44:12 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:38:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.

I applaud the idea not to partake of a discussion to avoid a tumult, however 'boycotting' is an act of aggression and was clearly meant to be in that fashion.

Think of it as saving you the headache of a bunch of young, naive, ignorant atheists (as you see it) giving you the arguments you've already heard many times before and solved (I assume).

I have no desire to save a headache I do not possess.



To attempt to divert to the 'highroad' so suddenly does not due your position credit. A more smooth transition would be warranted in the future rather than a quick jerking action.

I don't think it does - I recognize you have extraordinary faith, and are proud of this, about your religion. I doubt we meek and yet-to-experience-revelation youth will change your experienced, logical, and correct conclusions, Gil. How could I believe "taking the highroad" would support atheism?

You dodged to the intellectual 'highroad' when you ridicule attempt did not come off correctly.

Of course - this IS the best way to win a losing argument. You know me all too well Gil!

That is a sound debate tactic. Ridicule wins political campaigns every season. You just failed to pull it off as I was certain to slam back with reductio ad absurdum.

I would agree, but I'm going to use my age to my advantage and falsely imply that I don't know what "reductio ad absurdum" is. In this instance, I'll be further like a politician and say I simply do not know Spanish (I think it's spanish), therefore, your argument is void.





Gil, I want to ask you to join me then, if it is the highroad. I can recognize differences, and I personally think if the differences make you a good person, the differences aren't bad. What do you say, Gil?

I believe we are on a debate forum, for the purpose of debating ideas and developing arguments.
Why on earth would you recommend that silence would be the best approach to such a concept within such a location?

Gil. I feel a tinge of contempt here. Think it's my imagination... do you not love me?

I am certain that I Agape all people, I have no idea what contempt you felt. I would avoid placing personal emotions upon text as inflection rarely comes acrosss and is easily 'read into' a forum post.

I CAN SEE ALL THE HATE RIGHT THERE. It hurts Gil. It hurts.




Why try and bring me upon this 'highroad' with you?

Okay. Fine. Jesus and I will sit up on the highroad, and chill.
Yep Jesus, the pacifist, who beat people in the temple, combatted verbally the pharisees and saducees and was crucified because he would not "shut up" and take the high road...

Hey, I didn't say Jesus doesn't like a fist-fight or two. We rough it up when we get drunk.


Did you read the Bible?

...does the comic book version count?



I expect you further to explain how the above is me ignoring the arguments, or for my ridicule not working right and me trying to change it, or whatever you wanna say. But I RESPECT your right to say it!

So go ahead Gil: tell me what you wanna tell. Speak to me. Show me the truth. I am ready Gil. Unleash your logical comb upon the unruly mess that is me! I implore you!

You need a counselor, for your 'unruly mess' not a debate forum.

Have you not been a counselor before? I think you have. HELP ME GIL! I need help!


A call to ignore a post that is calling to account a large misconception from an alternate viewpoint looks like a concern or worry on your part to my mind.

Yep. FASCISM. Yum.


Trying to create a 'reason' to not respond typically = no response.
As in the case with Dawkins.

WHO THE HELL IS DAWKINS. Okay. I know who he is, but I don't know who you're talking about. +1 forum points (I like doing that! lol )
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 2:11:22 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:58:47 PM, M.Torres wrote:


My God that was a horrible song. If you played that in person I do not know that I would not have outright assualted you for playing it, lol.

I gather you are saying that debate is like war?

Debate =/= war.

In fact, I would rightly suggest it does a great job of preventing it.

LOVE ME GIL. PLEASE LOVE ME.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:24:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 2:19:28 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 2:08:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:57:19 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:49:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:44:12 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:38:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:29:35 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:24:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:17:59 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Can all the Agnostics and Atheists just agree to boycott Christian-Geo, and ignore this thread? Otherwise, all you are doing is feeding good ol' Gilly's Atheist World Order conspiracy.

Ah! I see the silent treatment. Taking a page out of Dawkin's "handbook for the losing team"?

As far as I see it, we have nothing to prove. And I personally think we can get along without taking all these attacks at each other. In the end, although you reject the idea, Agnostics and Atheists desire a good-natured and productive society. You can believe in your God, and I believe you have a right to. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, I personally find no fault in you as a person. I just think the conflict is unnecessary, so I choose to not be a part of it. Here's to your continued successes in bettering the world, Gil.

I applaud the idea not to partake of a discussion to avoid a tumult, however 'boycotting' is an act of aggression and was clearly meant to be in that fashion.

Think of it as saving you the headache of a bunch of young, naive, ignorant atheists (as you see it) giving you the arguments you've already heard many times before and solved (I assume).

I have no desire to save a headache I do not possess.



To attempt to divert to the 'highroad' so suddenly does not due your position credit. A more smooth transition would be warranted in the future rather than a quick jerking action.

I don't think it does - I recognize you have extraordinary faith, and are proud of this, about your religion. I doubt we meek and yet-to-experience-revelation youth will change your experienced, logical, and correct conclusions, Gil. How could I believe "taking the highroad" would support atheism?

You dodged to the intellectual 'highroad' when you ridicule attempt did not come off correctly.

Of course - this IS the best way to win a losing argument. You know me all too well Gil!

That is a sound debate tactic. Ridicule wins political campaigns every season. You just failed to pull it off as I was certain to slam back with reductio ad absurdum.

I would agree, but I'm going to use my age to my advantage and falsely imply that I don't know what "reductio ad absurdum" is. In this instance, I'll be further like a politician and say I simply do not know Spanish (I think it's spanish), therefore, your argument is void.





Gil, I want to ask you to join me then, if it is the highroad. I can recognize differences, and I personally think if the differences make you a good person, the differences aren't bad. What do you say, Gil?

I believe we are on a debate forum, for the purpose of debating ideas and developing arguments.
Why on earth would you recommend that silence would be the best approach to such a concept within such a location?

Gil. I feel a tinge of contempt here. Think it's my imagination... do you not love me?

I am certain that I Agape all people, I have no idea what contempt you felt. I would avoid placing personal emotions upon text as inflection rarely comes acrosss and is easily 'read into' a forum post.

I CAN SEE ALL THE HATE RIGHT THERE. It hurts Gil. It hurts.




Why try and bring me upon this 'highroad' with you?

Okay. Fine. Jesus and I will sit up on the highroad, and chill.
Yep Jesus, the pacifist, who beat people in the temple, combatted verbally the pharisees and saducees and was crucified because he would not "shut up" and take the high road...

Hey, I didn't say Jesus doesn't like a fist-fight or two. We rough it up when we get drunk.


Did you read the Bible?

...does the comic book version count?



I expect you further to explain how the above is me ignoring the arguments, or for my ridicule not working right and me trying to change it, or whatever you wanna say. But I RESPECT your right to say it!

So go ahead Gil: tell me what you wanna tell. Speak to me. Show me the truth. I am ready Gil. Unleash your logical comb upon the unruly mess that is me! I implore you!

You need a counselor, for your 'unruly mess' not a debate forum.

Have you not been a counselor before? I think you have. HELP ME GIL! I need help!


A call to ignore a post that is calling to account a large misconception from an alternate viewpoint looks like a concern or worry on your part to my mind.

Yep. FASCISM. Yum.


Trying to create a 'reason' to not respond typically = no response.
As in the case with Dawkins.

WHO THE HELL IS DAWKINS. Okay. I know who he is, but I don't know who you're talking about. +1 forum points (I like doing that! lol )

That was fun. Thank you for it.
I can see why you like Colbert (Great pic btw for your avatar icon)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:32:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 2:20:16 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/17/2012 2:11:22 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 1:58:47 PM, M.Torres wrote:

My God that was a horrible song. If you played that in person I do not know that I would not have outright assualted you for playing it, lol.

I gather you are saying that debate is like war?

Debate =/= war.

In fact, I would rightly suggest it does a great job of preventing it.


LOVE ME GIL. PLEASE LOVE ME.

As a counselor, I would advocate against the use of illicit drugs and/or alcohol to support your desire for a hippie 70's style of free love.

Billy Madison is clear and undeniable evidence against.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 3:50:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
While I agree, that evidence is evidence; testimony is admissible. However, I don't think many reasonable atheists discount the bible, and personal testimony solely on the basis that the book is old, and testimony is only testimony. There are so many other good reasons why they can be discounted.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 4:07:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 3:50:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
While I agree, that evidence is evidence; testimony is admissible. However, I don't think many reasonable atheists discount the bible, and personal testimony solely on the basis that the book is old, and testimony is only testimony. There are so many other good reasons why they can be discounted.

I would completely agree and love discussions of evidentiary lines with those Atheists. The redefine though is rampant, especially among the teenage portion.

I love to discuss the wholly secular approach to New Testament textual criticism or the council evaluations of testimonies performed within the church.

I enjoy such discussions and there are agnostics and atheists that understand there is much evidence that needs to be reviewed.

After all I did review the evidence. I took the challenges given and they bore out. I chased the evidentiary lines and found them completely credible.

Yet, I am finding with increasing numbers among agnostics and atheists, this shift
for the redefining of evidence rather than a more scholastic approach.

They will not chase the evidence or test the evidence as they absurdly believe it not to be evidence!

When I call this out I am ridiculed and marginalized? Scholasticism one would imagine to be paramount in such a community.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 4:24:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 4:07:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/17/2012 3:50:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
While I agree, that evidence is evidence; testimony is admissible. However, I don't think many reasonable atheists discount the bible, and personal testimony solely on the basis that the book is old, and testimony is only testimony. There are so many other good reasons why they can be discounted.

I would completely agree and love discussions of evidentiary lines with those Atheists. The redefine though is rampant, especially among the teenage portion.

I love to discuss the wholly secular approach to New Testament textual criticism or the council evaluations of testimonies performed within the church.

I enjoy such discussions and there are agnostics and atheists that understand there is much evidence that needs to be reviewed.

After all I did review the evidence. I took the challenges given and they bore out. I chased the evidentiary lines and found them completely credible.

Yet, I am finding with increasing numbers among agnostics and atheists, this shift
for the redefining of evidence rather than a more scholastic approach.

They will not chase the evidence or test the evidence as they absurdly believe it not to be evidence!

When I call this out I am ridiculed and marginalized? Scholasticism one would imagine to be paramount in such a community.

For me, Atheists always start off from the wrong direction.

If God exists, miracles can happen, so arguing that miracles can't happen presupposes the non-existence of God.

You have to presuppose God exists before you can argue against him.

But, Saying that, you can argue on a case by case basis that specific texts, or specific testimonies can be discounted. To discount the whole bible, though, you need a really, really good, specific argument and explanation to account for why the bible exists,