Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Refuting the Irrefutable

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.
Willows
Posts: 2,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 2:22:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

You are just making that up.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.
Nobody is denying the importance of imagination but the creations of imagination are not real until they appear in reality.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:07:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Nobody is denying the importance of imagination but the creations of imagination are not real until they appear in reality.

I agree completely, but the objective of faith should not be to prove anything.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:10:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 2:22:12 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

You are just making that up.

Ok.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:20:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

Fundamentalists claim that the object of their veneration exists in reality and gives commands that must be obeyed. One cannot view that claim as mere faith because it intrudes int the realm of reality and causes people to take real actions. There is a very great difference in a concept and something that has an effect on the real, objective world.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:22:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 3:07:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Nobody is denying the importance of imagination but the creations of imagination are not real until they appear in reality.

I agree completely, but the objective of faith should not be to prove anything.

What is the objective of faith - in your opinion?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:23:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

I would argue that the skeptic isn't arguing for nonexistence.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:34:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

As someone who does have faith in Jesus as Lord, I completely disagree. God revealed himself numerous times as recorded in the OT and NT and the books themselves are a testimoney to Him. There are plenty of evidences to discuss that frankly are just not discussed around here like the reliability of the various books of the bible, historicity of the Jews, archaeological finds and things like this. Now this is simply just about God from the Christian perspective however in a broad discussion of a "god" existing is again discussed in a historical context through all the various peoples that had a God or gods and how they came to those conclusions. Even a look at the occult warrants evidences of something and many testimonies over human history are worth examining as well.
These are all debatable points but as I said no one ever seems interested in debating them. The only "faith" of a Christian is that God will make good on his promise. It has nothing to do with existence imo.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 6:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Fundamentalists claim that the object of their veneration exists in reality and gives commands that must be obeyed. One cannot view that claim as mere faith because it intrudes int the realm of reality and causes people to take real actions. There is a very great difference in a concept and something that has an effect on the real, objective world.

Who's crazier the man who believes he's a poached egg or the one who argues with him?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 6:27:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I would argue that the skeptic isn't arguing for nonexistence.

No. The skeptic is arguing for that which does not exist...proof.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 6:47:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 6:27:27 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I would argue that the skeptic isn't arguing for nonexistence.

No. The skeptic is arguing for that which does not exist...proof.

I strongly disagree. I do not argue for the non existence of god(s) - I accept the possibility of things beyond what we currently know which could include things that might best be defined as "god". I simply feel that making a claim for the existence of something on ambiguous evidence is not valid.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 6:49:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 6:19:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
What is the objective of faith - in your opinion?

To focus the mind on things beyond reality.

For what purpose? (Why is this a good thing?)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 7:27:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I strongly disagree. I do not argue for the non existence of god(s) - I accept the possibility of things beyond what we currently know which could include things that might best be defined as "god". I simply feel that making a claim for the existence of something on ambiguous evidence is not valid.

I never said the skeptic argues for the nonexistence of God; I said the skeptic demands proof, which is evident by your response: "I simply feel that making a claim for the existence of something on ambiguous evidence is not valid."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 8:06:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 7:27:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I strongly disagree. I do not argue for the non existence of god(s) - I accept the possibility of things beyond what we currently know which could include things that might best be defined as "god". I simply feel that making a claim for the existence of something on ambiguous evidence is not valid.

I never said the skeptic argues for the nonexistence of God; I said the skeptic demands proof, which is evident by your response: "I simply feel that making a claim for the existence of something on ambiguous evidence is not valid."

There is a difference between evidence and proof.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 8:12:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 7:32:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For what purpose? (Why is this a good thing?)

Can you imagine a world without imagination?

Yes, I agree we would be very limited. On the other hand, a world in which we accept every imagined concept as knowledge is absurd as well.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 8:41:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

You are right about a lot of things here. However, though God is in fact a concept that is conceptualized in the human mind, the concept itself is intended to point to something that is totally beyond abstraction. When we are talking about God with a capital "G", we are talking about "The Ultimate Reality" or "Supreme Being". We are talking about The Necessary Existence. So yes, it is undeniable that we worship The Uncreated Creator of Creation through an Image, in fact, "The Most Perfect Image" according to theology, it is also fact that being created beings who live in the world of creation, it is impossible to do otherwise as created beings.

The letter of the law killeth, but the spirit brings life. God is a finger pointing at the moon. The atheist argument is contingent on staring at the finger instead of what the finger is pointing at. When the truth is in you, and you see the relationship between the pointer and what is being pointed at, the trinity is revealed in such a way that the nature of creation is made evident. In realizing the nature of creation, The One God can be seen through that most perfect image. The Holiest Name is not one uttered with lips, and a name is an identity. The Ultimate Reality is The God we speak of in Monotheistic tradition. God is who God is.

How do you express The Uncreated through creation? It's absurd, but that is the beauty of art. So faith, or strong conviction in God is actually faith in something that completely transcends the arbitrary pronouncement of syllables or the corruptible meaning of language. The Name that can be named is not The Eternal Name. This is very real, in fact, realer than anything you experience in creation. Of this, there can not be doubt. It's an evident truth. That is what The Ultimate Reality means, and this is God's name in English.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 8:57:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

If even the simple existence of a God cannot be proven by the methods of science. The rest must be construed as man made myths and wishful thinking bodering on delusions and brought about by undiagnosed mental disorders. Now there is evidence religious fundamentalism is a mental illness.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 8:58:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
There is a difference between evidence and proof.

I know; evidence does not always take us in the direction we would like to go.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Yes, I agree we would be very limited. On the other hand, a world in which we accept every imagined concept as knowledge is absurd as well.

How could we know imaginary things if we had no knowledge of them?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 8:57:04 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

If even the simple existence of a God cannot be proven by the methods of science. The rest must be construed as man made myths and wishful thinking bodering on delusions and brought about by undiagnosed mental disorders.

Only someone who doesn't understand what the concept of "God" means would set out to scientifically prove or disprove God.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:23:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:16:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yes, I agree we would be very limited. On the other hand, a world in which we accept every imagined concept as knowledge is absurd as well.

How could we know imaginary things if we had no knowledge of them?

We can diagnose the people who harbour these imaginary things. The few that have been under study were found to be suffering from mental illness.

Psychiatrists have even analyzed the words and lives of the biblical characters like Jesus, Mose, Abraham. Paul and found they all suffered from serious mental disorders. Fortunately the people who suffer from those same conditions can be treated today.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:25:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:23:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:16:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yes, I agree we would be very limited. On the other hand, a world in which we accept every imagined concept as knowledge is absurd as well.

How could we know imaginary things if we had no knowledge of them?

We can diagnose the people who harbour these imaginary things. The few that have been under study were found to be suffering from mental illness.

Psychiatrists have even analyzed the words and lives of the biblical characters like Jesus, Mose, Abraham. Paul and found they all suffered from serious mental disorders. Fortunately the people who suffer from those same conditions can be treated today.

Yeah, back then, they used to treat them by stoning them to death and hanging them on planks of wood in the the hot sun until they died.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:20:18 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:57:04 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

If even the simple existence of a God cannot be proven by the methods of science. The rest must be construed as man made myths and wishful thinking bodering on delusions and brought about by undiagnosed mental disorders.

Only someone who doesn't understand what the concept of "God" means would set out to scientifically prove or disprove God.

Scientists are very good with abstract ideas (concepts) and endeavour to prove or disprove the merits in the abstractions. The concept of God is an absurdity and so are the scriptures designed to explain God.

From the Apologetic Press.

More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36).
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:34:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 6:11:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Fundamentalists claim that the object of their veneration exists in reality and gives commands that must be obeyed. One cannot view that claim as mere faith because it intrudes int the realm of reality and causes people to take real actions. There is a very great difference in a concept and something that has an effect on the real, objective world.

Who's crazier the man who believes he's a poached egg or the one who argues with him?

Non-sequitur, meaningless response indicating you have no actual rebuttal and resort to childish tactics.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:35:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:33:25 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:20:18 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:57:04 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 1:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The skeptic who wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things which cannot be proven, things which must be taken on faith. Therefore, the skeptic is taking those things which fall within the province of subjectivity and treating them as though they were objective.

By doing so, the skeptic is encumbering the fundamentalist with an impossible burden, a burden of proof. Being the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the skeptic's demands, the skeptic denounces the objects of faith as nothing more than rubbish.

While I must concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith do not exist, I must further admit objects of faith are not concrete objects but abstract concepts. In this sense, they do in fact exist.

To denounce something as nonexistent, just because it cannot be proven, is to denounce the very vivid world of the imagination. Accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination; the imagination has influenced the world in tremendous ways. Even though it doesn't exist within the realms of reality, it by no means does not exist; it has been, since the beginning, and will be, until the end, a significant force by which we must reckon.

If even the simple existence of a God cannot be proven by the methods of science. The rest must be construed as man made myths and wishful thinking bodering on delusions and brought about by undiagnosed mental disorders.

Only someone who doesn't understand what the concept of "God" means would set out to scientifically prove or disprove God.

Scientists are very good with abstract ideas (concepts) and endeavour to prove or disprove the merits in the abstractions. The concept of God is an absurdity and so are the scriptures designed to explain God.

From the Apologetic Press.

More Americans are moving toward an interpretation of the Bible as a book of fables, history, and moral precepts. ...Attempts at demythologizing the Bible that have been ongoing in the academy for years seem to be moving more and more from the classroom to the pews.... As recently as 1963, two persons in three viewed the Bible as the actual word of God, to be taken literally, word for word. Today, only one person in three still holds to that interpretation (1999, p. 36).

The thing I find most baffling about you is that you actually seem to believe that what you are saying has any type of authority.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:37:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:25:45 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:16:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yes, I agree we would be very limited. On the other hand, a world in which we accept every imagined concept as knowledge is absurd as well.

How could we know imaginary things if we had no knowledge of them?

We can diagnose the people who harbour these imaginary things. The few that have been under study were found to be suffering from mental illness.

Psychiatrists have even analyzed the words and lives of the biblical characters like Jesus, Mose, Abraham. Paul and found they all suffered from serious mental disorders. Fortunately the people who suffer from those same conditions can be treated today.

Yeah, back then, they used to treat them by stoning them to death and hanging them on planks of wood in the the hot sun until they died.

They still punish Christians who decide not to be treated and turn to criminality.
75% of the prison population are Christians.
http://www.patheos.com...
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:37:50 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:25:45 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:16:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yes, I agree we would be very limited. On the other hand, a world in which we accept every imagined concept as knowledge is absurd as well.

How could we know imaginary things if we had no knowledge of them?

We can diagnose the people who harbour these imaginary things. The few that have been under study were found to be suffering from mental illness.

Psychiatrists have even analyzed the words and lives of the biblical characters like Jesus, Mose, Abraham. Paul and found they all suffered from serious mental disorders. Fortunately the people who suffer from those same conditions can be treated today.

Yeah, back then, they used to treat them by stoning them to death and hanging them on planks of wood in the the hot sun until they died.

They still punish Christians who decide not to be treated and turn to criminality.
75% of the prison population are Christians.
http://www.patheos.com...

You are very superstitious. I want you to know that.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,