Total Posts:169|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Real Debate: Science does not refute gods

3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 2:28:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is like watching a live action version of this forum except with intelligent people on both sides of the argument...

http://www.youtube.com...
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method" and yet they seem to have no problem accepting other things that are also "outside of the scope of the scientific method"?

For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 4:36:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method" and yet they seem to have no problem accepting other things that are also "outside of the scope of the scientific method"?

For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.

I've brought up this point countless times, and the atheist's pat response is that love is a biological phenomena. Which is not exactly true, nor does it differentiate love from God, beauty, justice, fate, intuition, and a host of other similar ideological phenomena that we experience. But good luck trying to get them to acknowledge any of this.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 5:32:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theists concede that a fundamentalist, "literalist" interpretation of the christian bible is provably false using scientific principles.

For example, when the "YHWH" made the sun stand still in the sky, to allow the Jews kill a bunch of people who were trying to run away from them, the planet earth would have had to stop spinning, and such an event would have resulted in the annihilation of life as we know it.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 5:41:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 4:36:07 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method" and yet they seem to have no problem accepting other things that are also "outside of the scope of the scientific method"?

I turn it round and say the problem is that religion involved iteself in purely scientific issues such as the physical origins of life and the universe. It's not science recently usurping reigion - the problem is religion's clinging on to it's traditional baseless claims to authority on scientific matters.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 6:11:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 5:32:01 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/12/2017 4:36:07 PM, PureX wrote:

I think DDO is more like this.
http://www.youtube.com...

Thanks for that, great stuff.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 8:48:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method".

Yes absolutely now you're getting it!
This is one of the most forthcoming and intellectually honest questions I've read here in awhile....and you're an atheist right? and not being sarcastic?
The only, and I mean only reason for the Creator being outside the scope of science is 100% due to the nature of God, being immaterial. That's it, and this is where spirituality picks up the ball plain and simple.

For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.

Well now don't get crazy, the reality of the Creator is not unfalsifiable and unmeasurable, meaning there is plenty to falsify and even more to measure.
This idea since science cannot reach this topic that in return it cannot be reached at all is a huge misconception. That would entail the people who believe that have no idea what spirituality is for, its purpose and its nature that is congruent with the nature of God.
It IS our very nature to know and understand our Creator, this is of course is a process for sure but nevertheless true, and for everyone.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 8:59:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 8:48:57 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method".

Yes absolutely now you're getting it!
This is one of the most forthcoming and intellectually honest questions I've read here in awhile....and you're an atheist right? and not being sarcastic?
The only, and I mean only reason for the Creator being outside the scope of science is 100% due to the nature of God, being immaterial. That's it, and this is where spirituality picks up the ball plain and simple.


For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.

Well now don't get crazy, the reality of the Creator is not unfalsifiable and unmeasurable, meaning there is plenty to falsify and even more to measure.
This idea since science cannot reach this topic that in return it cannot be reached at all is a huge misconception. That would entail the people who believe that have no idea what spirituality is for, its purpose and its nature that is congruent with the nature of God.
It IS our very nature to know and understand our Creator, this is of course is a process for sure but nevertheless true, and for everyone.

Wait, you think "the Creator" is falsifiable and measurable?

I guess we'll have to explore your definition of "the Creator" to determine if we are speaking about the same thing.

Would you care to explain further?
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 9:09:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 8:59:46 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/12/2017 8:48:57 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method".

Yes absolutely now you're getting it!
This is one of the most forthcoming and intellectually honest questions I've read here in awhile....and you're an atheist right? and not being sarcastic?
The only, and I mean only reason for the Creator being outside the scope of science is 100% due to the nature of God, being immaterial. That's it, and this is where spirituality picks up the ball plain and simple.


For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.

Well now don't get crazy, the reality of the Creator is not unfalsifiable and unmeasurable, meaning there is plenty to falsify and even more to measure.
This idea since science cannot reach this topic that in return it cannot be reached at all is a huge misconception. That would entail the people who believe that have no idea what spirituality is for, its purpose and its nature that is congruent with the nature of God.
It IS our very nature to know and understand our Creator, this is of course is a process for sure but nevertheless true, and for everyone.

Wait, you think "the Creator" is falsifiable and measurable?

.

Would you care to explain further?

Yes, did you read all of what I wrote? questionnaire before we move on......which avenue did I say was congruent with the Creator that picks up the ball?
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 9:13:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christian proposes to argue from pure reason with no Biblical references or appeals to authority.

Quote Link to Time 19:34 -
https://youtu.be...

http://www.youtube.com...
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 9:28:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 9:09:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 8:59:46 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/12/2017 8:48:57 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:

Yes, did you read all of what I wrote? questionnaire before we move on......which avenue did I say was congruent with the Creator that picks up the ball?

You used words like "spirituality" and "our nature".

Please explain what you mean when you say these words.

It sounds vaguely like "not science" to me.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 9:36:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 9:28:10 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/12/2017 9:09:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 8:59:46 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/12/2017 8:48:57 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:

Yes, did you read all of what I wrote? questionnaire before we move on......which avenue did I say was congruent with the Creator that picks up the ball?

You used words like "spirituality" and "our nature".


Very good!

Please explain what you mean when you say these words.


Spirituality is the practical application and study of the nature of the Creator and soul.
Our real nature is not material, it is known as consciousness or soul.

It sounds vaguely like "not science" to me.

Science is out of the sphere of what we are discussion. I thought we both made that clear no?? this is going back to square one, not good. We have to know what we are saying here because I want you to have complete confidence.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 9:43:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 2:28:00 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
This is like watching a live action version of this forum except with intelligent people on both sides of the argument...

http://www.youtube.com...

I've seen this one. Just by the way he bounces around in his refutations, you can see how much faster his mind is working than DeSousa's. It's that way in ANY debate between a REAL scientist and a theistic "scholar." Religion is useless and destructive.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 9:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 5:32:28 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Theists concede that a fundamentalist, "literalist" interpretation of the christian bible is provably false using scientific principles.

For example, when the "YHWH" made the sun stand still in the sky, to allow the Jews kill a bunch of people who were trying to run away from them, the planet earth would have had to stop spinning, and such an event would have resulted in the annihilation of life as we know it.

Not even to mention that NO other civilization on the planet recorded such an event...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 10:03:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 9:36:21 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Please explain what you mean when you say these words.

Spirituality is the practical application and study of the nature of the Creator and soul.

I'm not sure you can "study" something that you have not yet defined.

Our real nature is not material, it is known as consciousness or soul.

You seem to be using the words "real" and "nature" in ways I am not familiar with.

It sounds vaguely like "not science" to me.

Science is out of the sphere of what we are discussion. I thought we both made that clear no?? this is going back to square one, not good. We have to know what we are saying here because I want you to have complete confidence.

Let me try to generously sum up what I think you might be trying to say.

All of the "god" and "spirit" stuff is experienced on a private personal experiential qualia level, just like "love" and "hate" and "wonder" and "pure happiness" and dreams.

All of this personal experiential qualia is "not science" and yet it is the most meaningful part of being human.

In the first video there is a part where the Christians argue that all religions are "pointing" to the same "divinity" or "great spirit" or "god" and getting somewhat different details with some similar themes.

Link to Specific Argument -
https://youtu.be...

I believe this is plausible, based on personal experience.

However, I fail to see how any particular dogma can claim exclusive "objective truth".
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 10:07:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do the words "I am a devout Christian" appear on anyone here's resume?
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 10:14:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 10:03:52 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/12/2017 9:36:21 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Please explain what you mean when you say these words.

Spirituality is the practical application and study of the nature of the Creator and soul.

I'm not sure you can "study" something that you have not yet defined.

Our real nature is not material, it is known as consciousness or soul.

You seem to be using the words "real" and "nature" in ways I am not familiar with.

It sounds vaguely like "not science" to me.

Science is out of the sphere of what we are discussion. I thought we both made that clear no?? this is going back to square one, not good. We have to know what we are saying here because I want you to have complete confidence.

Let me try to generously sum up what I think you might be trying to say.

All of the "god" and "spirit" stuff is experienced on a private personal experiential qualia level, just like "love" and "hate" and "wonder" and "pure happiness" and dreams.

All of this personal experiential qualia is "not science" and yet it is the most meaningful part of being human.

In the first video there is a part where the Christians argue that all religions are "pointing" to the same "divinity" or "great spirit" or "god" and getting somewhat different details with some similar themes.

Link to Specific Argument -
https://youtu.be...

I believe this is plausible, based on personal experience.

However, I fail to see how any particular dogma can claim exclusive "objective truth".

Let me know if you have any questions.
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 10:31:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What have been some of the major advancements in theology over the past thousand years?
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 10:51:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 10:31:59 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What have been some of the major advancements in theology over the past thousand years?

The knowledge and theology is already there, there doesn't need to be an advancement of knowledge but personal spirituality and accountability. Perhaps look into a more universal perspective. This helps to understand the full scale of Theology available.
And please don't give me the contradictions baloney without showing the contradictions, claims and what religion claimed it.
A more universal approach is to examine what each religion specifies in and what the universal goals and principles are that reach through all major forms of spirituality/religious teachings. Of course some are more advance than others but all the pieces have been given, the only piece missing is participation and application.
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2017 11:29:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 10:51:20 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 10:31:59 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What have been some of the major advancements in theology over the past thousand years?

The knowledge and theology is already there, there doesn't need to be an advancement of knowledge but personal spirituality and accountability. Perhaps look into a more universal perspective. This helps to understand the full scale of Theology available.
And please don't give me the contradictions baloney without showing the contradictions, claims and what religion claimed it.
A more universal approach is to examine what each religion specifies in and what the universal goals and principles are that reach through all major forms of spirituality/religious teachings. Of course some are more advance than others but all the pieces have been given, the only piece missing is participation and application.

So it's the same old thing over and over and over again? That doesn't sound very interesting. Why not try to improve theology to make it better?
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 12:55:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 8:48:57 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method".

Yes absolutely now you're getting it!
This is one of the most forthcoming and intellectually honest questions I've read here in awhile....and you're an atheist right? and not being sarcastic?
The only, and I mean only reason for the Creator being outside the scope of science is 100% due to the nature of God, being immaterial. That's it, and this is where spirituality picks up the ball plain and simple.


For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.

Well now don't get crazy, the reality of the Creator is not unfalsifiable and unmeasurable, meaning there is plenty to falsify and even more to measure.
This idea since science cannot reach this topic that in return it cannot be reached at all is a huge misconception. That would entail the people who believe that have no idea what spirituality is for, its purpose and its nature that is congruent with the nature of God.
It IS our very nature to know and understand our Creator, this is of course is a process for sure but nevertheless true, and for everyone.

******************************NEWS FLASH**************************************
Science says nothing about myths, please try to make your comments acurate in reality.
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 1:12:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What must I learn to be a theist?
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
Slothrop
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 3:33:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 4:36:07 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method" and yet they seem to have no problem accepting other things that are also "outside of the scope of the scientific method"?

For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.

I've brought up this point countless times, and the atheist's pat response is that love is a biological phenomena. Which is not exactly true, nor does it differentiate love from God, beauty, justice, fate, intuition, and a host of other similar ideological phenomena that we experience. But good luck trying to get them to acknowledge any of this.

I would say that love is only unfalsifiable to the extent that it is not defined sufficiently. By "love," do you mean the internal experience of certain feelings, or the outward, behavioral manifestations of the internal feelings? the experience of the feelings itself cannot be addressed scientifically (I think, and will grant for now), but that is very different than a God that someone claims is objectively real. If you think your God only exists in your head, like your feelings do, then I have no problem. But if you claim that your God exists in the real world, for everyone, you need real evidence that transcends the internal experience of one person.
Dogknox
Posts: 6,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 4:03:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 5:32:28 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Theists concede that a fundamentalist, "literalist" interpretation of the christian bible is provably false using scientific principles.

For example, when the "YHWH" made the sun stand still in the sky, to allow the Jews kill a bunch of people who were trying to run away from them, the planet earth would have had to stop spinning, and such an event would have resulted in the annihilation of life as we know it.

Not so..
3RU7AL Look at this.. Google Miracle of the Sun
30,000 people witnessed this miracle.. They showed up to witness the miracle because they were told on this date at this time a miracle would occur! AND.. one did!
The news papers of the day recorded it as a fact!
Some people can be confused but not 30,000!
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 4:41:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2017 4:03:46 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 10/12/2017 5:32:28 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Theists concede that a fundamentalist, "literalist" interpretation of the christian bible is provably false using scientific principles.

For example, when the "YHWH" made the sun stand still in the sky, to allow the Jews kill a bunch of people who were trying to run away from them, the planet earth would have had to stop spinning, and such an event would have resulted in the annihilation of life as we know it.

Not so..
3RU7AL Look at this.. Google Miracle of the Sun
30,000 people witnessed this miracle.. They showed up to witness the miracle because they were told on this date at this time a miracle would occur! AND.. one did!
The news papers of the day recorded it as a fact!
Some people can be confused but not 30,000!
How many people saw it in Morocco?
Besides which the entire hemisphere would have seen it. You people can believe anything if it keeps you out of your mythical hell.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 6:50:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2017 3:33:58 AM, Slothrop wrote:
At 10/12/2017 4:36:07 PM, PureX wrote:
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method" and yet they seem to have no problem accepting other things that are also "outside of the scope of the scientific method"?

For instance, "god" is dismissed as false for being "unmeasurable and unfalsifiable", and yet "love" is not dismissed as false, even though it meets the exact same criteria.

I've brought up this point countless times, and the atheist's pat response is that love is a biological phenomena. Which is not exactly true, nor does it differentiate love from God, beauty, justice, fate, intuition, and a host of other similar ideological phenomena that we experience. But good luck trying to get them to acknowledge any of this.

I would say that love is only unfalsifiable to the extent that it is not defined sufficiently. By "love," do you mean the internal experience of certain feelings, or the outward, behavioral manifestations of the internal feelings? the experience of the feelings itself cannot be addressed scientifically (I think, and will grant for now), but that is very different than a God that someone claims is objectively real. If you think your God only exists in your head, like your feelings do, then I have no problem. But if you claim that your God exists in the real world, for everyone, you need real evidence that transcends the internal experience of one person.

"Objective reality" is by definition something that we cannot experience, because the moment we experience it, it becomes our subjective conception of reality. Everything we experience, we experience subjectively in that the experience is subject to our unique limitations and our biased understanding of what is real and true. If there is an "objective reality" out there, we do not have "objective" access to it.

Also, what does "only exist in your head" even mean? My name "only exists" in my mind, and in the minds of those who know of it. Does this mean that my name possesses a lesser state of existence than, say, my foot, which "only exists" at the end of my leg?

Why do you assume that how we perceive and understand existence is not as much a part of existence as any other aspect of it? Is it because the ideological phenomena of cognition is not made of physical matter? Since when does physical matter determine whether or not something exists? Energy exists without, and prior to, physical matter. Science tells us so. And isn't brain activity (cognition) a form of energy? Aren't ideas able to effect physical reality just as other forms of energy do? So why, in your mind, are ideas "unreal"? Why do you insist on treating them as though they "don't really exist"? What would you be, without them?

"God" is an ideological phenomena that we humans experience just as we experience any other aspect of reality. Just as love is an ideological phenomena that we experience as 'real', and beauty is an ideological phenomena that we experience as 'real', and ethical value is an ideological phenomena that we experience as 'real'.

And again I ask, if these are not 'real', what would we be without them?
Skepticalone
Posts: 8,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 6:55:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 3:51:22 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Are Atheists being hypocritical by dismissing the possibility of "god" because "god lies outside the scope of the scientific method"

I cant speak for other atheists, but I can tell you I reject the Christian deity first and foremost because it is not coherently defined'. In other words, Yahweh is a logical impossibility. Omnipotence and omniscience generate paradoxes on their own and the problem only gets worse when other attributes (omnibenevolence, immutable, etc.) are stacked on top of these. So, science isn't needed to end a rational discussion on this matter which isn't reasonable to begin with.

However, the OP was asking about science and god. When claims of "God" encroach in the material world (global flood, Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jacob's genetics, the creation story, etc.), science can evaluate those claims. The accounts are, at best, metaphorical and most likely fictional. If these stories in which "God" is said to have been a part are fictional, then it stands to reason Yahweh is as well. I'm sure someone will raise the objection - "Those stories were never meant to be taken literally" Of course, anyone making that claim will need to objectively substantiate that.

...and to anyone arguing "these stories are literally true!" - you're deluded. I'll not waste time debating what is not debatable.
Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 7:08:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2017 9:49:41 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/12/2017 5:32:28 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Theists concede that a fundamentalist, "literalist" interpretation of the christian bible is provably false using scientific principles.

For example, when the "YHWH" made the sun stand still in the sky, to allow the Jews kill a bunch of people who were trying to run away from them, the planet earth would have had to stop spinning, and such an event would have resulted in the annihilation of life as we know it.

Not even to mention that NO other civilization on the planet recorded such an event...

Arguing with people who cannot differentiate between mythical artifice and actual history is like arguing with children about the reality of Santa Claus. It's just a pathetic exercise in self-righteous egotism at the child's expense. And in the end you're still going to be as wrong as they are because "Santa Claus" does exist, just not in the way the child-mind imagines.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2017 7:37:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2017 7:08:45 AM, PureX wrote:
At 10/12/2017 9:49:41 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/12/2017 5:32:28 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
Theists concede that a fundamentalist, "literalist" interpretation of the christian bible is provably false using scientific principles.

For example, when the "YHWH" made the sun stand still in the sky, to allow the Jews kill a bunch of people who were trying to run away from them, the planet earth would have had to stop spinning, and such an event would have resulted in the annihilation of life as we know it.

Not even to mention that NO other civilization on the planet recorded such an event...

Arguing with people who cannot differentiate between mythical artifice and actual history is like arguing with children about the reality of Santa Claus. It's just a pathetic exercise in self-righteous egotism at the child's expense. And in the end you're still going to be as wrong as they are because "Santa Claus" does exist, just not in the way the child-mind imagines.

What is the metaphorical meaning of the episode? What uplifting message do we get from god suspending the laws of physics to extend a slaughter? However I believe such passages were written to be believed as written.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.