07-02-2007, 12:18 PM
|
#16
|
General of the Attacking Army
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
|
Quote:
Lily wrote
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
I confess I haven't been hanging on every word, but am I wrong to detect some goalpost shiftage?
Quote:
Lily wrote
Rational, intelligent people can believe in God (and let me be honest, I mean God-- as described by Christianity) because the evidence is such that one can weigh it and find it acceptable, believable, whateverable.
|
With parameters now soaring into the whateverable, I'm inclined to agree with Lily. Rational intelligent people can believe in a God described by Christianity (whatever that is), so long as their intelligence and rationality are out taking a whiz.
|
Well, you couldn't recognize sarcasm when it hit you over the head (remember: Tuscaloosa mouth breather?) and that wasn't the least bit subtle. So I wouldn't be surprised if you missed the point of the discussion I was trying to have over in the science thread. Of course, the fact that it was hijacked early on could well have led to you missing some of the point(s).
|
Stay in your own thread.
I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 12:23 PM
|
#17
|
Guest
|
Make me.
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 12:25 PM
|
#18
|
Organ Donator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
|
Aren't you glad you didn't tell her to fuck off?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 01:18 PM
|
#19
|
A caricature
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 693
|
Quote:
Lily, in the other evidence thread wrote
Rational, intelligent people can believe in God (and let me be honest, I mean God-- as described by Christianity) because the evidence is of such quality and in sufficient quantity that a reasonable person can accept it.
|
Well I would ask what specific evidence you are referring to and why you think it reasonable to accept it and (I presume) reject all the other evidence to the contrary (that it would also be reasonable to accept).
Will someone please wake me up when they get to that bit? :sleep:
:P
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day" - Douglas Adams
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 01:25 PM
|
#20
|
General of the Attacking Army
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
|
Quote:
Single Serving Jack wrote
Will someone please wake me up when they get to that bit?
|
How old are you?
I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 01:30 PM
|
#21
|
A caricature
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 693
|
Why do you ask?
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day" - Douglas Adams
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 01:31 PM
|
#22
|
General of the Attacking Army
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
|
Quote:
Single Serving Jack wrote
Why do you ask?
|
Just wondering if you'll still be around when Lily produces her "evidence."
I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 01:36 PM
|
#23
|
A caricature
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 693
|
Are you suggesting Lily would claim there is evidence of such quality and such quantity - but not actually supply any? Surely not! ;)
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day" - Douglas Adams
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 01:37 PM
|
#24
|
General of the Attacking Army
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,904
|
:whistle:
I will grieve. Grief is not a theistic concept. ~ Sternwallow
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 02:08 PM
|
#25
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Evidence, schmevidence.
You're forgetting the true purpose of religion: to believe in whatever crazy bullshit you want, no questions asked.
And that's why I'm a Viking.
|
I agree, but Lily has insisted more than once that there is reasonable evidence for the claims of Christianity. There has been some debate about what should count as valid evidence and what shouldn't, but so far, none of this evidence that Lily claims exists has been produced. I just want to see what exactly this evidence is.
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 02:13 PM
|
#26
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Single Serving Jack wrote
Are you suggesting Lily would claim there is evidence of such quality and such quantity - but not actually supply any? Surely not! ;)
|
I sometimes wish I were a communications graduate. There is one hell of a good book someone could write on the role prejudice plays in your (collective "your") inability to process information buried in all this backing and forthing amongst raving atheists. Analyzing nkb and sterny could be a book in its own right.
I don't know if repeating this will help but it couldn't hurt to try. So, let's see. You want to know (as do others) what specific evidence I am referring to and why I think it reasonable to accept it. There will not be any new evidence forthcoming, unless some is supernaturally given to me. The question I am raising is whether or not it is unreasonable that some people find the old evidence convincing.
The answer to that depends on what you consider evidence. I hold, to state it plainly, that neither you nor I restrict our beliefs to those things which can be observed, weighed and/or measured, tested, etc. The question then is how do we decide what we believe? What kind of evidence does there have to be to justify our beliefs?
I could put this another way. Is your lack of belief justifiable? You can design no experiment to prove that there is no God. Science cannot justify atheism, only agnosticism. So what is the evidence that supports your position? If you take this question seriously, then, perhaps, you will see why adt and I have been trying to make sure that we are on the same page about knowledge vs belief, what consititutes evidence, etc.
I am just as sorry as I can be that y'all are so impatient to see adt grind me into nothingness and pummel me in to unconsciousness but you will just have to wait...
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 02:18 PM
|
#27
|
Guest
|
Communications is a major for dumbasses.
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 02:18 PM
|
#28
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Fair enough, Lily. But you have yet to propose what you consider acceptable evidence.
What exactly are you waiting for?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 02:21 PM
|
#29
|
Guest
|
I feel like the argument that I'm about to make is so trite, but here it goes anyways.
Philosophically, Lily, I would say that I am agnostic - but precisely in the same way which I am agnostic towards the existence of leprechauns or the celestial tea pot. Surely you are not prepared to believe in these things because there's no evidence proving otherwise. Skepticism is the only scientifically viable paradigm, and until evidence is produced in favor of God I'm going to have to take a pass. Frankly I don't see how not everybody feels the same. Just because we reserve our conclusion does not mean that each side should be weighed 50-50, as if we were right in the middle of the spectrum, at least I hope that's not the case about things like the tooth fairy.
[edit]
I see this is going to be a circular argument as the real question at hand is what constitutes evidence.
|
|
|
07-02-2007, 02:26 PM
|
#30
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Quote:
Lily wrote
I could put this another way. Is your lack of belief justifiable? You can design no experiment to prove that there is no God. Science cannot justify atheism, only agnosticism. So what is the evidence that supports your position? If you take this question seriously, then, perhaps, you will see why adt and I have been trying to make sure that we are on the same page about knowledge vs belief, what consititutes evidence, etc.
|
And, once again, you show us that you do not understand science.
Science absolutely justifies atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. If that belief is not supported by credible evidence, then it is a logical conclusion to reject that belief as having no more merit than belief in Santa Claus.
How hard is it to understand that?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:28 PM.
|