The Halo Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum > Religion Debate
Reply
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
THF VIP Member
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 8,008
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is a novice
#91
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
That's lazy thinking. Tolerating insufficient ideas based on assumptive and hopeful thinking is not commendable or scholarly.
It's not lazy thinking, nor is it hopeful thinking. I would be completely content with dying and not existing. It would be just like it was for me before I was born. I'm simply not going to negate something when I have no evidence for negating it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
There's of no perceived offensiveness when one simply denies acknowledgement that god is worth arguing for. There has been an assumption made by moderate agnosticism that god is somehow above the average banal and fantasy-filled tales being ignored for ages and days.
Hold on a second... we aren't talking about whether or not god is worth arguing for right now. We are talking about absolutely whether or not a god exists. Clearly, given the current evidence (lack of it, actually) for god, it would be absurd to argue for the existence of god right now. But for some reason, you have a hard time tolerating the answer "I don't know".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
You're contradicting your mission of disbelief in the first place by actually being gullible enough to think there's still some reason to question the argument for a god as much as there is not for a god.
It's not gullibility. If I was gullible, I would believe in it. I don't. I also didn't assign equal levels of validity for both sides. I haven't assigned levels of validity at all. I have no evidence to do so rationally. I, very simply put, just don't know at the given time. The origin of the universe has not yet been discovered, and I accept that.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 05:34 PM.
VARYS IS A MERLING
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,801
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#92
03-30-2011
Default

I forgot one. Other than how Craig's arguments are tired and get shot down handily by pretty much everybody, there's this: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra...onable%20Faith

Quote:
In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb.
Varys is a merling

Bran kills Hodor by fucking up warging

Jon Snow becomes Lord of Winterfell backed by Stannis.

Spoiler!
Mediocrity is the killer
Nv1ncible's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,787
Subtract from Nv1ncible's ReputationAdd to Nv1ncible's Reputation Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000
#93
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
Well, other than how he hasn't, sure.
Expected response.

Quote:
Sorry, I don't need to qualify the dismissal of an unfounded claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Let me know when Craig gets past sh.t Hume figured out about causality 300 years ago.
What makes his claim unfounded? What makes Hume's claim founded? If you're going to jump into the skepticist boat, then there's no sense in continuing this argument, and the fact that you lol'ed at my attempt to claim scientific evidence in support of a creator is just laughably ironic.
THF VIP Member
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 8,008
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is a novice
#94
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nv1ncible View Post

Also, like Frag, you did not watch the video.
When you rebuttal people with that unwarranted assumption, not much will get accomplished.
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,947
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#95
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
It's not lazy thinking, nor is it hopeful thinking. I would be completely content with dying and not existing. It would be just like it was for me before I was born. I'm simply not going to negate something when I have no evidence for negating it.

Hold on a second... we aren't talking about whether or not god is worth arguing for right now. We are talking about absolutely whether or not a god exists. Clearly, given the current evidence (lack of it, actually) for god, it would be absurd to argue for the existence of god. But for some reason, you have a hard time tolerating the answer "I don't know".

It's not gullibility. If I was gullible, I would believe in it. I don't. I also didn't assign equal levels of validity for both sides. I haven't assigned levels of validity at all. I have no evidence to do so rationally. I, very simply put, just don't know at the given time.
I think you're misunderstanding my lack of wanting to argue for/against a god as the exact opposite.

I'm asking you why you believe god has a possibility of existing above other disregarded beliefs.

Excuse my wording then and replace hopeful with naive/oblivious if that helps.

I'm just going to borrow davo's comment since you seem to be looking past it for even your own point:

One doesn't need to qualify the dismissal of an unfounded claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The assertion being that the topic of god has enough of whatever it is that you think without doubt that existence is at all possible.

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 05:39 PM.
VARYS IS A MERLING
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,801
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#96
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nv1ncible View Post
Expected response.
What? Dismissal of an unfounded claim? If you think he's actually respected by any community other than other apologists, then it's on you to provide proof of that.
Here's just one example of Craig treading water while someone much more intelligent picks him apart.


I don't expect a response for a couple hours. I expect you'll extend the same courtesy as I did and watch the whole debate before responding. Yes, it's supposed to be ironic that I posted the first part of the debate you posted. Because you didn't watch the whole thing.

Here's another:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigBradleyHellDebate.mp3
And another:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigParsonsDebate.mp3

He gets trounced. This is ignoring the fact that live debates are largely irrelevant. This would serve to better support my point, but I don't expect you to actually read something. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4w3vftzbg1...nterpoint_.pdf

Here's a non-debate form takedown of Craig's terrible arguments:


Again, please watch the whole thing before responding.
Quote:
What makes his claim unfounded?
The fact that he asserts it as axiomatic without actually providing any kind of reason to accept it as axiomatic?

Quote:
What makes Hume's claim founded?
Hey why not come back when you actually know the "claim" you're talking about, kay pumpkin?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CauIndInfNegPha

Quote:
If you're going to jump into the skepticist boat, then there's no sense in continuing this argument
"If you're going to demand evidence when someone presents a claim, then I'm taking my ball and going home!"



Quote:
and the fact that you lol'ed at my attempt to claim scientific evidence in support of a creator is just laughably ironic.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I must have missed the scientific evidence there. I did notice a lot of ignorance and handwaving about philosophical, scientific, and mathematical concepts way above one's paygrade, though. Is that what you meant by "scientific evidence"?

Here's a somewhat thorough textual rebuttal to Craig's brand of the cosmological argument:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...al-argument/#4

Please read it.
Varys is a merling

Bran kills Hodor by fucking up warging

Jon Snow becomes Lord of Winterfell backed by Stannis.

Spoiler!

Last edited by davobrosia; 03-30-2011 at 05:59 PM.
THF VIP Member
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 8,008
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is a novice
#97
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
I'm asking you why you believe god has a possibility of existing above other disregarded beliefs.
The origin of the universe has not been scientifically explained yet. I disregard beliefs that contradict the science we have and our logic. The concept of god doesn't inherently contradict the science we have, nor does it contradict our logic. What many religious people have conceived about god does, though... so naturally those get disregarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
Excuse my wording then, replace hopeful with naive/oblivious.
How is it naive and oblivious? If a notion doesn't contradict our current information and is logically consistent, I'm not going to negate it on the basis of lack of evidence. I will consider it unfounded.

The problem I have with your assumption of anything that has no current evidence should be negated is that you end up negating concepts that could be proven true in the future.

Look at the scientific concepts we have been able to prove with our current technology. 1000 years ago, they didn't have that equipment, and thus didn't have sufficient, if any, evidence to affirm those concepts at the time. By your argument, it would be rational to negate those concepts at that time period. Since it was proven true later, was it really logical to negate the concept originally in the first place?

For your argument to be true, we have to assume that our evidence, our ability to obtain evidence, and our knowledge will not grow.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 05:52 PM.
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,947
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#98
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
The origin of the universe has not been scientifically explained yet.
And what you're getting at is a false dichotomy. If they haven't proven anything yet, that doesn't simply mean then God did it (or rather if god should even be considered in the discussion!)

Quote:
I disregard beliefs that contradict the science we have and our logic. The concept of god doesn't inherently contradict the science we have, nor does it contradict our logic. What many religious people have conceived about god does, though... so naturally those get disregarded.
You're still on this whole "for/against" schtick. What I'm talking about what precedes that discussion.

Quote:
How is it naive and oblivious? If a notion doesn't contradict our current information and is logically consistent, I'm not going to negate it on the basis of lack of evidence. I will consider it unfounded.
There's no reason to take it as an offense, I'm not calling you naive and oblivious, it's the thinking.

That's just a bunch of 'woo woo' nonsense. What's unfounded is your naive assumption that god has enough sufficient evidence or reason behind the mere idea that it's worth talking about/onsidering true.

Quote:
The problem I have with your assumption that anything that has no current evidence should be negated is that you end up negating concepts that could be proven true in the future.
That's because I'm not saying anything that does not have evidence cannot be thought of or imagined. I'm saying that the idea of a god is unfounded, scientifically.

Quote:
Look at the scientific concepts we have been able to prove with our current technology. 1000 years ago, they didn't have that equipment, and thus didn't have sufficient, if any, evidence to affirm those concepts at the time.
No one's blaming them! Certainly not myself. lol

I'm stating it's a cause of sheer lack of what you're arguing they did not have. I'm not arguing against their ignorance, you're mistaking what I said for pity, apparently.

PS. Going to watch a movie, I'll come back later.

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 05:54 PM.
Mediocrity is the killer
Nv1ncible's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,787
Subtract from Nv1ncible's ReputationAdd to Nv1ncible's Reputation Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000
#99
03-30-2011
Default

@Davo. I've watched some of that debate, but honestly it wasn't very compelling to me. I mean I will say this, Craig does repeat a lot of the same stuff in his debates, so if you've seen one you've seen them all. On the other hand, Hitchens didn't offer much of a rebuttal to Craig's claims, and the fact that he kept throwing in seemingly personal jabs at the Christian community, I just found myself getting upset.

You can dismiss Craig if you want, that's fine. I won't dismiss Hitchens or Dawkins or anyone else's argument, even your own had you chosen to present one (from what I can tell all you do is pick apart other's conclusions instead of presenting you're own opinions). I think you and I both realize neither of us is going to convince the other, which is why I'm not going to waste a lot of time in this thread. I like the discussion though, and more interestingly enough the different positions held by everyone here.
VARYS IS A MERLING
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,801
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#100
03-30-2011
Default

I did not mean to post the Hitchens debate. I dislike Hitchens.


I pick apart others' claims about religion and don't tend to make my own because I don't have any. I don't need to provide an alternative because atheism is the default stance.
Varys is a merling

Bran kills Hodor by fucking up warging

Jon Snow becomes Lord of Winterfell backed by Stannis.

Spoiler!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On