Some people act that way, and you can determine the value of their religion as it has an impact on their life and character. Others are different.
true dat FPC- i can call myself a lot o' things, but normal ain't one of 'em... Hi Stu! It didn't change. What I meant to articulate is that the debate of God's existence is primarily philosophical as opposed to being primarily scientific. For two parties to have a debate on any subject, there must be common ground among them, i.e. basic points they can agree upon. So when a theist and an atheist sit down to debate, they make respective appeals to what you might call "neutral territory" as they try to build a case for their position. Logic, science and circumstantial appeals would be considered neutral territory in that both sides make use of them to build their case. As an example, let's go back to Gekko's link showing the progression from galaxy to atoms: the atheist says 'how can the bible explain that' and the theist says 'how can random bullshit explain that.' Both sides will frequently make claims on the same piece of evidence. So imagine that both sides are in a boxing ring, duking it out. All the neutral ground is in the ring with them, and they are both using it. Philosophy is the entire ring itself. I was trying to show how science is a smaller part of a much larger whole rather than the whole show or the final appeal. Science is limited by design. Giving him lessons? I was just surprised at the shouting (all caps) and the aggressive tone. That was somewhat of a jest, but also a reaction of curious amusement. It really is a point of curiosity for me, as I've said before, why atheists really care what christians think, considering that if atheism is true then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. While I have lost my cool on threads in the past, and I'm sure I am probably considered a "religious fanatic" by some folks on these boards, it seems only fair to point out that the times when I got angry it was because the thread essentially degenerated into a huge mass of insults pointed in one direction. Do you remember that last thread Rs7 started and how it ended, how bad it got before I finally left? At the end of the day, maybe I am a "religious fanatic" I suppose, if you consider me overzealous. such as? Stu, I do scrutinize and examine my faith and beliefs. I have done so intensely and continue to do so, in the sense that understanding what life is all about is a passion for me. I am walking this road every day, thinking about this stuff constantly. Not because I am unsure of anything or feel the need to shore up anything, but because the big picture is fascinating and the depths of thought in regards to it are endless. It would be naive on my part to think I could convince you to change your position on such a large scale subject with a few posts on a message board. As such, I think it is mildly naive for you to assume you have seen even the tip of the iceberg in regards to my position. In terms of my thoughts on this subject and the reasoning behind my position, getting it all onto the pages of elite would be like trying to empty lake tahoe with a spoon. In regards to the necessity of proving or disproving an argument, what would do the job? What would do it either way? Intellectual assent is an act of will, and experience and opinion build a mountain of filtered information that acts as a pillar of strength in favor of one belief system or another. As alpha pointed out, even if God wrote out a message to you in fiery letters in the sky, you could explain it away as a hallucination or a hangover. I think that eventually, when you go around the block enough times, you see that the arguments for and against theism are a closed set. Meaning, there are a finite number of logical positions on both sides of the coin, and ultimately you wind up with iteration after iteration of the same set of arguments on both sides. Where you finish depends largely on where you start. You can make continual progress in terms of depth- digging the wells deeper- but there are a finite number of wells. I remain puzzled as to why it seems necessary for atheists to refuse the idea that a logical case for theism is possible. It's as if "you have faith and I don't" is not enough. It must be extended to "you are blind and illogical." I find this perplexing. I think a hidden nugget of contention comes down to the seed of logical positivism. Atheists inherently embrace logical positivism, whether they realize it or not- indeed whether they even understand the term. Theists do not embrace it. I'm curious, Stu, have you read any books by Francis Schaeffer or C.S. Lewis? I'm not sure what you mean by 'only philosophical'. Any debate that brings more than one branch of knowledge into the fray can be reasonably described as philosophical. It's a higher order of label, not lower, suggesting an intersection of multiple knowledge disciplines without necessary domination of any of them. Again, to repeat myself, intellectual assent is an act of will and nonscientific debates cannot necessarily be decided with the finality of a formulaic equation as certain evidences will be accepted or rejected or claimed by both forms. My reference to old hat/run dmc with gekko was again in regards to his forceful presentation of a question he wrongly assumed there was no response to. You misread me again. I never said God has no need to let anyone know he exists. He has let many people know, including me. In terms of obligation I was referring to general revelation, the idea that God has no obligation to give man perfect scientific knowledge in terms of understanding how the universe works, i.e. He has no need to "explain everything" as in "everything," which was only brought up in light of Gekko assuming I thought the bible was the "explanation for everything." In regards to "doing it right" and the cliff analogy, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean or how it applies to this debate? Are you trying to imply guilt by association, that because a lot of religious leaders are illogical or hypocritical that I am too?
Well, at least you took the gloves off. Doesn't that feel better to reveal how you really feel? Still not sure how I insulted you, considering that all I did was draw conclusions from your own words. And as far as insulting you in the name of God, well, this is a real headscratcher. I wasn't aware of any spiritual invocations on my part, unless maybe some of my sentences were typed in invisible ink. I was just pointing out your inconsistencies, we could have been debating the GDP of Belgium for all I care.
It's just as easy to say that many atheists consider themselves 'enlightened' and feel sorry for the unwashed masses of poor duped believers. How is there any difference? Since when do Christians have a monopoly on arrogance? There are humble, reasoned people on both sides and there are loudmouth jerks on both sides. Such a criticism is thus neither here nor there.
I just saw this post, having overlooked it before. I can understand your position better given this. Real pain is never a laughing matter. For what it's worth (maybe not much of anything), I apologize for coming off as callous and flip in my responses to you.
Omcate said : "Life is a stage. We are the actors without pay." Well you ought to be glad to have a job, paid or not. Or, in terms of this debate, one ought to be glad to have been given a life. Jack