Enquiry: Harvard and Ali G
-
Tim Craig wrote:
No, I have no belief that god does exist
So then you're not sure if he does or not? The lack of belief on the topic of the existence of God amounts to uncertainty. Of course there's nothing wrong with uncertainty--it's a perfectly reasonable position. I just want to know where you're coming from. So then, you don't know if God exists or not? If this is not your position, then you either believe he exists, or you believe he doesn't exist. Based on your posts, I'd say it's clear you don't hold a belief that God exists. So then it's down to two options: Either you believe God does not exist, or you're not sure if he exists. If it's the latter, then you yourself testify that it is not a wholly unreasonable idea (otherwise you would have discarded it completely). So either you are unsure, or you believe he does not exist. I'm guessing the latter. And if I'm right, were you unaware that you believed that? Or were you just being dishonest?
Tim Craig wrote:
Since you're the one with the belief, you need to prove it.
I don't need to prove it. It is a personal belief that I hold for myself. I have not asked you to accept it.
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
you believe he does not exist.
I have no belief that god exists. It's a subtle but important distinction. My lack of belief is rational in that there's no proof or anything that leads me to the conclusion that any god exists.
Mundo Cani wrote:
I don't need to prove it. It is a personal belief that I hold for myself. I have not asked you to accept it.
YOu certainly sound like you are. Or are you so unsure that when you hear someone express disbelief that you have to go through the motions to convince yourself again? :rolleyes:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Someone told you.
Exactly, and if it had been anyone else but God I wouldn't have taken any notice.
Tim Craig wrote:
Yes, you want me to believe something silly and give up a lot to do so.
Exactly. He who loves his life will loose it. He who looses his life for me will gain eternal life. You can go on demanding proof from the God who made you until your time is up or you can accept the evidence of his character in the world he has made and the words he has given us. Give up your pride, repent of your sins and be saved. You choose, you live forever with the consequences either way.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Tim Craig wrote: Someone told you. Exactly, and if it had been anyone else but God I wouldn't have taken any notice.
Ah, so god spoke to you directly? Can you tell me what he looked like so that I can indentify him from all those other characters telling me they're god when I stumble across them?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can go on demanding proof from the God who made you until your time is up or you can accept the evidence of his character in the world he has made and the words he has given us.
There is no evidence and the words were made up by men.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Give up your pride, repent of your sins and be saved.
Ah, yes. The crux of your objection to my signature. Pride, self confidence, reason, and happiness are an affront to your god because we have to be made sinful and guilty to accept his utter dominance of us. Crawl into your hole and be miserable until you receive your "salvation". :laugh:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
I don't think Matthew Faithfull or Ilion can comprehend the difference between rational thought and blind faith.
Demon Possessed wrote:
I don't think Matthew Faithfull or Ilion can comprehend the difference between rational thought and blind faith.
Pretty obviously not. I think a couple of more posts and MF is going to pop. ;)
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
ROFLMAO!!! Do you at all read what you reply to? Check out the posts preceding this, please... :-) Later, Peter
Abonet wrote:
Do you at all read what you reply to? Check out the posts preceding this, please...
Obviously, you don't. Thank you for your interest. :doh:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Are you christians always pointing to a book and saying it's the answer? You think you have a monopoly on the book business? :laugh:
What we have the monopoly on is reason :-D.
Ilíon wrote:
What we have the monopoly on is reason
You wouldn't know reason if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. You don't have reason, all you have is blind faith in fairy tales.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What we have the monopoly on is reason
You wouldn't know reason if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. You don't have reason, all you have is blind faith in fairy tales.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
you believe he does not exist.
I have no belief that god exists. It's a subtle but important distinction. My lack of belief is rational in that there's no proof or anything that leads me to the conclusion that any god exists.
Mundo Cani wrote:
I don't need to prove it. It is a personal belief that I hold for myself. I have not asked you to accept it.
YOu certainly sound like you are. Or are you so unsure that when you hear someone express disbelief that you have to go through the motions to convince yourself again? :rolleyes:
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Tim Craig wrote:
I have no belief that god exists
You haven't responded to a single one of my points in this entire thread. I know there is a difference between not having a belief that God exists and believing that God does not exist. And the difference is frankly not that subtle. My point (which you avoided) is that there are only three possible positions on the matter: 1. A belief that God exists 2. A belief that God does not exist 3. Uncertainty about whether he exists or not Now, unless you can offer up another position or explain how "not having a belief" is different than option number 3, then you yourself have taken one of these three positions. So my question to you is, which one is it? Clearly it's not number 1. So is it number 2 or number 3?
Tim Craig wrote:
Or are you so unsure that when you hear someone express disbelief that you have to go through the motions to convince yourself again?
Are you a simpleton? Where in this thread have I argued for or against Christianity or religion? All of my points have been about reason. If you cannot come up with a better effort to engage in this debate than you have thus far, I won't continue this debate with you. Do you even know what the debate is about?
Ian
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
What is the starting point for reasoning?
The starting point for knowledge is reason and sensual perception. We use reason to integrate what our senses tell us into a coherent framework of what we know.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Tim Craig wrote:
The starting point for knowledge is reason and sensual perception
But that wasn't my question. My question was, what is the starting point for reason? Doesn't reason depend on a basic axiom that cannon be proved?
Ian
-
Tim Craig wrote:
The starting point for knowledge is reason and sensual perception
But that wasn't my question. My question was, what is the starting point for reason? Doesn't reason depend on a basic axiom that cannon be proved?
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
My question was, what is the starting point for reason? Doesn't reason depend on a basic axiom that cannon be proved?
Reason is sufficient because without reason, nothing else matters.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I have no belief that god exists
You haven't responded to a single one of my points in this entire thread. I know there is a difference between not having a belief that God exists and believing that God does not exist. And the difference is frankly not that subtle. My point (which you avoided) is that there are only three possible positions on the matter: 1. A belief that God exists 2. A belief that God does not exist 3. Uncertainty about whether he exists or not Now, unless you can offer up another position or explain how "not having a belief" is different than option number 3, then you yourself have taken one of these three positions. So my question to you is, which one is it? Clearly it's not number 1. So is it number 2 or number 3?
Tim Craig wrote:
Or are you so unsure that when you hear someone express disbelief that you have to go through the motions to convince yourself again?
Are you a simpleton? Where in this thread have I argued for or against Christianity or religion? All of my points have been about reason. If you cannot come up with a better effort to engage in this debate than you have thus far, I won't continue this debate with you. Do you even know what the debate is about?
Ian
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
My question was, what is the starting point for reason? Doesn't reason depend on a basic axiom that cannon be proved?
Reason is sufficient because without reason, nothing else matters.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Tim Craig wrote:
Reason is sufficient
I see. OK, why don't you demonstrate that. I challenge you to come up with a single well-reasoned statement that is not based on an axiom. The only "reasoning" that is self-sufficient is circular reasoning. And we all know how valuable that is.
Ian
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
Are you a simpleton?
Ah, another one drops to personal attacks. Go play with your invisible playmate, asshole.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
The debate is over because I inquired as to whether you are a simpleton? I think if you peruse this thread, you'll find that you've taken a similar tone with others. I suspect that you are either unable to engage in rational debate (which would lead one to believe you are a simpleton) or you are unwilling (which would lead one to believe you are dishonest). I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of why you refuse to respond to simple questions. Is it because you are incapable? Or because you are unwilling? If you are incapable, there is little else we can talk about. But if you are unwilling, there's still an outside chance I could convince you to identify the axioms that you seem so intent on keeping secret.
Ian
-
The debate is over because I inquired as to whether you are a simpleton? I think if you peruse this thread, you'll find that you've taken a similar tone with others. I suspect that you are either unable to engage in rational debate (which would lead one to believe you are a simpleton) or you are unwilling (which would lead one to believe you are dishonest). I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of why you refuse to respond to simple questions. Is it because you are incapable? Or because you are unwilling? If you are incapable, there is little else we can talk about. But if you are unwilling, there's still an outside chance I could convince you to identify the axioms that you seem so intent on keeping secret.
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
The debate is over because I inquired as to whether you are a simpleton? I think if you peruse this thread, you'll find that you've taken a similar tone with others.
No, if you've been following, I only pointed out name calling by others. I can't engage in rational debate with you because you are without reason. You simply cover your ears, chant lalalala until the other party throws up their hands in disgust with you and then you act like you've proved something. The only one lacking in capabilities here is you. I'd tell you to have a nice life but I know that's denied to you. Sure hope all that sacrifice pays off. I wouldn't bet on it.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
The debate is over because I inquired as to whether you are a simpleton? I think if you peruse this thread, you'll find that you've taken a similar tone with others.
No, if you've been following, I only pointed out name calling by others. I can't engage in rational debate with you because you are without reason. You simply cover your ears, chant lalalala until the other party throws up their hands in disgust with you and then you act like you've proved something. The only one lacking in capabilities here is you. I'd tell you to have a nice life but I know that's denied to you. Sure hope all that sacrifice pays off. I wouldn't bet on it.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Tim Craig wrote:
I can't engage in rational debate with you because you are without reason
Really? But you are the one who has refused to engage. I have asked simple questions that you are either unwilling or unable to address. Let's try this one last time. If you are so reasonable, and I am so unreasonable, then please, by all means, use your reasoning skills to show how the following statement is unreasonable. All reasoning is based on a set of axioms that cannot proved. This has been the crux of the debate and you have not yet touched on it. To refuse to engage in a simple debate while shouting that your opponent is unreasonable is stupid -- unless you can show by your own reasoning, why his reasoning is flawed.
Tim Craig wrote:
You simply cover your ears, chant lalalala until the other party throws up their hands in disgust with you and then you act like you've proved something.
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a cliche.
Ian
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
The debate is over because I inquired as to whether you are a simpleton? I think if you peruse this thread, you'll find that you've taken a similar tone with others.
No, if you've been following, I only pointed out name calling by others. I can't engage in rational debate with you because you are without reason. You simply cover your ears, chant lalalala until the other party throws up their hands in disgust with you and then you act like you've proved something. The only one lacking in capabilities here is you. I'd tell you to have a nice life but I know that's denied to you. Sure hope all that sacrifice pays off. I wouldn't bet on it.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Most all the christians I have talked to on here (with the exception of jason_lakewhitney) are like that. They will go in circles with their fallacies and ignore your arguments then insult and try to assert their superiority. Then they will declare victory when the other person finally gives up trying to debate.
-
Most all the christians I have talked to on here (with the exception of jason_lakewhitney) are like that. They will go in circles with their fallacies and ignore your arguments then insult and try to assert their superiority. Then they will declare victory when the other person finally gives up trying to debate.
Demon Possessed wrote:
They will go in circles with their fallacies
Please, quote one of my fallacies.
Demon Possessed wrote:
and ignore your arguments
Please, give me one example of an argument I ignored in this thread.
Demon Possessed wrote:
They will go in circles with their fallacies and ignore your arguments then insult and try to assert their superiority, then declare victory when the other person finally gives up trying to debate.
I do believe you're describing yourself here.
Ian
-
Most all the christians I have talked to on here (with the exception of jason_lakewhitney) are like that. They will go in circles with their fallacies and ignore your arguments then insult and try to assert their superiority. Then they will declare victory when the other person finally gives up trying to debate.
Demon Possessed wrote:
(with the exception of jason_lakewhitney)
Thanks for the complement. You and Tim are right. There are a lot of so called Christians here that just act stupid. And by their actions they make other Christians look bad. First of all a debate should never have any type of insults. Once again thanks and have a good day.
God Bless, Jason
-
Mundo Cani wrote:
The debate is over because I inquired as to whether you are a simpleton? I think if you peruse this thread, you'll find that you've taken a similar tone with others.
No, if you've been following, I only pointed out name calling by others. I can't engage in rational debate with you because you are without reason. You simply cover your ears, chant lalalala until the other party throws up their hands in disgust with you and then you act like you've proved something. The only one lacking in capabilities here is you. I'd tell you to have a nice life but I know that's denied to you. Sure hope all that sacrifice pays off. I wouldn't bet on it.
To introduce faith christianity must destroy reason, to introduce salvation it must destroy happiness.
Mundo is missing the point here big time. You don't care one way or the other if God exists. His little multiple choice answers needed one more: 4. Irrelevant, does not apply or cares less Is that correct? Its hard to debate which is better apple pie or cherry pie, when you don't like pie. On a side note: I don't think to have faith in Christ you must destroy reason. Nor does salvation mean you should live a unhappy and pointless life. Disclaimer: Not trolling just dropping in my two cents.
God Bless, Jason
-
Mundo is missing the point here big time. You don't care one way or the other if God exists. His little multiple choice answers needed one more: 4. Irrelevant, does not apply or cares less Is that correct? Its hard to debate which is better apple pie or cherry pie, when you don't like pie. On a side note: I don't think to have faith in Christ you must destroy reason. Nor does salvation mean you should live a unhappy and pointless life. Disclaimer: Not trolling just dropping in my two cents.
God Bless, Jason
jason_lakewhitney wrote:
Mundo is missing the point here big time.
What is the point that I am missing "big time"?
jason_lakewhitney wrote:
You don't care one way or the other if God exists.
Whether or not you care does not equate to a personal belief on the matter. "Not caring" is not a statement of belief so it cannot be added to the options I came up with for positions of belief regarding the existence of God. Though someone could claim they take no position at all (which is probably what you meant), having "no position" simply means you haven't given yourself to serious thought on the matter. Once you've actually thought about it, there remains only three options: belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Now one may claim they don't care one way or the other, but that is a surface position. If they investigate it through introspection (which can only be done by an honest person) they will ultimately discover that they either believe, disbelieve, or are uncertain. So I think I disagree that "not caring one way or the other" is a real position for anyone who has given the matter any thought at all. However, you make an interesting point and I'll have to think about it some more. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say "I don't care" is a valid fourth option. Do you really believe that an adamant atheist like Tim holds no position on whether or not God exists? I think it's safe to say based on Tim's sig and his posts in this thread, that the idea of God is not irrelevant to him--it is appalling. And to claim he has no belief on the matter is either ignorant or dishonest. (Remember, this sub-thread started in response to Tim's claim that Theists are the ones with beliefs and that atheists don't have beliefs. This, of course, is nonsense. The topic of this conversation is reason--not God.)
Ian
-
jason_lakewhitney wrote:
Mundo is missing the point here big time.
What is the point that I am missing "big time"?
jason_lakewhitney wrote:
You don't care one way or the other if God exists.
Whether or not you care does not equate to a personal belief on the matter. "Not caring" is not a statement of belief so it cannot be added to the options I came up with for positions of belief regarding the existence of God. Though someone could claim they take no position at all (which is probably what you meant), having "no position" simply means you haven't given yourself to serious thought on the matter. Once you've actually thought about it, there remains only three options: belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Now one may claim they don't care one way or the other, but that is a surface position. If they investigate it through introspection (which can only be done by an honest person) they will ultimately discover that they either believe, disbelieve, or are uncertain. So I think I disagree that "not caring one way or the other" is a real position for anyone who has given the matter any thought at all. However, you make an interesting point and I'll have to think about it some more. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say "I don't care" is a valid fourth option. Do you really believe that an adamant atheist like Tim holds no position on whether or not God exists? I think it's safe to say based on Tim's sig and his posts in this thread, that the idea of God is not irrelevant to him--it is appalling. And to claim he has no belief on the matter is either ignorant or dishonest. (Remember, this sub-thread started in response to Tim's claim that Theists are the ones with beliefs and that atheists don't have beliefs. This, of course, is nonsense. The topic of this conversation is reason--not God.)
Ian
Mundo Cani wrote:
What point am I missing?
That there are people who do not care if God exists or does not exists. They would have the same attitude towards a god whether they have physically meet one or had only heard of one.
Mundo Cani wrote:
Whether or not you care has nothing to do with your personal belief on the matter.
There has been a lot of times that I have been thinking something, but I didn't type it the way I was thinking it. Did you type what you were thinking? It seems to me there is a need for more clear direction in your statement.
Mundo Cani wrote:
This could be said of someone who has never thought on the matter at all. However, based on Tim's sig, the idea of God is not irrelevant to him--it is appalling.
Tim doesn't care about God or any other gods. Tim doesn't find God appalling. He finds the thought of gods, religion and Christians that shoot of their mouths in so called debates with insults and remarks that are not 'Christian' like. They seem to make themselves out to be hypocrites and do more harm to Christianity than they do good. Don't try to win a debate, try to reach a stalemate.
God Bless, Jason
I am not perfect but I try to be better than those before me. So those who come after me will be better than I am.