1818 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

There's no evidence of the supernatural claims of Christianity, but there's plenty of evidence of Christianity's brainwashing, as perfectly evidenced in this topic.

Excuse me while I go live in a whale for a few days...

[johnross47]

"There's no evidence of the supernatural claims of Christianity, but there's plenty of evidence of Christianity's brainwashing, as perfectly evidenced in this topic."
There's no evidence of any supernatural claims. If it exists it's natural. If anything is claimed to be supernatural it has to be outside any possible evidence of its existence, which is where the real problem lies; believers are prepared to believe something without any evidence; rational people are not. All the artificial arguments in the world (ie Kalam) won't make any difference.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
this is structured as a deductive argument but stop short of the conclusion desired by the believers so they resort to a far stretched inductive leap in the dark and declare god to be the most likely cause, while rational people just say "Hmm, I wonder what the cause might be?"

[shadowhawk]

There's no evidence of the supernatural claims of Christianity, but there's plenty of evidence of Christianity's brainwashing, as perfectly evidenced in this topic.

Excuse me while I go live in a whale for a few days...

Even though it is off topic, you are going to live in a whale? Well people have been eaten by fish. Be careful.

On topic and given the nature of this post, enjoy.

[johnross47]

what a load of rubbish. Talking fast doesn't improve the quality of the rubbish and just because he piles it high doesn't mean it turns to gold. These are just the same arguments we've seen over and over, and dismissed just as often. They didn't hold water last week and they'll still leak like sieves next week. The only difference this time is that the format is obviously aimed at bolstering the faith of the most credulous and uneducated believers.
I see no point in elaborating. You haven't given a reasoned objection on any of the many times I've elaborated before. If you can't participate like the adults on this forum why don't you go somewhere else?

[DukeNukem]

That video flies off the rails on Point #2, deep diving into a rocky chasm, leading to a fiery explosion.

Pretty much these pro-God arguments can be summed up:

1. God exists.

2. See point 1.

The premise that the information in DNA must be created by intelligence is patently false, and reveals a total misunderstanding of the driving process of evolution.

Like all once-real gods before the Christian god, the graveyard awaits...

http://www.graveyard.../graveyard.html

[shadowhawk]

johnross47 I've thought about it long and hard and I have to say, you are a waste of my time. You don't actually take part in the conversation; you post other people's arguments, usually WL Craig's bad ones, and then abuse anyone who disagrees with them. You are in constant breach of the rules of the forum. I have made proper points against Craig over and over but you have never once answered with anything except abuse. ( SH: Are you talking to me, or yourself in the mirror?)

There's no evidence of any supernatural claims. If it exists it's natural. (See, even non-theists have faith, You here have the burden of proof.) If anything is claimed to be supernatural it has to be outside any possible evidence of its exiistence. (proof) which is where the real problem lies; believers are prepared to believe something without any evidence; rational people are not. I don’t believe anything without evidence. That is why this topic was created.) All the artificial arguments in the world (ie Kalam) won't make any difference.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

this is structured as a deductive argument but stop short of the conclusion desired by the believers so they resort to a far stretched inductive leap in the dark and declare god to be the most likely cause, while rational people just say "Hmm, I wonder what the cause might be?" (Obviously you don’t t have a clue and have not followed the discussion.)

REALITY CHECK
Which view, Theism or Atheism fits reality? Theists live in the real world. http://www.longecity...120#entry625613

REVOLVING DOOR FALLACY
1. A. And B. Have a discussion on a topic that involves several points, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5....
2. B. Does not like the way the discussion is going and though the discussion has progressed to point #5 and beyond, she repeatedly returns to point # 1 to frustrate the discussion.
3. When A. Complains, B. Claims A. Won’t discuss the issues.

OTHER PEOPLES THOUGHTS FALLACY
1. A. claims B. Needs to think for herself and not use other peoples thoughts in their discussions.
2. B. asks A. “Tell me what you know that you didn’t learn from someone else.”
3. Everything we know came from someone or something else.


DECLARATION FALLACY
Here, someone simply declares themself the winner or someone else the looser, without ever having a discussion or playing the game.

MEDIA FALLACY
1. A. clams B. uses the wrong media, therefore their arguments are invalid. Examples may be, quill pens, typewriters, computers, videos, movies, news papers, books, codes, cartoons, pictures, etc..
2. The attempt is to control the discussion by objecting to the media. The media has little to do with truth

I HAVE BEEN ABUSED
Here is the pot calling the kittle black.

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 November 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[shadowhawk]

That video flies off the rails on Point #2, deep diving into a rocky chasm, leading to a fiery explosion.

Pretty much these pro-God arguments can be summed up:

1. God exists.

2. See point 1.

The premise that the information in DNA must be created by intelligence is patently false, and reveals a total misunderstanding of the driving process of evolution.

Like all once-real gods before the Christian god, the graveyard awaits...

http://www.graveyard.../graveyard.html

Nonsense, no one ever said that.

Appeal to Ridicule
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...o-ridicule.html

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

[shadowhawk]

what a load of rubbish. Talking fast doesn't improve the quality of the rubbish and just because he piles it high doesn't mean it turns to gold. These are just the same arguments we've seen over and over, and dismissed just as often. They didn't hold water last week and they'll still leak like sieves next week. The only difference this time is that the format is obviously aimed at bolstering the faith of the most credulous and uneducated believers.
I see no point in elaborating. You haven't given a reasoned objection on any of the many times I've elaborated before. If you can't participate like the adults on this forum why don't you go somewhere else?

Name calling with not one bit of evidence. Declaring you won the arguments without ever once doing it. You obviously are not interested in the discussion and are trying to derail it with this nonsense. Ho hummm

[sthira]

Maybe if you (Shadowhawk) related your own story of transformation from atheist to theist some of us might find it interesting and inspirational. I think your personal conversion might provide insights to the relevant topic. Why not?

What were the circumstances surrounding your conversion? Were you facing a life struggle, an injury, or a tragic event? Did you have dreams or visions? Did god come to you in a voice or a light or an overall body sensation? Did you suddenly just "know" god's truth? Or did you arrive at it through study, meditation and contemplation?

[DukeNukem]

Shadowhawk, the foundation of Christianity (original sin) is a crumbling foundation. Do you personally believe in the Adam and Eve story as God puts forth in the Bible?


The Adam and Eve debacle continues: science drives theologians into a frenzy of fabrication
http://whyevolutioni...of-fabrication/

[mikeinnaples]

I am curious why people continue to attempt rational discussion with Shadowhawk.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 26 November 2013 - 07:30 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Maybe if you (Shadowhawk) related your own story of transformation from atheist to theist some of us might find it interesting and inspirational. I think your personal conversion might provide insights to the relevant topic. Why not?

What were the circumstances surrounding your conversion? Were you facing a life struggle, an injury, or a tragic event? Did you have dreams or visions? Did god come to you in a voice or a light or an overall body sensation? Did you suddenly just "know" god's truth? Or did you arrive at it through study, meditation and contemplation?

I have done this several times elsewhere but it would be off topic right now. I plan to discuss evidence for the existence of God, which God, the evidence for Christianity and personal evidence. This is the over all view. However, there are few theists here and they seem to want to derail the discussion.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, the foundation of Christianity (original sin) is a crumbling foundation. Do you personally believe in the Adam and Eve story as God puts forth in the Bible?


The Adam and Eve debacle continues: science drives theologians into a frenzy of fabrication
http://whyevolutioni...of-fabrication/

THE TOPIC IS, “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY?”
Anything not related to the topic is a derailment from the topic either by accident or malicious.
If the post now, warrants the time for an answer it may be found on topic at “GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES.” http://www.longecity...es/#entry619219
HERE? ( ) NAME CALLING is simply a form of AD HOMINEM and Original Sin is not the topic, though feel free to start a topic elsewhere and I will engage you there. The same goes for Adam and Eve.

[johnross47]

I am curious why people continue to attempt rational discussion with Shadowhawk.

My own thoughts precisely....I see what looks like an interesting question and ignore the nagging memory of how fruitless it will be. He's basically a religiously obsessed troll and I should just learn to ignore him.

[shadowhawk]

I am curious why people continue to attempt rational discussion with Shadowhawk.

You aren't .

[DukeNukem]

Yup, I'm out for good. Pointless.

[sthira]

I have done this several times elsewhere but it would be off topic right now.

I don't really see how discussing why you're interested in proving g-d's existence could be off topic. It's important to you, and it might help to articulate plainly why you're on a public forum constantly discussing this particular topic. All of us here -- even your detractors -- are also interested in god and spirituality and in the larger meanings of our lives or else we wouldn't be minding your writing any attention whatsoever. And if you've discussed your transformation elsewhere reiterate it in the Cliff's notes version.

I plan to discuss evidence for the existence of God, which God, the evidence for Christianity and personal evidence. This is the over all view. However, there are few theists here and they seem to want to derail the discussion.

Religion is a survival skill; it's a way to cope, to grapple and try to understand the big questions. It's a way to feel less insecure. A lot of people have a really difficult time walking around, existing, living a daily life that they've been told is completely meaningless. We need to know. Religion is a way to think about these big topics in a safe way; religion is a way to compartmentalize our thoughts and beliefs, our half-formed ideas about why anything exists at all. We're meaning-seeking creatures -- all of us, theist and atheist.

[shadowhawk]

I am curious why people continue to attempt rational discussion with Shadowhawk.

My own thoughts precisely....I see what looks like an interesting question and ignore the nagging memory of how fruitless it will be. He's basically a religiously obsessed troll and I should just learn to ignore him.

Bigotry! Derailing the topic by:

NAME CALLING FALLACY;
A calls B pejorative names as if this adds something to the discussion. This logical fallacy often is followed by further Ad-Hominem attacks.

POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK FALLACY
This fallacy can take several forms:
1. A, who is black faults B for being black while ignoring As own color. Hypocrisy.
2. A, who is black calls B, who is not black, “black.” Projection of ones own faults.

OH POOR ME, FALLACY;
“I have to put up with him.” “She caused me to do it.”
Blaming someone else for your own responsible actions and choices.

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 November 2013 - 01:37 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I have done this several times elsewhere but it would be off topic right now.

I don't really see how discussing why you're interested in proving g-d's existence could be off topic. It's important to you, and it might help to articulate plainly why you're on a public forum constantly discussing this particular topic. All of us here -- even your detractors -- are also interested in god and spirituality and in the larger meanings of our lives or else we wouldn't be minding your writing any attention whatsoever. And if you've discussed your transformation elsewhere reiterate it in the Cliff's notes version.

I plan to discuss evidence for the existence of God, which God, the evidence for Christianity and personal evidence. This is the over all view. However, there are few theists here and they seem to want to derail the discussion.

Religion is a survival skill; it's a way to cope, to grapple and try to understand the big questions. It's a way to feel less insecure. A lot of people have a really difficult time walking around, existing, living a daily life that they've been told is completely meaningless. We need to know. Religion is a way to think about these big topics in a safe way; religion is a way to compartmentalize our thoughts and beliefs, our half-formed ideas about why anything exists at all. We're meaning-seeking creatures -- all of us, theist and atheist.

Right now we have a topic, which in time includes what you are talking about. I shared with you where the topic is going. But, I agree with you, so I will PM you and discuss it now. That way this discussion can stay on topic.

[shadowhawk]

Yup, I'm out for good. Pointless.

Perhaps you understood the topic to be "Pointless," and this explains a lot. The real topic explores a question, "IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???" Were you "abused," also? Strange.

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 November 2013 - 01:34 AM.

[shadowhawk]

FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE. Of these five we have covered two so far.





We will finish off the arguments from evolution after Thanksgiving. Enjoy.

[A941]

I find the wording of the question interesting.
Yes, there is evidence for christianity, meaning the existence of christianity, but it is a little bit different if you ask if there is evidence for christ, or god.

[N.T.M.]

I find the wording of the question interesting.
Yes, there is evidence for christianity, meaning the existence of christianity, but it is a little bit different if you ask if there is evidence for christ, or god.

I've thought the same thing about "evidence for theism." Yes, there's a belief in God. I'm constantly reminded of this when WLC refers to "evidence against atheism."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj1VIs2HJvo&feature=em-uploademail

RNA can self-replicate and its constituents aren't too hard to find. Secondly, evolution shows that complexity can arise from simpler things, so both premises in the video are incorrect (maybe there were more; I didn't finish it).

Edited by N.T.M., 28 November 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[shadowhawk]

“Is there evidence For Christianity,” follows the following logic:

1. Is there a God? That is a different question than is Christ God? If there is no evidence for God, then that is a defeater for the question, “Is Christ God?” So the first part deals with the question of Gods existence.

2. If there is evidence for God, than the second question is which God best fits the evidence to this point?

3. Then comes evidence for Christianity.

Each of these developments have a number of sub arguments, and of course debates. We also have to contend with those who would derail the topic by going off topic or committing Logical Fallacies. The motive for doing this varies.

Right now we are still dealing with point one. I will post a summary of the developments to this point shortly. We are still dealing with evolution as a evidence for God.

As the topic starter I try to keep it roughly on track. If you don’t follow the logic, don’t expect to know what is going on. http://www.longecity...150#entry626289

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.; RNA can self-replicate and its constituents aren't too hard to find. Secondly, evolution shows that complexity can arise from simpler things, so both premises in the video are incorrect (maybe there were more; I didn't finish it).

The very short video, which you did not Finnish, had nothing to do with evolution. So, no wonder you think the premises are incorrect! You don’t know what it is talking about. ???
Reduplication does not imply increase in complexity. Proof? You haven’t shown me any yet.

I have presented two videos which represent my view of evolution. What is your objection? Which came first, the DNA or the Epigenome? Isn’t the replication of RNA remarkable? Random chance? Are you to fault me for wonderment and doubt that monkeys with typewriters can tell this story? Evolution is evidence of ....

[N.T.M.]

Reduplication does not imply increase in complexity. Proof? You haven’t shown me any yet.

Good sir, it seems like you didn't read my post at all. Evolution was my proof.

The very short video, which you did not Finnish, had nothing to do with evolution.

It referred to the acquisition of complexity, so it has everything to do with evolution.

Reduplication does not imply increase in complexity.

No, not by itself, but it's necessary for it to occur.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.
Good sir, it seems like you didn't read my post at all. Evolution was my proof.

Evolution is the current proof I have been using for the existence of God. Evolution is my proof in the current point of the case for God. The Kalam ( one of the topics of the video we have been addressing) is about cause and effect. Given the discussion we have had what is your problem with the Kalam?

It referred to the acquisition of complexity, so it has everything to do with evolution.

I also have a source for acquisition of complexity! That is one of my points!

No, not by itself, but it's necessary for it to occur.

No disagreement here either. Wow, someday we may agree.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.
Good sir, it seems like you didn't read my post at all. Evolution was my proof.

Evolution is the current proof I have been using for the existence of God. Evolution is my proof in the current point of the case for God. The Kalam ( one of the topics of the video we have been addressing) is about cause and effect. Given the discussion we have had what is your problem with the Kalam?

It referred to the acquisition of complexity, so it has everything to do with evolution.

I also have a source for acquisition of complexity! That is one of my points!

No, not by itself, but it's necessary for it to occur.

No disagreement here either. Wow, someday we may agree.

I can see that I'm going to have to politely step out on this one. I thought I'd be able to interject a few points and end things quickly, but I can see now that it'd take much longer than I originally thought (not that that's a bad thing). I may come back to this later, but at the moment I don't think I have enough time to dive in.

[Absent]

There is no such thing as the supernatural. Anything that can be deemed as supernatural, IF it exists, is then, quite natural, and quite real. If Jesus or other mystical figures with powers existed, then logic would say they are not magical or supernatural. If they are able to perform any of these feats then that means there is some mechanism of the existence they live in that allows for it, making it(their powers) scientific in nature, causality.

There are a million things that for lack of better explanation could point to an intelligent designer, but at the same time those very same things could point at a million other things. An interesting game I like to play is to make a list of 10 different words, and then try to connect them 10 different times in 10 completely different stories. Understanding this is the key to understanding why there will never be total absolute proof and evidence for one single religion. For if there is any evidence surrounding a religion, then for all we know that religion has been constructed around that evidence. Now, whether or not that religion is 'true' in a historical sense of mystical things happening is a different story, one I have not personally witnessed so my opinion is irrelevant in that case.

Edited by Siro, 30 November 2013 - 07:09 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Siro: There is no such thing as the supernatural. Anything that can be deemed as supernatural, IF it exists, is then, quite natural, and quite real. If Jesus or other mystical figures with powers existed, then logic would say they are not magical or supernatural. If they are able to perform any of these feats then that means there is some mechanism of the existence they live in that allows for it, making it(their powers) scientific in nature, causality.

So, you simply deal with the supernatural by renaming it, “natural” if it is real. That is one way of getting read of it. I can think of all kinds of things this would work for. Everything could be “supernatural,” all you have to do is rename it. I like that too.

There are a million things that for lack of better explanation could point to an intelligent designer, but at the same time those very same things could point at a million other things. An interesting game I like to play is to make a list of 10 different words, and then try to connect them 10 different times in 10 completely different stories. Understanding this is the key to understanding why there will never be total absolute proof and evidence for one single religion. For if there is any evidence surrounding a religion, then for all we know that religion has been constructed around that evidence. Now, whether or not that religion is 'true' in a historical sense of mystical things happening is a different story, one I have not personally witnessed so my opinion is irrelevant in that case.

There is no such thing as, “absolute proof” FOR ANYTHING. And what do you think your game proves??? This is off topic, we are talking about evolution as evidence for God’s existence.