21 unconvincing arguments for god.

SamLowry · October 2007

A nice concise summary of the topics covered here in pex....

Shinobi No Kami · October 2007

22nd proof: Cut and paste an obscenely long and utterly pointless essay. Either the person you are debating is unwilling to read the whole essay (after seeing the idiocy of the first few paragraphs) or you actually get him to read the entire thing and waste his time. Either way you win. Also known as the "you don't know enough about the Christian tradition" proof.

roelallen · October 2007

Shinobi No Kami wrote: »

22nd proof: Cut and paste an obscenely long and utterly pointless essay. Either the person you are debating is unwilling to read the whole essay (after seeing the idiocy of the first few paragraphs) or you actually get him to read the entire thing and waste his time. Either way you win. Also known as the "you don't know enough about the Christian tradition" proof.

But it's really true, having come across atheistic arguments here, that atheists do have prejudicial and preconceived notions of Christianity, and then impulsively and hasteningly with partiality stand on those erroneous prejudgements, and then viciously attack Christianity in particular and theism in general.

Just take for example the atheist's prejudicial view that theism in general and Christianity in particular is irrational and unscientific, prompting theists and believers to just belief blindly in the fact of scientific findings to the contrary. But then contrary to that view, the Holy Bible in the first Epistle General of Saint John the Apostle in fact tells believers to "test every spirit", for not all are of God, for some are of men, and some are of the devil. So that the exercise of religious faith and belief is in fact also a rational act, a view that the Holy Bible asserts most beautifully.

And it seems to me that Shinobi No Kami has that propensity to point to us theists and Christians the dirty finger of accusing atheists of not knowing "enough about the Christian tradition" without first looking at the way atheists here in the first place argue their case against God and His existence, and how they do commit the same mistakes.

Before you point your finger, make sure your nails are clean.

As for this thread, may I invite all atheists to please read:

jmromano · October 2007

Shinobi No Kami wrote: »

22nd proof: Cut and paste an obscenely long and utterly pointless essay. Either the person you are debating is unwilling to read the whole essay (after seeing the idiocy of the first few paragraphs) or you actually get him to read the entire thing and waste his time. Either way you win. Also known as the "you don't know enough about the Christian tradition" proof.

samlowry wrote:

couldn't help it. You are either mentally challenged or a deliberate time waster.

(emphasis supplied)

So the threadstarter is doing what he accused somebody of doing?

Shinobi No Kami · October 2007

roelallen wrote: »

But it's really true, having come across atheistic arguments here, that atheists do have prejudicial and preconceived notions of Christianity, and then impulsively and hasteningly with partiality stand on those erroneous prejudgements, and then viciously attack Christianity in particular and theism in general.

"High faluting" naman ata ang dating mo tsong. You could've just said: "Some atheists base their Christian criticisms on misconceptions.". Note the "some".

Just take for example the atheist's prejudicial view that theism in general and Christianity in particular is irrational and unscientific, prompting theists and believers to just belief blindly in the fact of scientific findings to the contrary.

Okay, that was barely intelligible. I take it you mean some atheists think that Christians choose blind belief (that phrase was probably redundant) over hard evidence.

But then contrary to that view, the Holy Bible in the first Epistle General of Saint John the Apostle in fact tells believers to "test every spirit", for not all are of God, for some are of men, and some are of the devil. So that the exercise of religious faith and belief is in fact also a rational act, a view that the Holy Bible asserts most beautifully.

First of all, how do you "test every spirit"? Did the bible instruct you to use the scientific method? Did you, in fact, test every spirit? every non-Christian religious system?

More importantly, did you test your "Christian God hypothesis"? How?

Lastly, skepticism is not, by any stretch of deluded imagination, an original idea of Christianity.

And it seems to me that Shinobi No Kami has that propensity to point to us theists and Christians the dirty finger of accusing atheists of not knowing "enough about the Christian tradition" without first looking at the way atheists here in the first place argue their case against God and His existence, and how they do commit the same mistakes.

I post in this sub-forum primarily to investigate, to scrutinize ideas. Unlike some fundamentalists, I don't see it as "us against them". If somebody posts something dubious and I feel like I have something to say about the matter, I post.

Before you point your finger, make sure your nails are clean.

As for this thread, may I invite all atheists to please read:

http://www.trueu.org/dorms/stulounge/A000000690.cfm

Every single argument in this article has already been repeatedly refuted. See link on the first post for the summary.

I am curious though, why did you direct the article at atheists only? What about Muslims? Jews? Mormons? etc.

the article mentioned above wrote:

In retrospect I realize that my rejection of Christianity stemmed from what Josh McDowell considers the three most common excuses for rejecting Christ: pride, moral problems and ignorance.

Proof?

article wrote:

I first became acquainted with C.S. Lewis when a Christian friend of mine gave me a copy of Mere Christianity. As I read it, I encountered a paradox. Here was an obviously intelligent, witty and articulate person who was also a Christian. How could this be?

IMO, this guy was a false atheist (If indeed he was an atheist at all.). Richard Dawkins has an interesting short essay about the subject:

SamLowry · October 2007

jmromano wrote: »

ON ANOTHER THREAD:

(emphasis supplied)

So the threadstarter is doing what he accused somebody of doing?

actually I posted this link with you in mind to serve as an f.a.q. on arguments for god. this would eventually save on bandwidth, time and brainpower.

Casta Diva · October 2007

Shinobi No Kami wrote: »

"High faluting" naman ata ang dating mo tsong. You could've just said: "Some atheists base their Christian criticisms on misconceptions.". Note the "some".

Simply noted.

Okay, that was barely intelligible. I take it you mean some atheists think that Christians choose blind belief (that phrase was probably redundant) over hard evidence.

Simply noted. But the phrase "blind belief" is surely not redundant. For there is that belief that stems from a rational examination of things.

First of all, how do you "test every spirit"? Did the bible instruct you to use the scientific method? Did you, in fact, test every spirit? every non-Christian religious system?

The question is immaterial. What is material is that the Sacred Scriptures of Christianity does not just invite all believers to believe absolutely, but in fact commands all believers to "believe not every spirit", but to "try (test) the spirits", whether they be of God or of men or of the devil: for some are of men, and some are of the devil, in which case they are surely not of God. What is material is that the Christian faith is a deeply rational and conscious effort of self discernment, self recollection, and self meditation as to the truths of the Christian faith. The point of the Sacred Scriptures is that the atheists in assuming the Christian belief is blind faith in the face of "hard contrary evidence" is assuming erroneously and falsely, and for atheists to begin their arguments from such erroneous and false accusations of Christianity is unfair and unfounded.

More importantly, did you test your "Christian God hypothesis"? How?

This is immaterial, as in above, for the argument hinges on the rationality or irrationality of Christian belief as based or not based merely on "blind" faith in the face of "hard evidence" to the contrary.

Lastly, skepticism is not, by any stretch of deluded imagination, an original idea of Christianity.

Care to elucidate more?

I post in this sub-forum primarily to investigate, to scrutinize ideas. Unlike some fundamentalists, I don't see it as "us against them". If somebody posts something dubious and I feel like I have something to say about the matter, I post.

Simply noted.

poisoning the well

Simply noted.

Every single argument in this article has already been repeatedly refuted. See link on the first post for the summary.

I can also easily claim that every single argument of the thread's sponsored article by the atheist Augustus has already been repeatedly refuted by theistic arguments, more convincing in fact.

I am curious though, why did you direct the article at atheists only? What about Muslims? Jews? Mormons? etc.

Jews and Mormons all believe in the same God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, in short, the God of the Holy Bible. As for Islam, I am not quite sure.

Proof?

You are one of the proofs that atheistic rantings are resultants of pride, prejudice, misunderstanding of Christianity, and moral wrong, rather than stemming from a truly rational appreciation of things.

appeal to authority

Are you not also merely appealing to authority when you posted that article in thread? And the writer in that blog is not appealing to authority, but merely using CS Lewis's writings as his base for conversion. Atheists themselves would be guilty of appeal to authority if they would convert to atheism after reading any of Dawkin's evil books. In fact, Dawkins himself invites all readers to "appeal to authority" by saying that all who read his books should be atheists after reading the same.

IMO, this guy was a false atheist (If indeed he was an atheist at all.). Richard Dawkins has an interesting short essay about the subject: I am an atheist BUT ...

See how atheism cloaks itself now with the infallibility of the dogma, an infallibility that is in fact to them heinous. Who defines now what is true atheism and what is false? You?

jeune_fille · October 2007

Even christians misunderstood themselves

jmromano · October 2007

SamLowry wrote: »

actually I posted this link with you in mind to serve as an f.a.q. on arguments for god. this would eventually save on bandwidth, time and brainpower.

Cool!

Frank_Macky · October 2007

roelallen wrote:

...atheist's prejudicial view that theism in general and Christianity in particular is irrational and unscientific, prompting theists and believers to just belief [sic] blindly in the fact of scientific findings to the contrary.

Such a statement as above can only be made by someone who is truly uneducated in what science involves. By definition, if some statement or assertion is to be considered scientific, then it does not condone "blind belief" in said fact but offers itself up for rigorous proof and testing by others and retracted if cannot be proven in such a manner.

micketymoc · October 2007

Blind belief in science? That's a new one to me. And it's a false equivalence: the unquestioning attitude one is expected to take with religious assertions is a far cry from the skeptical attitude encouraged with scientific findings.

Casta Diva · November 2007

micketymoc wrote: »

Blind belief in science? That's a new one to me. And it's a false equivalence: the unquestioning attitude one is expected to take with religious assertions is a far cry from the skeptical attitude encouraged with scientific findings.

Not really, no. Einstein and many other scientists in fact do exercise blind belief in some of their theories, and the Roman Catholic Church always has that sceptical attitude in dealing with canonisations of Saints.

Albert Einstein was in fact proud of his blind belief in the truth of the rays of light bending as it passes near the sun, even before British scientists from across the globe were still corroborating and testing such theory.

And the Devil's Advocate in the canonisation process is I believe one of the most sceptical persons in the world when it comes to scientific investigation of facts relating to the life of a particular person that is a candidate for sainthood.

To contain blind belief and scepticism thus to any such body only, religion or science, is to overgeneralise, and to condemn such because of that overgeneralisation is the highest injustice.

Shinobi No Kami · November 2007

Casta Diva wrote: »

Not really, no. Einstein and many other scientists in fact do exercise blind belief in some of their theories

PROOF! That goes against the very foundations of science!

Are you accusing Einstein, possibly the greatest scientist ever, of being unscientific? Even if he was, however briefly, that doesn't prove that blind belief is perfectly reasonable/rational/logical. This is a blatant appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Albert Einstein was in fact proud of his blind belief in the truth of the rays of light bending as it passes near the sun, even before British scientists from across the globe were still corroborating and testing such theory.

What is this propaganda?! Proof! Proof! Proof!

He may have been pleased with the elegance of the Mathematics behind his theory but he was surely well aware that empirical proof must be necessary. Any scientist would be willing to admit that his theory is wrong if contrary empirical evidence have been found.

Besides, only somebody completely ignorant of Einstein work would claim that he pulled his theories out of thin air, believing them into existence. Relativity is based on the earlier work of Lorentz.

And puhhhleease, no amount of desperation is enough to justify any association between Einstein and Christianity. It just screams blatant propaganda; it's pathetic.

Einstein wrote:

I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Einstein wrote:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

Einstein wrote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

This post of yours sickens me. The stench of fundamentalist propaganda is just too much.

Oneiros · November 2007

Well... maybe Adamantium just isn't familiar with how the scientific method works. Please don't confuse science with religion.

So, here's the Scientific Method for Dummies primer:

Yay!

Remember kids, It's all about testability/verifiability/falsifiability. Hmm... I should probably go make a blind belief flowchart to help clarify things...

Edit: Oh, I remember now... I believe somebody has posted this before (micketymoc?):

Adamantium · November 2007

Shinobi No Kami wrote: »

PROOF! That goes against the very foundations of science!

What foundation? As far as I know, science is not that solidly based on a foundation, but is almost always subject to change in the future. And even granting that such a foundation does exist, it cannot be totally wrong to say that some scientists to exercise sometimes a certain blind belief in some of their theories. My point is, you cannot just confine blind belief to theism and conclude such in a hasty overgeneralisation, as Mickeytymoc does, for it is an unjust and unfair accusation, for some scientists do exercise this kind of thinking in some of their theories.

Are you accusing Einstein, possibly the greatest scientist ever, of being unscientific? Even if he was, however briefly, that doesn't prove that blind belief is perfectly reasonable/rational/logical. This is a blatant appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Certainly he was being unscientific and exercising a certain blind faith in saying that "God does not play dice with the universe" in response to Bohr's newly found theories that seem to lessen the impact of his relativity theories.

He may have been pleased with the elegance of the Mathematics behind his theory but he was surely well aware that empirical proof must be necessary. Any scientist would be willing to admit that his theory is wrong if contrary empirical evidence have been found.

Again, overgeneralisation. Science is also a part of human history, scientists are all very much aware that what may be proven in laboratories today to be wrong has that possibility in the future to also be proven right. His exercising blind faith to his theories at the present time is thus justifiable in a sense, although not practicable, for there is the possibility of a future verification and scientific corroboration of his or her theories that at present are not yet verified according to his theories.

Besides, only somebody completely ignorant of Einstein work would claim that he pulled his theories out of thin air, believing them into existence. Relativity is based on the earlier work of Lorentz.

Whether he pulled his theories out of thin air or out of Lorentz is immaterial, and I did not say any of that thing, but the truth is that he exercised a certain degree of blind faith concerning his newly published theories so that he can with certainty assure the scientific community of his time as to the truth and verifiability of his theories even before British scientists in the Pacific Ocean corroborated the implications of his theories and his findings.

And puhhhleease, no amount of desperation is enough to justify any association between Einstein and Christianity. It just screams blatant propaganda; it's pathetic.

Simply noted. Just a childish whining.

As to Oneiros, your charts would be absolutely true with regards to faith if the world is as simplistic as you would think it to be. But your denigrating and highly prejudicial chart regarding faith and belief is just not true because faith and belief is applied to a plane of human existence that is quite of a different dimension from the plane of human existence where the scientific method applies, which is quite also a different dimension.

But then, to denigrate faith and belief as one that believes in the face of contrary evidence is totally unjustifiable because in the sense that these "contrary evidences" are themselves not absolute, and is almost always subject to future change, faith and belief thus can never be anchored, neither have its starting point, in the scientific process. But faith is a human exercise of eternal assurance and immutable piety. If faith and belief would be anchored on scientific evidences that is today true, but tomorrow is falsified in some hidden laboratory in this world is wreak havoc on human existence and on its innate nature of religiosity.

Shinobi No Kami · November 2007

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Nietsnie Trebla

roelallen · November 2007

Shinobi No Kami wrote: »

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Nietsnie Trebla

Yes. That's why Nietszche died stupidly.

Duh.

rickym · November 2007

bold is mine

Casta Diva wrote: »

Not really, no. Einstein and many other scientists in fact do exercise blind belief in some of their theories, and the Roman Catholic Church always has that sceptical attitude in dealing with canonisations of Saints.

Albert Einstein was in fact proud of his blind belief in the truth of the rays of light bending as it passes near the sun, even before British scientists from across the globe were still corroborating and testing such theory.

"The idea of bending light was revived in Einstein's 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light". Oddly enough, the quantitative prediction given in this paper for the amount of deflection of light passing near a large mass was identical to the old Newtonian prediction, d = 2m/r0. There were several attempts to measure the deflection of starlight passing close by the Sun during solar eclipses to test Einstein's prediction in the years between 1911 and 1915, but all these attempts were thwarted by cloudy skies, logistical problems, the First World War, etc. Einstein became very exasperated over the repeated failures of the experimentalists to gather any useful data, because he was eager to see his prediction corroborated, which he was certain it would be. Ironically, if any of those early experimental efforts had succeeded in collecting useful data, they would have proven Einstein wrong! It wasn't until late in 1915, as he completed the general theory, that Einstein realized his earlier prediction was incorrect, and the angular deflection should actually be twice the size he predicted in 1911. "

you said that einstein had blind belief? then why did he even give a figure which was later proven to be incorrect, i guess he would have did some computations to get values.

Oneiros · November 2007

Adamantium wrote: »

As to Oneiros, your charts would be absolutely true with regards to faith if the world is as simplistic as you would think it to be. But your denigrating and highly prejudicial chart regarding faith and belief is just not true because faith and belief is applied to a plane of human existence that is quite of a different dimension from the plane of human existence where the scientific method applies, which is quite also a different dimension.

O, yun naman pala e. So what's with all that blind belief BS you were spouting earlier? And I've made/mentioned the same point before and again.

Adamantium wrote: »

But then, to denigrate faith and belief as one that believes in the face of contrary evidence is totally unjustifiable because in the sense that these "contrary evidences" are themselves not absolute, and is almost always subject to future change, faith and belief thus can never be anchored, neither have its starting point, in the scientific process. But faith is a human exercise of eternal assurance and immutable piety. If faith and belief would be anchored on scientific evidences that is today true, but tomorrow is falsified in some hidden laboratory in this world is wreak havoc on human existence and on its innate nature of religiosity.

Who said it was "anchored, [or has] its starting point, in the scientific process"? Even that chart makes that very point (that it isn't; in jest or otherwise).