Jun 262010
“Why Fight Religion?” by www.youtube.com — Subscribe to Science & Reason: • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com — All clips/images used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under “Fair Use” for nonprofit educational purposes (Title 17 § 107 of the USC). .
@jl575 Straight atheists need to pop our more children! Get to screwing that’s an order! lol
From us lesbian/gay atheists. We need to adopt by the busload! lol
We can also attempt to procreate via sex, despite all scientific evidence proving it’s impossible, it’s still fun to try! lol
hello! can somebody help me please, i heard this song on dj remix CD and i don’t know the name of the song maybe like that: we can…come, i’ll see you again, monday to fight…. The voice of the boy in this song is so different , somebody know this song, ok go my home and thanks so much!
@trueleroix …in induction/deduction are consistent with the nature and attributes of the Christian God. These universal concepts that arrive us to ABSOLUTE TRUTH therefore can only be accounted for with in Christian theistic thinking. This is what’s called the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. That is without God, you cannot prove anything. And by the way, I wasn’t referring to laws of physics.
@trueleroix Well in conclusion I’ll state that the problem with agnostic/atheists approach to weigh the proofs/lack there of for God’s existence is just that. To weigh these proofs using empirical methods is just as naive as using them to weigh proofs to validate/invalidate inductive/deductive reasoning. For one must use these laws of reasoning in order to begin dialogue. It is my position then that the laws utilized…
@GenRev1611 Thanks for bringing it back…I assume that any given universe that any sentient beings would have some laws of physics…maybe different, or maybe the same as our known universe, but I would not cite some intelligence for their existence.
@trueleroix I admit, I did jump the gun and I’m guilty of a red herring by misrepresenting your position. You obviously believe that there is just not ENOUGH evidence for the existence of a DEITY. I stand corrected. What I’m stating is that all the while you use laws of reasoning in order to make your case for lack of evidence. You fail to realize that you first need to account for such laws. I’m still waiting for the answer to my question. How do you account for these laws?
@GenRev1611 Stop it! It is impossible to disprove the existence of any god and you know it. I have never said that I could or would do that. You need to be more honest if you want to deal with me. I know that it’s tough for you, seeing that you lie to yourself so much, but try harder, you may become slightly less of a bold faced liar over time and even a slightly honest person with a strong effort.
@trueleroix You want the luxury to disprove God when all the while you do so, you use inductive and deductive reasoning. I’ve asked you repeatedly, how is it that you can even account for these very forms of reasoning you boast of using to disprove God? Reasoning itself by nature requires THE CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and the assumption that such a concept exists. Until you can answer that, your attempts to disprove God will be feeble.
@GenRev1611 Forget The Bible. i read that. That God obviously does not exist. If you want to try to speak of a god, let’s try one that you have a chance with. The Hebrew God…Holy Crap, come, on…You have read The Bible…There is no way…
@trueleroix At this point you will tell me to prove this using logic and induction. Now I ask you what does logic and induction have to do with your worldview. How can you account for your use of it? Once you can account for it, then we can get deeper into the Bible. Prove that it is coherent in your view to use laws you cannot account for.
@trueleroix First there is the Law of Identity supported of the Nature of God in Exodus 3:14. A is A, a thing or a being is what it is and cannot be anything other. Law of Contradiction supported in 2 Corinthians 1:18 in that God is faithful and cannot lie. The Law of excluded middle supported in Matt. 12:30. Induction Eph. 1:11 “He works all things according to the counsel of his will.” The world is governed by laws that are consistent with His nature.
@GenRev1611 Stop right there. You tell me how logic and induction have anything to do with a Christian worldview.
@trueleroix If logic and induction are not from a Christian worldview please tell me first how you can account for them before you impose them on the Bible. If you can do this in a coherent fashion, then I’ll be glad to have that discussion about the Bible with you.
@trueleroix I see your having trouble defending your view from an epistemological standpoint. I know what’s next, you will use laws of logic and inductive reasoning, both of which you cannot account for. And use them to disprove Christianity. Hence you will try to disprove the existence of God by borrowing from a Christian worldview.
@GenRev1611 We should probably not discuss the Christian god as it certainly does not exist. Please read a Bible, and you will see what I mean.
@GenRev1611 . Therefore Christianity the only coherent position in matters of induction. I never said you CAN’T INDUCT, I said that you cannot account for induction.
@trueleroix Actually inductive reasoning does not require the existence of ‘A GOD’ as you put it. If that were the case then yes ‘A GOD’ can change the rules because pagan gods for example have a mutable nature. Inductive reasoning can only be accounted for if the God that is referred to is immutable. Christianity holds to the doctrine of the immutability of God and a providential nature that is consistant with induction.
@GenRev1611 If I get this correct you are stating that:
Inductive reasoning = required existence of a god
This is a huge leap, and you have done nothing to show any evidence for it. I can induct, and I can assume. the existence of an all powerful god would ruin that in that it could change the rules at any time, so you actually have served to show evidence against the existence of any god.
@trueleroix I agree that there are differing points of view in the atheistic unbelief if you will. My second question has to do with induction. In that question the atheist can only assume induction, which leads to the first question, how can that which is true and always been true stay true. If one says, it’s always been like that, then they assume induction. Therefore they cannot account for it. I hope that sounds clear to you?
@GenRev1611 “How is it possible to account for what is true or untrue in an atheistic world view? How do I know what is true today, may not be true tomorrow?” That is your question? The answer is no different for an atheist then it is for anyone else. You should probably not call atheism a world view either. It is merely a disbelief in a god claim.
The difference between religion and walking with God is the relationship.you have a personal relationship with God,in religion you just follow man made doctrines.They are not the same.
@trueleroix RE: What is your question?-You stated that I made two incorrect statements. The way such is determined is by using laws of logic. How is it possible to account for what is true or untrue in an atheistic world view? How do I know what is true today, may not be true tomorrow?
@GenRev1611 I’ll try to help. You made two incorrect assertions. The laws of logic are not metaphysical, and the fact that the brain activity is electrochemical does not mean that thoughts are predetermined. What is your question?
@GenRev1611 At this point, the only realistic stance that any theist can take is that there is something “supernatural” that they feel… thats it. The books, even if they did contain gods word, are mixed with the flawed words of man. With that established and really undeniable, one must question the validity of the rest of the book. My personal stance on it is this, if god relayed a message down to us about our way to salvation, errors would be unacceptable to him and corrected. My 2 cents.
@annata12 And if that is the case when a naturalist tries to persuade one to their position, they must ultimately assume the very metaphysics that they deny in order to do so.