Comments on: Why Fight Religion?

By: GenRev1611

GenRev1611 — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:53:46 +0000

@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.

By: adsensus

adsensus — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:37:03 +0000

@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.

By: trueleroix

trueleroix — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:14:06 +0000

@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?

By: GenRev1611

GenRev1611 — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:01:21 +0000

@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?

By: Altaredbelief

Altaredbelief — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:40:01 +0000

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.

By: trueleroix

trueleroix — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:29:46 +0000

@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.

By: GenRev1611

GenRev1611 — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:58:05 +0000

@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?

By: trueleroix

trueleroix — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:05:10 +0000

@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.

By: GenRev1611

GenRev1611 — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:27:06 +0000

@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.

By: GenRev1611

GenRev1611 — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:28:29 +0000

@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.