The Church should respect tough questions

[Litmus]

OF COURSE many like Christianity. That's good for them!

There's a jolly bloke!

 

[Yakuda]

Whatev, dude. I don't really care what YOU think so I'll just leave it. You think you answered it yet you don't even know what it is. Weird but whatever.

Smart move on your part, I'll give you that.

 

[Kafka]

Smart move on your part, I'll give you that.

Oh, no illusions on my part. I know you're full of shit on this point, but since I don't have the desire to trawl through your vomit on this forum to find a chunk I'm just leaving it.

You clearly don't even understand the question (even when it is written out for you) so you aren't worth the effort.

 

[Yakuda]

Nor does it have to disprove the existence of God.

Why would you think it has to??????

I didnt say it has to, you just did. I said it doesnt and apparently we agree that it doesn't.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am one of the few that claims to be agnostic and ignorant of the truth claims of both religions and atheism.

Being a god of knowledge seems to be a weird conclusion you reached in your own mind about me.

Agnosticism is easy to describe. I haven't made a decision one way or the other.

Atheists don't seem to be able to articulate what they actually believe, or else they are reluctant to embrace the unambiguous physical materialism NiftyNiblick is so capable of describing and embracing.

Some atheists seem to think that in order for an agnostic be consistent, the agnostic has to express the same doubts about whether Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy exist. as he/she does about whether at least one god exists or not.

Yeah...nutso, nutso. Absolutely absurd, in fact.

Anyway, a question arises: Are there any sentient being that exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol? A valid question.

Some atheists right here in this thread, claim that unless they are able to detect (with human senses) the existence of a god, the proper thing to do is to go to the null hypothesis...that no gods exist. (Usually expressed, I cannot detect any therefore I lack a "belief"any gods exist.)

So in order for an atheist to be consistent, I wonder...should an intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist claim that the logical position to take is that NO SENTIENT BEINGS EXIST ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS (I cannot detect any therefore I lack a belief any exist on any of those planets)...or should the intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist simply claim, "I do not know?"

If any of the atheists who post here think they are intelligent, sane, and reasonable...perhaps that person might comment on that. Would it make more sense to go the null hypothesis route and say, "There is no evidence there are sentient being existing on any of those planets, so I lack a belief that there are any there...or would the intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist do what any intelligent, sane, reasonable person without an ulterior agenda would do and say, "I do not know if there are any sentient beings on any of those planets. Could be yes...could be no?"

If the former...the atheist would be consistent. If the latter, the atheist would indeed be an intelligent, sane, reasonable person as well as an atheist.

 

[Kafka]

Some atheists seem to think that in order for an agnostic be consistent, the agnostic has to express the same doubts about whether Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy exist. as he/she does about whether at least one god exists or not.

Actually if you were honest you'd realize that it would be consistent if you utilized agnosticism for ANY and ALL unevidenced claims.

Yeah...nutso, nutso. Absolutely absurd, in fact.

Especially when you're too stupid to read the question for what it is: why don't you apply agnosticism to everything unevidenced claim in your life?

Some atheists right here in this thread, claim that unless they are able to detect (with human senses) the existence of a god, the proper thing to do is to go to the null hypothesis...that no gods exist. (Usually expressed, I cannot detect any therefore I lack a "belief"any gods exist.)

Again you oversimplify the point because you are both dishonest and really kinda stupid.

It doesn't need to be detectable by human senses, but it must have a component that can be confirmed by some test.

If any of the atheists who post here think they are intelligent, sane, and reasonable...perhaps that person might comment on that.

You have an overinflated sense of self.

 

[Cypress]

Yup.

In any case, the thing they want to do most (aside from pretending that they do not do any "believing") is something you suggested earlier...namely to inflate their numbers. So the ones who claim that the most significant position of atheism is to be lacking a "belief" in any gods, in effect, allow them to claim that new-born babies, toddlers, people with dimentia and others with insufficient mental capacity for such a belief...are perforce, atheists. And they get to claim that agnostics are atheists also...which not only increases their numbers, but their intelligence averages also.

It is, in many ways, farce. To be fair to them, though, not all of them play that game. Many of them (the honest ones) acknowledge that the reason they are atheists is because "there are no gods." (Which is as much a belief as the belief that there is a single God

"I might believe in God, if someone showed me the evidence" is really an agnostic approach.

I think is self-indulgent and presumptuous to proclaim to the world there is zero, nada, zilch evidence, not the slightest indication, of divine guidance or purposeful organizing principles to the universe.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that the rational organization of the universe, the presence of physical laws and finely tuned mathematical properties inherent in the fabric of reality might point to an author of the universe.

I personally don't think it is particularly strong evidence because it cannot explain away alternative hypotheses, nor can it be tested scientifically.

But I don't think it is bat shit crazy to say these observed properties in the fabric of reality point towards a rational eternal logos, or author of the universe.

 

[Litmus]

Actually if you were honest you'd realize that it would be consistent if you utilized agnosticism for ANY and ALL unevidenced claims.




Especially when you're too stupid to read the question for what it is: why don't you apply agnosticism to everything unevidenced claim in your life?



Again you oversimplify the point because you are both dishonest and really kinda stupid.

It doesn't need to be detectable by human senses, but it must have a component that can be confirmed by some test.




You have an overinflated sense of self.

but he was talking about atheism not agnosticism.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Actually if you were honest you'd realize that it would be consistent if you utilized agnosticism for ANY and ALL unevidenced claims.




Especially when you're too stupid to read the question for what it is: why don't you apply agnosticism to everything unevidenced claim in your life?



Again you oversimplify the point because you are both dishonest and really kinda stupid.

It doesn't need to be detectable by human senses, but it must have a component that can be confirmed by some test.




You have an overinflated sense of self.

So...how about Pulp Fiction? Did ya ever see that one?

 

[domer76]

LMFAO

That's just stuff you dont like that you use as an excuse. It's not proof there is no God. This is akin to when people saw sailing ships fall off the edge of the earth when the ship went beyond the horizon. Adorable

I understand why you won’t address the issue of unnecessary suffering in the context of the omni-everything god. But, I can. Easily.

He doesn’t exist. BAM!

 

[domer76]

Some atheists seem to think that in order for an agnostic be consistent, the agnostic has to express the same doubts about whether Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy exist. as he/she does about whether at least one god exists or not.

Yeah...nutso, nutso. Absolutely absurd, in fact.

Anyway, a question arises: Are there any sentient being that exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol? A valid question.

Some atheists right here in this thread, claim that unless they are able to detect (with human senses) the existence of a god, the proper thing to do is to go to the null hypothesis...that no gods exist. (Usually expressed, I cannot detect any therefore I lack a "belief"any gods exist.)

So in order for an atheist to be consistent, I wonder...should an intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist claim that the logical position to take is that NO SENTIENT BEINGS EXIST ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS (I cannot detect any therefore I lack a belief any exist on any of those planets)...or should the intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist simply claim, "I do not know?"

If any of the atheists who post here think they are intelligent, sane, and reasonable...perhaps that person might comment on that. Would it make more sense to go the null hypothesis route and say, "There is no evidence there are sentient being existing on any of those planets, so I lack a belief that there are any there...or would the intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist do what any intelligent, sane, reasonable person without an ulterior agenda would do and say, "I do not know if there are any sentient beings on any of those planets. Could be yes...could be no?"

If the former...the atheist would be consistent. If the latter, the atheist would indeed be an intelligent, sane, reasonable person as well as an atheist.

Sure, I’ll comment on that.

As far as life on another planet, I BELIEVE there must be, but obviously don’t know. So, in theological terms that would make me a theist (belief) AND agnostic (knowledge).

Now, let’s go back to the concept of the Christian god. My senses tells me, and should be obvious to any rational person, that there is an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering to totally innocent people and animals. That fact tells me their is no god, as Christians define one. The omni-everything god. In that sense, I’m an atheist, because that’s my belief from observation of the real world. Do I know for certain? Nope. Agnostic in that sense.

 

[Kafka]

So...how about Pulp Fiction? Did ya ever see that one?

Do you have a point? Just get to it.

 

[Kafka]

"I might believe in God, if someone showed me the evidence" is really an agnostic approach.

Incorrect.

I think is self-indulgent and presumptuous to proclaim to the world there is zero, nada, zilch evidence, not the slightest indication, of divine guidance or purposeful organizing principles to the universe.

You really seem to hate atheism.

 

[Cypress]

Some atheists seem to think that in order for an agnostic be consistent, the agnostic has to express the same doubts about whether Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy exist. as he/she does about whether at least one god exists or not.

Yeah...nutso, nutso. Absolutely absurd, in fact.

Anyway, a question arises: Are there any sentient being that exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol? A valid question.

Some atheists right here in this thread, claim that unless they are able to detect (with human senses) the existence of a god, the proper thing to do is to go to the null hypothesis...that no gods exist. (Usually expressed, I cannot detect any therefore I lack a "belief"any gods exist.)

So in order for an atheist to be consistent, I wonder...should an intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist claim that the logical position to take is that NO SENTIENT BEINGS EXIST ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS (I cannot detect any therefore I lack a belief any exist on any of those planets)...or should the intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist simply claim, "I do not know?"

If any of the atheists who post here think they are intelligent, sane, and reasonable...perhaps that person might comment on that. Would it make more sense to go the null hypothesis route and say, "There is no evidence there are sentient being existing on any of those planets, so I lack a belief that there are any there...or would the intelligent, sane, reasonable atheist do what any intelligent, sane, reasonable person without an ulterior agenda would do and say, "I do not know if there are any sentient beings on any of those planets. Could be yes...could be no?"

If the former...the atheist would be consistent. If the latter, the atheist would indeed be an intelligent, sane, reasonable person as well as an atheist.

That's a good insight, because life on another planet, or the cause and origin of the universe and it's properties are unresolved questions which need an explanation -- Santa Claus and the tooth fairy answer no questions and are utterly superfluous.

I would have to get a feel for the stellar class and characteristics of the nearest 25 stars to hazard a guess. If you extended the question to the whole galaxy, I would be willing to say I believe primitive life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, but I don't believe one way or the other if advanced sentient life exists beyond Earth.

 

[Kafka]

That's a good insight, because life on another planet, or the cause and origin of the universe and it's properties are unresolved questions which need an explanation -- Santa Claus and the tooth fairy answer no questions and are utterly superfluous.

So you actively DO NOT believe in unevidenced claims. Except for some. Some you are on the fence about, but others are absurd.

That sounds a wee bit inconsistent but I'm sure you have a rubric.

 

[Cypress]

I don't believe one way or the other if advanced sentient life exists beyond Earth (aka, I am agnostic about it)

So you actively DO NOT believe in unevidenced claims.

That sounds a wee bit inconsistent but I'm sure you have a rubric.

Your reading comprehension sucks, or you are delusional

You completely misrepresented what I actually wrote.


You need to respond to what I actually wrote, rather than what you wish I wrote

 

[Kafka]

Your reading comprehension sucks, or you are delusional

No you claimed you don't believe in Santa or the Tooth fairy. I generalized the point. You don't believe in unevidenced claims.

You completely misrepresented what I actually wrote.

Not really. If you read what I was responding to. Also, please don't play that card given the number of times you misrepresented my line about a "spiritual path". You are better than your hypocrisy.

You need to respond to what I actually wrote, rather than what you wish I wrote

Ironic.

 

[Yakuda]

I understand why you won’t address the issue of unnecessary suffering in the context of the omni-everything god. But, I can. Easily.

He doesn’t exist. BAM!

But you haven't and never will. BTW who decides what's "unnecessary" suffering? You? Not very impressive

If only you could prove it. Oh that's right you can't.

 

[Kafka]

But haven't.

If only you prove it.

In your world do you often have to prove a negative?

 

[Kafka]

“When all questions are welcomed and respected, all people are welcome and respected. This trains young people in the art of reconciliation.”

Just make sure that no one says anything the OP disagrees with or uses a term the OP does not approve of.