quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

A case is made by making a statement. Now you said you are intelligent and I expect you to make a statement and then we can argue based on an argument not innuendo. Either you are capable of making a reasoned argument or not. I am not interested in theatrics.

Right, because as someone who buys into God, you can't stand theatrics? Wouldn't you say that was a bit atypical for religionists? But as for reasoning, I'm sure I don't need to point out that I was using the Socratic method in order to kick off a dialectical process. It's quite a highly respected method, as I'm sure you know.

I don't know if there *is* a term for this, but me - the phenomenon I think I've just seen is that of the oft-seen one of 'blocking an atheist with smugness'.

Blocking? Not in the least.
I made an argument, actually more than one, however the one we (you and I) are concerned with is that the atheists lack of belief in something is no different than and the same as belief in something else. Atheists claim there is a distinction and difference but cannot articulate what that distinction is. You are digressing your own position. The lack of position is the atheist position for their claim they are not a religion as their get out of jail free card. I have already kicked off what should be a dialectical process but you seem to want to wander in a different direction and are using what appears to be something you are not able to define?

quote:

ORIGINAL: americanpie2003

Would not one of the flaws of this thread be that there is little to no difference between the categories religious/genetic/historical/scientific. We all know there are no such thing as "facts". all of these categories mentioned are based in theories that require a level of faith and trust to believe. Our human knowledge base is growing and day by day and none of the above categories & theories claim to even come close to containing all knowledge and being free from human flaws in understanding & knowledge. Much of what we believe to be scientific fact today will prove to be wrong tomorrow (which is fine since it's all based in theory ).

I guess my point is we all are practicing a theory of life. If we don't have one we are lost. None of us were born with any of there theories and needed someone to share them with us. I learned things from science, religion and more. if someone puts on a spiritual dance in a public place, I don't get offended. I know that's a cool expression of their theory (and its a theory that could be right).

It its a bit funny, because the thread could be also just as accurately titled "a historical prospective of religious facts verses past and future fatal scientific flaws".

Great post!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

A case is made by making a statement. Now you said you are intelligent and I expect you to make a statement and then we can argue based on an argument not innuendo. Either you are capable of making a reasoned argument or not. I am not interested in theatrics.

Right, because as someone who buys into God, you can't stand theatrics? Wouldn't you say that was a bit atypical for religionists? But as for reasoning, I'm sure I don't need to point out that I was using the Socratic method in order to kick off a dialectical process. It's quite a highly respected method, as I'm sure you know.

I don't know if there *is* a term for this, but me - the phenomenon I think I've just seen is that of the oft-seen one of 'blocking an atheist with smugness'.

Blocking? Not in the least.
I made an argument, actually more than one, however the one we (you and I) are concerned with is that the atheists lack of belief in something is no different than and the same as belief in something else. Atheists claim there is a distinction and difference but cannot articulate what that distinction is. You are digressing your own position. The lack of position is the atheist position for their claim they are not a religion as their get out of jail free card. I have already kicked off what should be a dialectical process but you seem to want to wander in a different direction and are using what appears to be something you are not able to define?

That was a *really* long-winded way of saying 'You're going to trap me so I'll avoid the question', R0. Just saying. ;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

A case is made by making a statement. Now you said you are intelligent and I expect you to make a statement and then we can argue based on an argument not innuendo. Either you are capable of making a reasoned argument or not. I am not interested in theatrics.

Right, because as someone who buys into God, you can't stand theatrics? Wouldn't you say that was a bit atypical for religionists? But as for reasoning, I'm sure I don't need to point out that I was using the Socratic method in order to kick off a dialectical process. It's quite a highly respected method, as I'm sure you know.

I don't know if there *is* a term for this, but me - the phenomenon I think I've just seen is that of the oft-seen one of 'blocking an atheist with smugness'.

Blocking? Not in the least.
I made an argument, actually more than one, however the one we (you and I) are concerned with is that the atheists lack of belief in something is no different than and the same as belief in something else. Atheists claim there is a distinction and difference but cannot articulate what that distinction is. You are digressing your own position. The lack of position is the atheist position for their claim they are not a religion as their get out of jail free card. I have already kicked off what should be a dialectical process but you seem to want to wander in a different direction and are using what appears to be something you are not able to define?

That was a *really* long-winded way of saying 'You're going to trap me so I'll avoid the question', R0. Just saying. ;-)

or I know where you are going and headed you off at the pass.

It stands that you are not able to articulate what you would have us believe is your point. Just sit back have a beer relax and think about it, then hit me back when you can articulate it.

Oh and shouold you prefer I play along with that let me know I will, but I can assure you that you will not be pleased with the results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Of course, it stands to reason that the higher one climbs the intellectual ladder the less company they will have.

Laws claiming to be nonreligious leveled against religious practice are laws based in atheist belief system despite the plethora of logical fallacies they apply to pretend its not a belief system. [aka-religion]

yeh toddlers grow up someday and and some are able to figure out the logical fallacies that atheists are forcing upon them because atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists.

Here is the atheist fallacy spelled out:

quote:


Distinction Without a Difference

Description: The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

Logical Form: A is not the same as the first letter in the alphabet.

Coach: I don’t want you to try to get the ball; I want you to GET the ball!

In practical usage, this means the same thing, but the effect could be motivating, especially in a non-argumentative context.

Tip: Replace the phrase, “I’ll try” in your vocabulary with, “I’ll do my best”. While the same idea in practice, perceptually it means so much more.

Ok I wont edit this if it will make you happy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

yeh toddlers grow up someday and and some are able to figure out the logical fallacies that atheists are forcing upon them because atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists.

Well, that's very strange. You see, I *am* quite intellectually developed, yet I don't believe that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists. I also don't believe that this has the slightest thing to do with 'making a distinction where no difference exists.'.

quote:

Of course I believe in Flargledorpf.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Of course I believe in Flargledorpf.

Really? I don't, and I invented him. I don't, however, have a monumental edifice of reasoning behind my not believing him; I haven't thought about the matter for many years, I've read nothing at all about the matter - I just don't believe in him because it's a manifestly silly idea to believe in him.

I've come to notice that the one thing that religionists cannot tolerate is atheists finding their beliefs silly - their most central belief of all, that is: that there's this big thing in the sky, a controller, of some specified sort and with these or other characteristics. In many countries, people are locked up for expressing that. In a few, they'll even kill you for saying it. In the West, these days, it's increasingly coming under the heading of 'disrespecting' a religion and governments are becoming punitive about it. But - what the hell choice do I have? With some things, all I need to do - can do - is realise that something is silly - then move on with my life to think about other things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallClevDom

Please detail which of the 24 logical fallacies that you claim atheists use.

And to claim atheism is a religion and a belief system only tells us you are either uneducated about atheism or about what the terms "belief system" and "religion" actually mean. May I suggest dictionary.com. Here, let me help you:

"Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Notice it says "set of beliefs", not a set of non-beliefs. Atheists also make no claims about the purpose of the universe nor do we believe it was created by a supernatural agency. We don't engage in devotional or ritual observances. The moral code we follow is the one that has evolved as humans have continued to learn how to maximize their existence. It was not handed to us by a supernatural, nor do we believe it is etched into stone tablets.

You have still yet to specifically identify an atheist law. We follow the First Amendment and want government to be neutral on religion as it should be. An atheist law regarding prayer in schools would not be one that removes it, but would instead require children to say "There is no god". Most atheists would not want that even if they thought it was legal. Schools are not the place for the government to meddle into religion, families should decide that each for themselves, not Uncle Sam nor your local school board. So, no prayer is neutral, and Constitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

Freedom of religion means you are free to pray to whoever you see fit, just like the Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, Satanist is fit to pray to whoever they like, and I am free to not do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Lucy, I'm lost. What does any of these insane ramblings have to do with scientific evidence proving/disproving the Bible?