4 of 10
4
What does it mean to be a Christian??
Posted: 20 July 2017 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4215
Joined  2009-10-21

Part of the methodology of science is that you can question the methodology itself. That’s built right in. I guess that’s why I didn’t understand what you were saying because it’s already there, it’s already being done. Go ahead, question it. That’s what scientists do.

I don’t know of atheists using any other method, maybe there are some, but I don’t know of them. I don’t why they would. Maybe there is a reason, but I don’t know of one. I have inspected and challenged the methodology. I failed to find much of anything wrong with it. There’s hard solipsism, but so what? Justin Scheiber is into that, maybe you’d like his stuff. http://www.realatheology.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

Is it possible to reason with someone who believes reason doesn’t always apply?

[ Edited: 20 July 2017 10:27 AM by JohnH ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 10:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4215
Joined  2009-10-21
JohnH - 20 July 2017 10:25 AM

Is it possible to reason with someone who believes reason doesn’t always apply?

Pointing out the limits of reason just as you are about to lose an argument is a common internet tactic.

With Tanny, the problem is getting him to clarify his question. He’s like that guy who called in to a bunch of atheist shows and asked them to prove that atheism is true. He thought he was stumping them because they couldn’t even understand what he meant.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 20 July 2017 10:13 AM

Part of the methodology of science is that you can question the methodology itself. That’s built right in. I guess that’s why I didn’t understand what you were saying because it’s already there, it’s already being done. Go ahead, question it. That’s what scientists do.

No, they don’t.  They challenge this or that conclusion, agreed.  But they don’t challenge science itself, they don’t challenge the methodology, they worship the methodology.  That’s why they fail to see that the knowledge explosion they are riding is racing towards a civilization crushing cliff.

I don’t know of atheists using any other method, maybe there are some, but I don’t know of them. I don’t why they would. Maybe there is a reason, but I don’t know of one. I have inspected and challenged the methodology. I failed to find much of anything wrong with it.

Do you see how you consistently and repetitively deliberately ignore the challenge I’m presenting to atheist methodology?

Here it is yet again, so you can dodge it yet again.

Show us the proof that human reason is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions (scope of god claims)?

Go ahead, keep dodging it.

And I’ll keep showing everybody how you are dodging it.

I’ll keep showing everyone your dodges over and over and over and over again however many times that are necessary for you to either get off your ass and meet the challenge, admit that you can’t, or run and hide to some other forum.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Tanny - 20 July 2017 05:13 AM

John, apparently you have some academic credentials beyond just a BA degree, and you think such credentials are very important, as is the lack of them.

Remember this….?

I have no credentials, so no one will listen to what I learn from being able to explore without fear.  It seems that with or without credentials, one is kinda screwed either way?

Don’t be too sure - http://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/06/20/the-affective-politics-of-keeping-it-real/. Your credibility can be your credential.

You have been eroding your credibility and credentials ever since.

Tanny - 20 July 2017 05:13 AM

Instead of just implying this, why not prove it with a series of careful, calm, thoughtful intelligent posts which display your advanced training in action.

Where have I implied a degree and my thoughts on such credentials?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 20 July 2017 10:25 AM

Is it possible to reason with someone who believes reason doesn’t always apply?

There is NO RATIONAL BASIS for believing that reason ALWAYS applies.

First, let’s consider who is “reasoning”.  A half insane semi-suicidal species with thousands of nuclear bombs aimed down it’s own throat, an imminent self extinction event it rarely finds interesting enough to discuss.  The human species who is “reasoning” is very much like a man who walks around with a loaded gun in his mouth all day long every day, but would rather talk about celebrity gossip and sports. 

Second, let’s consider the scale of these “reasoners”.  They are a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies.  They like to make claims and counter claims about the most fundamental nature of all reality, an arena they can’t begin to define in even the most basic manner, such as size, shape etc.  This might be compared to an amoeba offering it’s opinion on federal tax policy.

Third, let’s consider the history of the God debate.  “Reasoners” on all sides of the question, some of them truly brilliant, have not been able to prove any claims for or against god in spite of thousands of years of trying, and yet they keep on having the very same arguments over and over and over again for centuries with the expectation that this will somehow lead to different results.

So what we actually observe is a longstanding failure of both faith AND reason to resolve the god question in any way at all. 

So again, for the benefit of the incurably stubborn intellectually dishonest dodgers among us…

Please explain why we shouldn’t challenge the chosen authority of atheists with the same enthusiasm with which we challenge the chosen authorities of theists?

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4215
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 11:55 AM
Lausten - 20 July 2017 10:13 AM

Part of the methodology of science is that you can question the methodology itself. That’s built right in. I guess that’s why I didn’t understand what you were saying because it’s already there, it’s already being done. Go ahead, question it. That’s what scientists do.

No, they don’t.  They challenge this or that conclusion, agreed.  But they don’t challenge science itself, they don’t challenge the methodology, they worship the methodology.  That’s why they fail to see that the knowledge explosion they are riding is racing towards a civilization crushing cliff.

I don’t know of atheists using any other method, maybe there are some, but I don’t know of them. I don’t why they would. Maybe there is a reason, but I don’t know of one. I have inspected and challenged the methodology. I failed to find much of anything wrong with it.

Do you see how you consistently and repetitively deliberately ignore the challenge I’m presenting to atheist methodology?

Here it is yet again, so you can dodge it yet again.

Show us the proof that human reason is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions (scope of god claims)?

Go ahead, keep dodging it.

And I’ll keep showing everybody how you are dodging it.

I’ll keep showing everyone your dodges over and over and over and over again however many times that are necessary for you to either get off your ass and meet the challenge, admit that you can’t, or run and hide to some other forum.

Just because you don’t see anyone challenging the methods of science, doesn’t mean it is not part of the method. Most people aren’t doing it because they realize science is just fine as it is. You could however find detailed discussions on things like the current system of publishing peer reviewed articles, a pretty key part of the method.

As soon as you start worshiping science, you are doing it wrong. Lots of people get it wrong. I’m not arguing that. Science can’t disprove God, I’m not arguing that either. That’s like the third time I’ve plainly said that, but you keep saying I’m dodging. Maybe it’s because I also say that I can come to a reasonable conclusion that worship is a waste of time. Most reasonable people would agree that arguing with you is a waste of time. Pick any method you want.

There is a big difference between choosing to be an atheist and delivering credible answers to the big questions. You keep switching back and forth between those two things at your convenience. I keep trying to get you to define yourself and stick to it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

Just because you don’t see anyone challenging the methods of science, doesn’t mean it is not part of the method.

We went through this already in the other thread.  Posters keep claiming that scientists challenge science itself, but somehow magically can never point to a single specific scientist doing so. 

Most people aren’t doing it because they realize science is just fine as it is. You could however find detailed discussions on things like the current system of publishing peer reviewed articles, a pretty key part of the method.

That’s not challenging science, that’s tweaking science to make it better.  You simply aren’t able to keep up here.

That’s like the third time I’ve plainly said that, but you keep saying I’m dodging.

Because you are again, for about the 19th time, deliberately ignoring the challenges you know you can’t meet.  The word for that is “intellectual dishonesty”. 

Maybe it’s because I also say that I can come to a reasonable conclusion that worship is a waste of time.

Start a thread on why worship is a waste of time and I’ll rip that to shreds too.  Seriously.  Look, I suspect you’re young and thus have a good excuse, but you’ve not claimed the age based exemption I offered, so you will be accepted as an equal and no mercy will be given.  Put up, or shut up.  Prove that worship is a waste of time.

Most reasonable people would agree that arguing with you is a waste of time.

Yes, I agree with this and they’d be right.  So what?  Here you are.  So debate me or put me on ignore, one or the other.  Man up, make a decision, stop screwing around and wasting both our time.

There is a big difference between choosing to be an atheist and delivering credible answers to the big questions.

There is no difference.  By being an atheist you are declaring you somehow magically know there is no god.  That’s no different than claiming to somehow magically know there is a god.  Exact same thing.  The supposedly HUUUGE difference between the two is the real fantasy we should be discussing.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4215
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 12:36 PM

Most people aren’t doing it because they realize science is just fine as it is. You could however find detailed discussions on things like the current system of publishing peer reviewed articles, a pretty key part of the method.

That’s not challenging science, that’s tweaking science to make it better.  You simply aren’t able to keep up here.

There is a big difference between choosing to be an atheist and delivering credible answers to the big questions.

There is no difference.  By being an atheist you are declaring you somehow magically know there is no god.  That’s no different than claiming to somehow magically know there is a god.  Exact same thing.  The supposedly HUUUGE difference between the two is the real fantasy we should be discussing.

You just want to have words mean what they mean to you. It’s impossible to have a conversation under those circumstances. What you call tweaking, IS challenging. Just like they keep tweaking religions. Does science today look like what it did in Newton’s day? There’s been a lot of “tweaking”.

I already explained how science does not make claims of 100% certainty. That’s the most important difference that you keep ignoring. I agree, if someone says they are 100% certain God does not exist, then they are wrong. But that is not all atheists, it’s a minority. And it’s not how reason and science work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 20 July 2017 01:12 PM

What you call tweaking, IS challenging. Just like they keep tweaking religions. Does science today look like what it did in Newton’s day? There’s been a lot of “tweaking”.

Perhaps this will help.  Consider the theist who strongly accepts the Bible, but wants to challenge some particular interpretation.  They aren’t challenging the Bible, they’re trying to clarify and improve it’s message.

That’s what you’re talking about, scientists who strongly support science, and are trying to improve it.  That’s NOT challenging science itself. 

Challenging science itself would look like this thread.  Challenging science itself might for example challenge the assumption that science is taking us to an ever better future. 

I suspect the problem here may be that your faith is so deep that you simply can’t imagine challenging reason and/or science. 

I already explained how science does not make claims of 100% certainty. That’s the most important difference that you keep ignoring.

I keep ignoring it because it’s an irrelevant point.  Where is the evidence that reason and science are 1% correct about the very largest questions?

I agree, if someone says they are 100% certain God does not exist, then they are wrong. But that is not all atheists, it’s a minority. And it’s not how reason and science work.

In the real world, science works by putting us in the position where we can erase everything built over the last 1,000 years in just a few minutes.  These are the people you are looking to as the “reasoning experts”.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4215
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 04:32 PM

I already explained how science does not make claims of 100% certainty. That’s the most important difference that you keep ignoring.

I keep ignoring it because it’s an irrelevant point.  Where is the evidence that reason and science are 1% correct about the very largest questions?

I agree, if someone says they are 100% certain God does not exist, then they are wrong. But that is not all atheists, it’s a minority. And it’s not how reason and science work.

In the real world, science works by putting us in the position where we can erase everything built over the last 1,000 years in just a few minutes.  These are the people you are looking to as the “reasoning experts”.

I covered the 1% thing. We don’t know how much of the sum of all possible knowledge we know because we don’t know what the sum of all possible knowledge is. See how I keep agreeing with you, yet, I don’t need to change my mind? It’s because I’ve considered every argument you have put forth long before I met you.

I that 2nd one as a dodge. I agree with you, that everyone should be “agnostic”, or however you want to put. But you don’t know how to build on agreements. You don’t know how to have an intelligent discussion. You want to fight. So you bring up nuclear bomb makers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4215
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 04:32 PM

I suspect the problem here may be that your faith is so deep that you simply can’t imagine challenging reason and/or science. 

 

So what would count for you? Do I need to say science is crazy? Science is all wrong, it can’t prove anything? Science is just faith in man’s abilities with no evidence of having any true abilities? What would move this conversation forward? And don’t repeat that thing about proving atheism again. I already conceded that one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 20 July 2017 05:30 PM

I covered the 1% thing.

Yes, I know, anything I might type, you already know it.  Except that you don’t, and it’s just an empty claim with little to back it up.

We don’t know how much of the sum of all possible knowledge we know because we don’t know what the sum of all possible knowledge is. See how I keep agreeing with you, yet, I don’t need to change my mind?

You’re not in a position to agree or disagree with me, because you don’t at all get much of anything I’m typing.

It’s because I’ve considered every argument you have put forth long before I met you.

More empty claiming with nothing to back it up.  More endless dodging of a very specific clearly stated challenge.  Ok, I guess I should face up to the fact this is all you’re capable of and let it go and move on.  Back on ignore I guess.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4215
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 05:49 PM

We don’t know how much of the sum of all possible knowledge we know because we don’t know what the sum of all possible knowledge is. See how I keep agreeing with you, yet, I don’t need to change my mind?

You’re not in a position to agree or disagree with me, because you don’t at all get much of anything I’m typing.

Okay, you are saying nothing. You never had anything to say. Even when I agree with you, you can’t stand it. I have given you way too much attention. If you ever say anything that matters or even makes sense, we’ll talk.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 07:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2017-07-20
Adamski - 17 July 2017 03:26 AM

Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation?

Anyone able to answer?

Believe that Jesus is risen, and you’re a Christian; don’t believe it, and you’re not.  It’s right in the Christian Bible.

 Signature 

Christian

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 10
4