I decided to carpet bomb a Christian based argument...

[Flyordie]

Please tell me if I failed or what? The guy I am quoting is his actual wording, no editing took place except for the "X,1,2,3 ect.." I added in to reference the sentences.

I decided unlike others to take your challenge. To take a hour or so and do some self examination and take a serious look at my faith. You challenge has some fundemntal flaws init however.

X. First you start from the premise that your position has to be right. This is not a qustion of self examination but rather an attempt to attack. However I dismiss your attack and instead take the premise that you simply have no idea how to word this question correctly.

After deep self examination I find the second flaw for your reasoning. Your assumption that there is no reason.

1. You see I have MANY reasons for my faith, they range from personal and direct experiences to witnessing others experiences. I have seen medical miracles, lives changed for the better, crisis overcome and strength of charatcer where the person should no longer have any and all are directly attributable to faith.

2. As for the inner vocie that says to not believe. I think we all have that in fact I think any believer of any faith that says he does not have that is a liar. However your assumption is that your position has to be the correct one and so that voice must be correct, this is your flaw.

3. I will however pose now a question for you, can you say with 100% no possibility for doubt certainty that all of these faiths are wrong? Can you prove with 100% accuracy that can be repeatably tested that my faith is wrong? Can you step away from your position and answer this question with the intellectual honesty you ask of others?

*Flys in like a B-52 Bomber conducting a carpet bombing*

X. I can't take sides on this as it would be unwise.

1. Ok, so you are saying that luck = Miracles? You are saying that all the people who have lost a leg or an arm are non-believers? You are saying that your "almighty" is all caring and loving yet, why do religious nations declare war at a rate almost 200% higher than atheist nations? I wouldn't call that miracles and caring. Now, when it comes to personal miracles, the human mind is wired to, when in danger go to a safe place. Religion is that safe place. Sad thing is, rulers of nations have used this "religion" to garner power and money. Which led to the downfall of nations like the Mayan Empire. Atheists are a product of evolution, our wiring is changing.

2. Crisler, this has a touch of sarcasm, but its more directed at everyone... if you have an inner voice telling you "Believe in god!", you are mentally under-developed in the evolution department.


3. I will answer your question in 2018. When HADRON goes full tilt.
However, I will say this- Currently, 100%... no. Do we have evidence stating a "God" didn't create us? Yes. Lots of it too. Evolution, The Earth is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the universe, the sun does not spin around the Earth, there are no such thing as witches, warlocks (but of course if you believe in the Bible, you believe in those things.) We have plenty of proof, its just well... to be completely honest and open- All religions, namely Christians and Muslims are so blinded by their faith they just conveniently "forget" all those things in the bible and other religious writings.

 

[brettpalmer]

It would help to have seen your initial question(s) so there was a bit more context...but, here's how I might have stabbed at it:

1. You see I have MANY reasons for my faith, they range from personal and direct experiences to witnessing others experiences. I have seen medical miracles, lives changed for the better, crisis overcome and strength of charatcer where the person should no longer have any and all are directly attributable to faith.

You've got nothing here but evidence of some sort of effects due to "faith." We don't know faith in what, and since the things described occur to people without faith, as well faith in numerous different things, I think it rather presumptuous to assume that YOUR particular brand of faith has special powers over and above someone else's (or the lack of faith which sees similar results, too).

2. As for the inner vocie that says to not believe. I think we all have that in fact I think any believer of any faith that says he does not have that is a liar. However your assumption is that your position has to be the correct one and so that voice must be correct, this is your flaw.

This one is weird. Not sure what the "inner voice" is. Would like to see more context to tackle this one.

3. I will however pose now a question for you, can you say with 100% no possibility for doubt certainty that all of these faiths are wrong? Can you prove with 100% accuracy that can be repeatably tested that my faith is wrong? Can you step away from your position and answer this question with the intellectual honesty you ask of others?

I cannot say with 100% certainty virtually anything. But so what? Just because I cannot prove what you have faith in doesn't exist (I'm assuming this is God), that doesn't give you license to come in and stick God in there. A great variety of things can be offered to explain what you explain with faith. However, the burden is not on ME to demonstrate the reliability of your faith or the reality of the object of your faith. That's YOUR job. To date, I remain unconvinced by EVERY and ALL theologians, apologists and the general faithful that what they believe in is a reality.

 

[felixthecoach]

I like brett's explaination. It fits my perspective well. I'll keep it in mind when someone tries to hit me up with how awesome God is.

 

[Demojen]

This post asks people to look at your response to a response to an argument you are having with someone without providing the full details.

How can we evaluate the statements and questions if we can not follow the original context of the statements and questions?

I will however throw my hat into the proverbial fire and watch it burn in the context of ambiguity likely fueling some conflict between you and someone else on the premise that our unqualified opinions can therefore be mounted as your own.

1. You see I have MANY reasons for my faith, they range from personal and direct experiences to witnessing others experiences. I have seen medical miracles, lives changed for the better, crisis overcome and strength of charatcer where the person should no longer have any and all are directly attributable to faith.

Reason for faith is great. I would hate to think you were insane for believing against the likelihood of all logical conclusions, that an invisable omnipotent omniscient contradiction had any hand in the end results of anything that ever happened. Though, I do encourage you to study occam's razor.

It appears you initially attribute these great deeds to some concept of a higher being, then concede that in truth that overcoming these challenges was more likely a trait in their character.

Just because you're a pussy doesn't mean the people you aspire these great traits to are. What good is a person to whom we draw inspiration from for whom we can not identify with?

Stop trying to identify with those who are courageous in the face of great adversity. You fail, because you''re not.-And you insult these people who do prevail while you're doing it.

It would be like me attributing your belief in God and everything God tells you, to Satan.
That is what happens when you characterize, asshole.

2. As for the inner vocie that says to not believe. I think we all have that in fact I think any believer of any faith that says he does not have that is a liar. However your assumption is that your position has to be the correct one and so that voice must be correct, this is your flaw.

Inner voice? Are you insane? I know, loaded question. You hear voices. In neuroscience this voice isn't the voice of god or the devil. It's the voice of reason. When you receive information in your brain, it actively interprets that information and attempts to make sense of it. This is happening *all of the time*. You can "hear" voices any time you like.

In fact, this is why alot of people don't know how to read. They have not gone beyond hearing(whatever they interpret the word to be) to reasoning meaning behind specific patterned information. Even deaf people hear voices in their heads. The cognitive acknowledgement of certain patterned information can be relayed from the mind to the mouth without having ever heard the word.

You have two sides to your brain and each side handles different functions. Additionally your left side handles the right side of your body. Your right side handles the left side of your body. This is not necessarily true for how it handles processing functions. The part of your brain that interprets language through sound is on the right side of your brain. Information received from your right ear is fed directly into the processing center of your brain that handles language, where information from your left ear must go across to the other side of your brain and the information takes longer to get there for interpretation.

Have you ever heard a sound and thought it was a different sound then in fact it was? Your brain interpreted that information, tried to understand it as best it could and due to the lack of information to give it full form, the brain started filling in the blanks using the memory system that acknowledges similar sounding words.

So no, the voices in your head are not real voices. They are quite literally the voice of reason that justifies for you every fucked up thing you say and do.

3. I will however pose now a question for you, can you say with 100% no possibility for doubt certainty that all of these faiths are wrong? Can you prove with 100% accuracy that can be repeatably tested that my faith is wrong? Can you step away from your position and answer this question with the intellectual honesty you ask of others?

Arguing from the position of obscurity is the last vestige of morons who can't justify their own ideals once challenged.
Proof is an illusion. We work on evidence. If evidence is any indication of "proof" then all evidence points to...well, I can't really justify continuing this argument because you're an idiot and your scape goating into obscurity insults my intelligence. I can say this much. You're wrong. You want to talk about intellectual honesty then adhere to the rule.

HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROVE

That is the first step to being intellectually honest.

 

[Gavin_Farewell]

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/creation/fossilrecord1.html

There, have fun. :lol:

 

[Demojen]

Where to start?
Oh right, so what?

I have to seriously question the credibility of a paper on evolution that opens up with the premise that evolution claims all species of fossilized records exist today, then only covers some that do.

I found it particularly amusing when I read this.

The skull is here compared to the skull of the only penguin living in Peru

Because living penguins don't typically give you their skulls and the skull in the image is not of a composite.

What's more amusing is how blatantly biased the entire paper is, painting everything it says as a legitimate argument, not because they have evidence, but because they said it. The latter half of the article moves onto pigeon holing archeologists all as evolutionists and that's a load of shit too.

All in all, I give this article one and a half megalodons out of ten megalodons.