Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You mean you've laid out overt evidence for your claims and I've missed it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about your characterization of theism. Where did you get it?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So before dinner starts you write on your napkin that you know he is going to propose ideas for which he has no scientific justification. Meanwhile, he writes on his napkin that he knows you are only going to entertain ideas that have scientific justification.

You may as well just exchange napkins and skip the dinner.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite, but usually that would be fruitful.

It's not the atheists terms that are the biggest problem, it's the 'rules' the theist plays by with everything but his own stance. If there were some way he could grant all the other religious claims and experiences and still have a basis for having his accepted as 'the' truth, it would be a fascinating conversation. Since that is a non-starter, we are essentially left without that route unless we go with a recent posters "god is whatever you want, ham sandwich."

It's that exclusive status for his claims that is a major problem. His atheism to other gods/powers claims yet not wanting the same reasoning applied to his. His denial of the validity of others 'sources' yet wanting validity granted to his personal sources.

What's a poor skeptic to do? I have two friends, both making conflicting religious claims about a truth that they 'know' from sources not available to me. On what basis do I say, "ok, Hortense, you've convinced me with your, your, uhhhh, ..well, I like the cut of your jib".

Essentially, the main problem for religious claims isn't atheists, it's other religious claims ... the head of the pin gets crowded quickly.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not science is it? And it's not like science where there's one science that everyone agrees on. All your friend can do is tell you why he believes what he believes. Your other friend will do the same. It's up to you what to make of it. If you want to dismiss it complaining it's not like science that's your business. However just as not everyone is of a like mind religiously, neither is everyone of a like mind with you.

PairTheBoard

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem only arises when the theist wants special concessions to his private claims, yet gives none to others making similar or related claims


[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes feel no theist has ever made a post on this forum or that any atheist has ever read one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are willing to admit that the beliefs of Buddhists, Islamists, Jews, and Hindus are as legitimate as a Calvinist's?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not science is it? And it's not like science where there's one science that everyone agrees on. All your friend can do is tell you why he believes what he believes. Your other friend will do the same. It's up to you what to make of it. If you want to dismiss it complaining it's not like science that's your business. However just as not everyone is of a like mind religiously, neither is everyone of a like mind with you.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice dodge.
It was your basis for rejecting others claims to The Truth that I was asking about. I attempt to use a mix of evidence and logic, perhaps poorly. You though, can't claim that approach, having denied it to me ( when I do that it's called 'dismissing'), so I want to know what you used to listen to Yasimoto's claims ( fill in a claim you've heard yet don't hold yourself now) and decide it wasn't The Truth and you'd adopt it as such.

Please do not use terms such as evidence, proof or rationality in your reply since we call that 'dismissing' apparently. I'm actually hoping you'll explain you go into a trance and come out with The Answer, or some such, so you'll stay consistent with your denial of the tools I attempt to use.

luckyme

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nor that He isn't necessary for the event.

Well, here I disagree. Science HAS shown how tsunamis occur and there doesn't have to be deity present. Look...

[/ QUOTE ]
his talking utlimate necessity. Showing what causes tsunamis doesn't demonstrate that god isn't necessary for the causes of tsunamis etc.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course it doesn't! It doesn't demonstrate that little pink fairies aren't necessary for the causes of tsunamis either! So what's the point?

Like I said, you can create a theological slant for anything! My point is that before science discovered the physical causes of tsunamis, there was one more reason to believe in a god. Now there is one less! Of course, this doesn't disprove God. I never claimed it did. But it does lower the probablility.

If Christians would only stop thinking that science is attacking their God... It does not! Evolution is about as solid of a scientific theory as you can get. Unfortunately, it also blows the Adam & Eve creationism story to kingdome come. Evolutionists didn't go out of their way to do that. It's just the way it is. Why take it personally?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically, people think God (whatever this term means) exists because they have direct personal interaction with some entity/force/neuronal firing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite positive this isn't true.

A month or so ago godboy posted about how he routinely speaks in tongues. This was proof positive for him in the existence of god.

However, most religious types do not experience god on such a personal level. They identify themselves as belonging to such and such a sect, but their membership in said sect is more the result of family influence, geography, etc...

To claim that every religious person feels a "direct personal interaction" with a higher power is greatly overstating the case. I'd argue that these people are in the minority. Most people who identify themselves as theists do so with no personal evidence to back up their beliefs whatsoever.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Science HAS shown how tsunamis occur and it certainly doesn't require the presence of a deity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made a recent post where I said

[ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is what we mean by necessary. It isn't necessary to include God in a scientific formula in order to understand how some natural phenomena work - E=Mc2 is sufficient for its purpose. But then you don't have to phrase it "The fact E=Mc2 satisfies me as an atheist",


[/ QUOTE ]

You're now saying:

Tsunamis occur by X process and God isn't necessary. Why add the last phrase?

[ QUOTE ]

If Christians would only stop being so insulted when a theory doesn't include their god, we could all get along so much better.


[/ QUOTE ]

We don't go around trying to get God included in every science textbook. We go around trying to get atheism excluded from every textbook.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you are willing to admit that the beliefs of Buddhists, Islamists, Jews, and Hindus are as legitimate as a Calvinist's?


[/ QUOTE ]


My problem with your post was the idea I'm making a private claim, that I'm saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm saying the Bible is right and if it is Buddhism and Plato can't be. Very simple logic: A is not non-A.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, this doesn't disprove God. I never claimed it did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice, on the right track.

[ QUOTE ]

But it does lower the probablility.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or are you?

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is about as solid of a scientific theory as you can get. Unfortunately, it also blows the Adam & Eve creationism story to kingdome come.


[/ QUOTE ]

Complete 180.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, this doesn't disprove God. I never claimed it did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice, on the right track.

[ QUOTE ]

But it does lower the probablility.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or are you?

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is about as solid of a scientific theory as you can get. Unfortunately, it also blows the Adam & Eve creationism story to kingdome come.


[/ QUOTE ]

Complete 180.

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean god couldn't exist and the Adam and Eve story be a mere myth? Wimpy type of god that.

luckyme