In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ontologically simpler therefore massive favorite to be true is not an accurate application of Ockham's Razor. If it was then one wonder's why Ockham or anyone would believe that. Ockham's Razor just states we ought not multiply entities in our ontology unnecesarily. This is generally good advice, but doesn't really apply here as far as I can see.

Ockham's razor can defeat attempts to use the existence of religions as evidence for God's existence though. This is assuming the existence of religions can be explained just as well without invoking God as the possible explanations involving God. This might lead one to suspending judgement, how do you see Ockham's razor being used to destroy the case for God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt suggesting ockham's razor implies it is a massive favorite that there is no god or no aliens. Ockham's razor doesnt have much bearing on what is actually true. It implies that we shouldnt assert their existence in the absence of evidence.

Perhaps I was too quick to agree with "destroys the case" but I think it destroys the cases not claiming to be based on evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor Occam would have rolled in his grave if he knew his razor was being used this way. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A believer reads scripture then believes its truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?
What about -
"a non-believing person reads scripture then becomes a believer."?
Or "a believer reads scripture then becomes a non-believer."?
As stated, did the believer have a nonbelief in scripture before reading it? and what was it he was a believer in before reading scripture?

luckyme

[Splendour]

Thanks for correcting me luckyme. It should be "a person" instead of "a believer"...

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Belief does not necessarily confer the ability to adequately prove one's main contention to other people, who may disagree.


A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, DS is down to hoping txag and NotReady think their evidence is sufficient proof to a good handicapper.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think DS misrepresents the NotReady and BluffThis positions on this as well. They would claim their positions don't fit his argument. He insists that the logical chain of reasoning he has meticulously deduced shows that their positions do translate to the conditions of his argument and they just deny his logic because they don't want to admit they are wrong. Considering the plethora of Sklansky threads required to correct, ammend, edit, or clarify previous Sklansky threads which corrected, ammended, editted, or clarified threads previous to those; I doubt the reliability of any Sklansky chain of logic that goes beyond the "If" part of an "If ... Then" statement.

PairTheBoard

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

She, she, madnak. I'm not a dude. Here's a little something to correct your tilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcGJb-mPMmg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Z6Q_cDIRk

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
You never will find out exactly what they believe or why because they refuse to participate in reasoned discussion for any length of time or with any appreciable depth.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's because most of the theists on this board are making it up as they go along. When cornered, many of the theists will respond with "I believe X because I have faith". Personally, I can accept this as an "answer", if only because the theist is acknowledging that there is no scientific proof to his/her beliefs. They're telling us that they believe in the supernatural. Fine. Whatever. This is pretty self-evident as a belief in the super-natural is required for a belief in God. GodBoy and txag are good examples of this kind of theist.

However, the theists that really rankle the atheists on this board are the theists who argue that science supports their claims. They argue that atheistic scientists purposefully "fudge their numbers" in order to push their agendas. By the fundamentalists' logic, the only scientists who are doing honest work are those who are espousing Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, etc... Sharkey/Skidoo and NotReady are in this category of theist.

And then there's Splendour -- who will argue against "atheistic science", who will claim that science backs up his beliefs, but then will respond with an endless stream of bible quotes whenever he is asked to explain his assertions. He's in a class all his own.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

She, she, madnak. I'm not a dude. Here's a little something to correct your tilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcGJb-mPMmg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Z6Q_cDIRk

[/ QUOTE ]

called it! after only a couple posts too.

[ QUOTE ]
this may seem like it's way out of left field, and i apologize if this is insulting, but are you a female between the ages of 26 and 36?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post12172768

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't read this whole thread, so I really don't know who said what but.........

In the OT, man had sin offerings to God for the attonement of sins. Usually this consisted of sacrificing a cow, goat, sheep, etc. from their herds....usually one of the best of the herd not some old dying, crippled bull or something. This was the Old Covenant. When Christ was crucified, he took the place of the animal sacrifices. You've probably heard the phrase "sacrificial lamb" or "by the blood of the lamb"...that's Jesus....metaphorically stated I guess. This is the New Covenant. That's why we don't observe Passover.

The New Covenant doesn't replace the OT, it replaces the Old Covenant. Christians do not believe that the OT is negated. It's still good. But since our faith hinges on Jesus, we tend to spend the bulk of our time in the NT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the part about Jesus sacrifice negating the need for further sacrifice.

The problem is that isn't really what was important in the thread. (if I may say so, this is common in Splendour threads because his replies often are only indirectly related to the post he's responding to.)

The New Convenant has no bearing on people's problems with the Old Testament - namely, its problems in dating the Earth, miracles, laws that we disagree with, etc.

There are many parts of the Old Testament that non-believers are appalled at in the OT. (Slavery, God's slaughtering of innocent children, razing cities of unbelievers, etc) I don't think starting with the New Testament as Splendour suggested removes the issues some have with the OT.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

She, she, madnak. I'm not a dude. Here's a little something to correct your tilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcGJb-mPMmg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Z6Q_cDIRk

[/ QUOTE ]

Please... this is a forum to discuss philosophy. Posting links to cheesy spiritual music videos does nothing to advance the discussion and simply reinforces that you're trolling.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]


called it! after only a couple posts too.

[ QUOTE ]
this may seem like it's way out of left field, and i apologize if this is insulting, but are you a female between the ages of 26 and 36?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post12172768

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. i'm just curious how you got that specific age range. And, I would have guessed much younger.