Last week on CARM I was challenged by atheists to show "any evidence at
all" that mind is not reducible to brain. I put up a huge post. It was
originally a page I researched adn wrote but taken over (with my
permission) by God and Science.org. Rather than discussing the matrail a certain atheists responded by trying to make me feel guilty about having too much evidence!
Originally Posted by Samscram
I must admit that's a new one! What does it mean? Atheist
harp and harp "there's no evidence for your God." When you give them
some, then it's too much. I am an intellectual. My faith si a
combination of emotional trust and intellectual reasoning. My life
journey has been about putting the two together and over the years I
have devoted that to a high level. I have the best evdience I'm going
to resort to scholarship because my life is about scholarship I AM A SCHOLAR! My faith is integrally a part of my intellectual journey and vice versa.
He goes on:
The
fact that you have to site authority after authority, in other words,
"don't confuse me with the facts." That is one of the silliest and most
unfair things I've ever heard anyone say. do you realy expect me to
post a whole book on this baord? You do have a responisiblty to find
things out for yourself. All I can do si point in a direction. if you
are too lazy to follow up that's your problem. I don't have time or
space to type whole books into this text box it's totally unfair of
you to deamnd thtat.
Of cousre his comment I don't know the content, what an arrogant little wind bag! He doesn't even mention a single point its I who don't know the content! BTW what rational rhetorical venue? Isn't that what the message board is supposed to be? At least before CARM it was.
you guys are constantly making the refrain "there's no proof for X" Your God, or whatever. you always say Christians can't have any evidence and can't prove anything. then when I do show that I have moutian of evidence and there's something wrong with that. now I'm not good because I have too much evidence. Before I was stupid and feeble minded because I believe stuff without evidence, now I have too much.
that's absurd its silly its transparent. you can't out evidence me. so you have to say something s you just reach for the old anti-intellectual "scholars is egg heads" bit.
that's just silly as it can be. You have to just suck it up and admit that you are out evidenced. period.
Then he pulls out the big gun (you gut "there's no evidence for your God"):
That's exactly right, I don't
prove God, I don't try to prove God. I don't have to do that. In fact I
don't want to. I've explained many times why. That would contradict
my mystical theology. I've explained this over and over again. God is
beyond the empirical.
You can't provide a single empirical fact that proves science is true or that there are laws of phsyics. Somethings are too basic to prove in one little empirical fact.
the rock solid foundational things can't be proved easily.
Originally Posted by Samscram
Paul probably had the equivalent.
"resort to..." what kind evidence do they expect anyway? The rule out
philosophy because it's not science. Science is academic and scientists
have Ph.D.'s (the dread Ph.D. something not right about them egg head
Ph.D. guys). The nix philospical proof, they nix loigcal proof, they nix
Ph.D.'s which includes scinece, what else would one use?
you have just undermined your whole artiest position. you can't on the one hand demand evidence then when you get it deny that it's important and try to turn it into some kind liability to have.
you have to stick to the facts. academics are the experts they decide what's true and what is not they are the experts who study the issues decide what is scientifically proved and what is not. all scientists are academics. you can't be a scientist without being an academic.
I never said I was proving the existence of God. when you are going
to start reading posts? you think you can waltz in here just assume all
Christians are alike you don't have to read what they say. you go
study my position and find out what I believer before you waste my
time.
This is symptomatic of America's anti-intellectualism. When I was an athiest atheism was about thinking, it was done by intellectuals. So the modern scinece or arrogance atheist have they are smarter than Chrsitians comes from a hold over of that time when atheists were intellectuals. Now they are getting all of these anti-intellectual non academics involved in it who don't value learning and don't reverse thinking's so they don't' value degrees. That whole sense of arrogance at being smarter becomes less justified and is more and more boiled down to arrogance based upon "we are us and we don't like them."
But atheism is rational. Yes yes, the free thinkers, they are ratinoal. they hate thought, they hate degrees, they hate intellecutlas but they SOOOOO very smart!
Originally Posted by Samscram
I must admit that's a new one! What does it mean? Atheist
harp and harp "there's no evidence for your God." When you give them
some, then it's too much. I am an intellectual. My faith si a
combination of emotional trust and intellectual reasoning. My life
journey has been about putting the two together and over the years I
have devoted that to a high level. I have the best evdience I'm going
to resort to scholarship because my life is about scholarship I AM A SCHOLAR! My faith is integrally a part of my intellectual journey and vice versa.He goes on:
The fact that you have to cite "authority" after "authority" after "authority" without providing even a synopsis of their content proves to me if to no one else that you don't know the content and/or haven't the ability to utilize it in a rational rhetorical venue.
Of cousre his comment I don't know the content, what an arrogant little wind bag! He doesn't even mention a single point its I who don't know the content! BTW what rational rhetorical venue? Isn't that what the message board is supposed to be? At least before CARM it was.
you guys are constantly making the refrain "there's no proof for X" Your God, or whatever. you always say Christians can't have any evidence and can't prove anything. then when I do show that I have moutian of evidence and there's something wrong with that. now I'm not good because I have too much evidence. Before I was stupid and feeble minded because I believe stuff without evidence, now I have too much.
that's absurd its silly its transparent. you can't out evidence me. so you have to say something s you just reach for the old anti-intellectual "scholars is egg heads" bit.
that's just silly as it can be. You have to just suck it up and admit that you are out evidenced. period.
Then he pulls out the big gun (you gut "there's no evidence for your God"):
Despite the fact that you have blustered, ranted, insulted, raved, even condemned posters to hell; cited hundreds of "academic" studies, a bunch of Ph.Ds as well as your personal blarney page, [COLOR=#ff0000]you have yet to produce a single piece of empirical evidence which necessarily establishes the existence of god.Now, if I did (which I do) have even any evidence at all wouldn't that be too much? Wouldn't he then say "you have to turn to experts to save your faith."
You can't provide a single empirical fact that proves science is true or that there are laws of phsyics. Somethings are too basic to prove in one little empirical fact.
the rock solid foundational things can't be proved easily.
Originally Posted by Samscram
what does that have to do with anything?
Paul probably had the equivalent.
Is that the reason that you apparently need to resort to modern day academia to prove his existence?
you have just undermined your whole artiest position. you can't on the one hand demand evidence then when you get it deny that it's important and try to turn it into some kind liability to have.
you have to stick to the facts. academics are the experts they decide what's true and what is not they are the experts who study the issues decide what is scientifically proved and what is not. all scientists are academics. you can't be a scientist without being an academic.
As to your complaint that I'm slandering you by ridiculing
your reliance on Ph.Ds to prove the existence of god I confess that
your posts gave no hint that their author was one.
This is symptomatic of America's anti-intellectualism. When I was an athiest atheism was about thinking, it was done by intellectuals. So the modern scinece or arrogance atheist have they are smarter than Chrsitians comes from a hold over of that time when atheists were intellectuals. Now they are getting all of these anti-intellectual non academics involved in it who don't value learning and don't reverse thinking's so they don't' value degrees. That whole sense of arrogance at being smarter becomes less justified and is more and more boiled down to arrogance based upon "we are us and we don't like them."
But atheism is rational. Yes yes, the free thinkers, they are ratinoal. they hate thought, they hate degrees, they hate intellecutlas but they SOOOOO very smart!
2 comments:
New Urban Dictionary definition for Atheism:
A cult-like movement that causes the person involved in it to shun all critical thinking skills, and to put all opponents (i.e. Theists) in the same boat without hearing their side.
ahahahahahahah!!!! ;-)
Post a Comment