Atheists are in such a good position if they don't care about truth. They can always just deny any evidence and demand more then make a big thing out of the fact that no evidence convinces them. What they never admit but is obvious is that no evidence ever could convinced them because their position as atheists is to refuse all evidence. They use a kind of circular reasoning that says "I refuse to believe, therefore it can't be true." Then assume that since they have not been convinced the arguments don't pan out.
On CARM, Skylurker makes the point that religion is a cultural artifact. I said yes it is but so what? That doesn't mean it can't also be true. We have to use cultural constructs to communicate the experiences of God through. That means they are going to colored by the culture. That doesn't' render them false. Of course the unspoken assumption is they want it to be true. so they have to admit it could be. Of course will say "I never said it couldn't be." But they also don't accept it might be.
Originally Posted by MarkUK
Meta
not if you know the historical facts.
the idea that miracles are not possible is not a valid position for you anymore. Atheists have given up that ground a long time ago. you gave up prescriptive laws of nature so you dont' get to there's a close naturalistic system. you say laws of physical are description of the universe works, then miracles are part of that.
That sets off an argument about the possibility of miracles. My argument was about the philosophical justification for closing naturalistic process to naturalistic events only. I said they forfeit that in a couple of ways. I said, "of course there is 7000 remarkable cases is a good enough reasons. 400 resurrections since the middle ages is a good reason." We had a thing about burden of proof.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
MarkUK
It's not my job to disprove miracles.
I'm not trying to get you to stop believing. To all who read this:
I've decided that you owe me a million dollars. However, I wrote myself a cheque to cover each and every one of you.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
In other words, if you call yourself the winner, you win.MarkUK
Miracles do not get prima facie; if they did, you'd believe every single miracle claim ever made, and you don't.
I did point out that doesn't know what Prima facie is. Anything is prima facie if you meet the PF burden, which include evidence. But I did that or have done so in the past, we were sort of comparing general overall proofs of each side.
Meta
the only way to prove it prove it does not is to prove more is needed for the claim.
I'm speaking about meeting the Prmia facie burden.
MarkUK
If you don't think more is needed to support "a Nazarene carpenter was Yahweh incarnate and came back from the dead" than "a bloke wrote two thousand years ago that some anonymous people saw it", I don't know what to say to you.Note: argument from incredulity. why should it be any more improbable that a carpenter would come back to life than a Rabbi? It's important to mention that he's talking about Jesus becuase then it has the atheist stamp of incredulity on it.
Meta
you don't have to disprove the existence of God you have to disprove my argument.
Mark
Since you claimed prima facie in the opening, you have effectively declared yourself the winner of the game without bothering to play it.That's not true, he must show that I haven't met the burden. I can show I have.
Meta
you do not know the word pima facie means. you don't know what it is or how to achieve it. you have no basis for the silly claim that miracles can't be pria facie.MarkUK
Besides I didn't make an argument based upon miracles. you can't engage with the arguments long enough to remember what I argued.I didn't either remember? My argument was based upon the framework which they have abandoned in favor of QM theory and descriptive laws of physic those open the door to wild and crazy things like miracles. The reference to docs for 7000 miracles (healings) and 400 resurrections (middle ages to now) were just additional evidence to boost the gain.
btw prima facies means "on face value." It's different for philosophers than for debaters. I tend to use the debate concept. Even though it's made for policy debate, that is the idea that the opening speech must present the basics that are needed to prove the case (the case being belief in God is warrated).
I did't do that in that thread but since the debate referst to the general state of evidence prestned by both sides over time I refer to my God argument pages, and perferomances in 1x1 debates.
MarkUK
If you don't think more is needed to support "a Nazarene carpenter was Yahweh incarnate and came back from the dead" than "a bloke wrote two thousand years ago that some anonymous people saw it", I don't know what to say to you.
here's an overview to my Resurrection arguments. read that and argue down the overall point.
Now here is where he really shows his refusal to accept any kind of evidence.
MarkUK
Why can't the resurrection be a fiction that has been transmitted faithfully since its beginning?I am the one who made the label. I said transmitted faithfully form the beginning. He's acting like i copied it form something. "Do you really think this means..." Yes I do becuase I said it.
Do you really think "transmitted faithfully" contributes to plausibility? There may be 100% accurate copies of the Harry Potter novels two thousand years from now...
Meta
of course it does. this is proof for me that you do not accept any evidence of any kind. If you refuse to accept any evidence then you are not arguing wit. you are seeking answers. If every peice of evidence you get you reject as evidence by some trick of words, you are not seeking answers you don't care about truth.
what was passed on faithfully was the eye witness that they saw him alive again. that you refuse to believe it no matter what is not proof that it's not true.
MarkUK
You seem to think that "not transmitted faithfully => incorrect" means "transmitted faithfully => correct". This is the "affirming the consequent" fallacy.
Faithful transmission is necessary for plausibility, not sufficient.
Meta
you seem to think that as long as you refuse to receive the evidence as true then it can't be true. I have beaten you because you don't have an arguemnt. just saying "I dont' bleieve it, it could still be false" is not an argument. that's refusing to take part in the next part of the debate.MarkUK
there is no point in debating someone who doesn't care bout facts.
Now you've gone past faithful transmission to the original record - why should we believe the original record is correct? why should be believe anything we don't want to believe. that's why there are still flat earth people. they don't want to believe the fact so they don't.
because it's being passed on faithfully stupid. don't you see whatever I can give back to the original claims they must be wrong, if there's no utterly compelling that that wont let you doubt at all then they must be doubted. that's what these guys think is "reasoning." But it means no evidence could ever suffice.
Meta
it doesn't matter what reason I give because like the flat earth guys you don't care what the facts are.With that kind of thinking all facts can always be doubted so there's no basis in proof. thing can ever prove anything to someone who doesn't want to believe i badly enough. tha'ts why we still have flat earth guys.
you think its a done deal because we went up in space and orbited the earth? no they have answers to that, because they refuse to believe.
Originally Posted by MarkUK
that's just the point! anything you don't like you don't want to believe you put in the category of pig flying. I have evidence. you do not. you have no way to refute my evidence except to say "I refuse to believe it." that's you have. you are acting that is some magic disproof. It's not. it's just a refusal to believe the facts.
Originally Posted by MarkUK
that's just the point! anything you don't like you don't want to believe you put in the category of pig flying. I have evidence. you do not. you have no way to refute my evidence except to say "I refuse to believe it." that's you have. you are acting that is some magic disproof. It's not. it's just a refusal to believe the facts.
MarkUK
As to the rest of it, you seem to have staked out your position that I reject Christianity because I "don't want to believe it", a trite and tedious response that comes right out of the Bible.
duh, pretty obviuos.
Here's the real kicker form another thread by another atheist.
Occum opens a thread
Theists: What good reasons can you offer an atheist to believe that God exists?
Originally Posted by Occam
Nevertheless, I require some sort of reason to believe that God exists before I become a theist, and in the absence of such a reason I am obligated to believe that God does not exist. I see theism - especially the versions that include an afterlife - as similar to the emails you get from someone who claims to be a Nigerian prince who needs your help. He might be telling the truth, but for the moment you are obligated to believe that his story is false.
I put up a thread listing all my God arguments. he says:
Occum
Metacrock, I would rather not rehash my reasons for rejecting your argument from religious experience again. Let our debate in the Debates section stand as a sufficient presentation of our respective positions.read the 1x1 debate I had with him and see why. reading it again I can see hey did't want to revisit it.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
This is a dishonest interpretation of what I said. I said that we shouldn't discuss it against because we've already discussed it on the Debates forum, not just because I don't feel like discussing it.
Meta
sure what I said that and begged off debate on arguments with any number of atheist on this board would I eve hear the end of it?
On the other hand I like Occum and I don't him to think I'm putting him down. I do think if you put up a thread and call for discussion on some topic you should be willing to discuss it.
Overall what we see here is that facts and evidence don't mean much to these guys. As long as they can doubt they will doubt what they don't want to believe. they will continue to rationize it by pretending that the evidence is just no good becuase they will always be in a position to turn it down.
No comments:
Post a Comment