Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:15 am

Asimov, I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your intent here but your statments have revealed a blind loyalty to atheism. I don't make it a practice to question a person's motives but your reponses are teeming with animosity and venom, not intellectual honestly. Every time we present you with a logical argument for the existence of God you reply, "false dichotomy." Either you don't know what a false dichotomy is or you don't understand what we are positing.

You have stated that there's no way a person can objectively prove the existence of God on an internet forum so what is your purpose? We have given you philosophical arguments, to which you can't answer, so why not just give up? The only answers you give to our challenges are alternative theories, which are just one of many possiblities. You reject our conclusions, we reject yours. So again I ask, what's your purpose?

I think the point of this sub-forum is to engage with open-minded individuals. Even the greatest athestic thinkers have admittedly struggled with the philisophical arguments you've been presented with here. Anthony Flew, Charles Templeton and Bertrand Russell are some of them. Yet you shrug these arguments off as "false dichotomies." Perhaps you should've pled your case to Flew and Russell so they could've just tossed these arguments aside. Or perhaps you think yourself wiser than your contemporaries.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:34 pm

Homer wrote: Can we expect you will define all your terms explicitly?
I try to.
Testimony: a firsthand authentication of a fact. Fact: that which has been done. Facts are always true but all truth is not a fact.
So, if I give what I call a testimony that I saw Jesus' body....what would you call that?

Facts are empirical. Testimony is only corroborative.
Why so? Facts are facts; testimony is testimony. Do you think scientific testimony is any more reliable? Surely you are aware of much of the fabricated evidence for evolution. Have you read the book "Icons of Evolution"?
Of course I think scientific testimony is more reliable. The evidence and experiments that scientists obtain have to be repeatable and demonstrable.

The whole system of science relies on falsification. Yes I'm aware of "fabricated" evidence for evolution...guess what? Scientists exposed it.
1. Do you have any fear of death?
Of course I do, because I value my life.
2. What do you hope to accomplish by posting here?
The same thing I hope to accomplish with any forum, discussion and dialogue.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:40 pm

JC wrote:Asimov, I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your intent here but your statments have revealed a blind loyalty to atheism. I don't make it a practice to question a person's motives but your reponses are teeming with animosity and venom, not intellectual honestly. Every time we present you with a logical argument for the existence of God you reply, "false dichotomy." Either you don't know what a false dichotomy is or you don't understand what we are positing.
JC, you haven't presented a logical argument for the existence of God. I do know what a false dichotomy is, do you? If you disagree with my usage of it, then dispute it.

If I don't understand, then maybe there is a glitch in communication somewhere. Defining your terms you are using and presenting your argument in a syllogistic format (if you are presenting a logical argument) would break it down.
You have stated that there's no way a person can objectively prove the existence of God on an internet forum so what is your purpose? We have given you philisophical arguments, to which you can't answer, so why not just give up? The only answers you give to our challenges are alternative theories, which are just one of many possiblities. You reject our conclusions, we reject yours. So again I ask, what's your purpose?
What's this "we" stuff? Let's talk about "you". You have only asked me questions regarding evolution, something that really has nothing to do with my belief system.
Even the greatest athestic thinkers have admittedly struggled with the philisophical arguments you've been presented with here.
So?
Anthony Flew, Charles Templeton and Bertrand Russell are some of them. Yet you shrug these arguments off as "false dichotomies." Perhaps you should've plead your case to Flew and Russell so they could've just tossed these arguments aside. Or perhaps you think yourself wiser than your contemporaries.
Uh, no. Not everything you've posted was a false dichotomy. You just latched on to your glaring error and are now mocking me for using it. If you have a problem with me labelling your argument as a FD, then take dispute.

And for the record, I've only pointed out a false dichotomy once in my discussion with you on evolution and God, and once with SoaringEagle. Both were valid logical errors.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:41 pm

Asimov,

You said:
The evidence and experiments that scientists obtain have to be repeatable and demonstrable.
So science can demonstrate and replicate life beginning by chance from non-life, and macroevolution? Ought to be easy if it happened by chance.

And, by the way, they also should make their own raw materials before they do the experiments. No fair unless they make their own dirt! :)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:32 am

Homer wrote: So science can demonstrate and replicate life beginning by chance from non-life
They're not asserting that, so no.
and macroevolution? Ought to be easy if it happened by chance.


Evolution doesn't occur by chance, so no again.
And, by the way, they also should make their own raw materials before they do the experiments. No fair unless they make their own dirt! :)
And by the way, at least a remedial knowledge of basic science is something that should be required before someone goes and makes criticisms against.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Anonymous
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm

"Junk" DNA

Post by _Anonymous » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:48 am

On the first page of this discussion you (Atheist) made a comment about junk DNA. There is an article on www.godandscience.org about this junk DNA and how it may actually serve a purpose. I'm not sure if this issue has been addressed previously because I haven't looked at this entire thread. If it has then I apologize. Below is a link to the article. I hope that you find this interesting. Thanks.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”