sylvan3 Posted July 29, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/06/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 29, 2006 sylvan3 I am merely stating that something that isn't verifiable in a scientific way is not worth believing in. That's my line of thinking. Others have different ways of thinking. I am not necessarily saying that you should think like me. However, I am comfortable in how I think. But the non-existence of God is not scientifically verifiable. You are in essence saying your own atheistic faith system is not worth believing in? You appear to be nothing more than a contradiction to your own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylvan3 Posted July 29, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/06/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 29, 2006 Hey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Scroll Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 682 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 30, 2006 I am merely stating that something that isn't verifiable in a scientific way is not worth believing in. I'd bet you believe in lots of things that are not "verifiable in a scientific way"... and not just atheism, as horizoneast has pointed out. I'm not half as interested in "HOW" it was done as I am in "WHO" did it. I am not in bondage to feeling the need to have everything explained..... The only reason YOU are is because you are NOT fulfilled. You do not have your fulfillment in God, therefore are not living according to your created purpose....You are living a life that is LESS than you were meant to have....I do not mean material possessions either....I mean real fulfillment in God...Spiritual fulfillment as well as physical fulfillment. if you don't have God, then you will seek OTHER ways to meet your spiritual need... Who is "YOU"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylvan3 Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/06/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2006 (edited) I am merely stating that something that isn't verifiable in a scientific way is not worth believing in. I'd bet you believe in lots of things that are not "verifiable in a scientific way"... and not just atheism, as horizoneast has pointed out. First of all, I am acutely aware that your focus on what you call a questionable statement on my part is a diversionary tactic away from the weaknesses of your own claims that the Christian God is the absolute truth. However, I will proceed with some elucidation of my position, which, obviously, won't impress you but might ring true with some other readers. My statement of above is not a difficult concept to understand. If a person believes in a given thing or concept, wouldn't that person want scientific evidence to back up his or her claims? Of course. How much better is it to point to scientific data to support a conclusion as opposed to merely saying, "It is true". This is basic common sense. Continuing, if there is something that I believe in that might not have good scientific backing, I would NOT try to present that concept as an absolute truth. An example of this might be a particular weight loss program. I might believe in it, but any lack of significant supportive scientific data would prevent me from extolling its virtues as a "definite thing." Now to the present situation. You claim that Christianity is the absolute truth. However, you don't have the scientific backing to say this with any certainty (e.g. what proof do you have of Judgment Day or the afterlife?). Your argument basically comes down to "It is true". Yet, you expect others to believe what you say. It is a definite thing, you say. I, on the other hand, say that Christianity is not the absolute truth because of a lack of scientific data to support that claim (e.g. proof of Judgment Day or afterlife, etc.). However, you claim that because I don't believe the Christian God that you present, I then have to prove his nonexistence. That's erroneous. It is not my responsibility to do that. This is particularly true because I am not claiming that my nonbelief in the Christian God to be an absolute truth. Therefore, because you claim absolute truth in your beliefs, the burden of proof is very much on you. Any statement I made, that may or may not have been accurately worded, is irrelevant. Even if you could show that atheism is totally nonsensical, which I don't believe is true, we would then have a tie of two nonsensical concepts. Once again, claiming my concepts are wrong do absolutely nothing to support the idea that your concepts are correct. It shows the weaknesses of your claims. The burden of proof is on you. Where is your scientific proof to support your claims of absolute truth? Edited July 30, 2006 by sylvan3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Sometimes, we chase things around to capture it when all we really have to do is wait for it to come to us. The proof you are looking for will not be proven using the scientific model. Here's what I wrote to you in this thread, which I assume you have forgotten about with all the other threads running around...... http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...43544&st=30 Hope this helps! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylvan3 Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/06/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2006 (edited) Sometimes, we chase things around to capture it when all we really have to do is wait for it to come to us. The proof you are looking for will not be proven using the scientific model. Here's what I wrote to you in this thread, which I assume you have forgotten about with all the other threads running around...... http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...43544&st=30 Hope this helps! t. Hi Ted, I read your post....it was well presented--thank you. Edited July 30, 2006 by sylvan3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Scroll Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 682 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 30, 2006 I am merely stating that something that isn't verifiable in a scientific way is not worth believing in. I'd bet you believe in lots of things that are not "verifiable in a scientific way"... and not just atheism, as horizoneast has pointed out. First of all, I am acutely aware that your focus on what you call a questionable statement on my part is a diversionary tactic away from the weaknesses of your own claims that the Christian God is the absolute truth. However, I will proceed with some elucidation of my postion, which, obviously, won't impress you but might ring true with some other readers. My statement of above is not a difficult concept to understand. If a person believes in a given thing or concept, wouldn't that person want scientific evidence to back up his or her claims? Of course. How much better is it to point to scientific data to support a conclusion as opposed to merely saying, "It is true". This is basic common sense. Continuing, if there is something that I believe in that might not have good scientific backing, I would NOT try to present that concept as an absolute truth. An example of this might be a particular weight loss program. I might believe in it, but any lack of significant supportive scientific data would prevent me from extolling its virtues as a "definite thing." Now to the present situation. You claim that Christianity is the absolute truth. However, you don't have the scientific backing to say this with any certainty (e.g. what proof do you have of Judgment Day or the afterlife?). Your argument basically comes down to "It is true". Yet, you expect others to believe what you say. It is a definite thing, you say. I, on the other hand, say that Christianity is not the absolute truth because of a lack of scientific data to support that claim (e.g. proof of Judgment Day or afterlife, etc.). However, you claim that because I don't believe the Christian God that you present, I then have to prove his nonexistence. That's erroneous. It is not my responsibility to do that. This is particularly true because I am not claiming that my nonbelief in the Christian God to be an absolute truth. Therefore, because you claim absolute truth in your beliefs, the burden of proof is very much on you. Any statement I made, that may or may not have been accurately worded, is irrelevant. Even if you could show that atheism is totally nonsensical, which I don't believe is true, we would then have a tie of two nonsensical concepts. Once again, claiming my concepts are wrong do absolutely nothing to support the idea that your concepts are correct. It shows the weaknesses of your claims. The burden of proof is on you. Where is your scientific proof to support your claims of absolute truth? 1. What diversionary tactic? 2. If a person believes in a given thing or concept, that person might want scientific evidence to support it. Sometimes, this is impossible or improbable. Sometimes, it is possible--but not everyone will accept the evidence as "scientific". If you believe that life has intrinsic worth and that murder is wrong, what "scientific evidence" will you bring to support these beliefs? Will everyone accept this evidence as "scientific"? 3. Is there anything you hold as absolutely true? 4. When did I demand proof of God's nonexistence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candi770 Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 119 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,316 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/01/1970 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Sylvan, What about when people pray to God in Jesus name and those prayers are answered, I'm sure that others have heard prayers and can attest that those prayers are answered. Or healing that have occured after praying to God in Jesus Name. The doctors can prove this. I've heard many stories that left doctors baffled. If you were dying of cancer and you knew that Jesus could heal you-would you still stand crossed armed??? Many atheists would say that the preacher might be false, etc. But what would you say to the common christian exercising their authority in Jesus name and seeing the same result. Candi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylvan3 Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/06/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2006 I am merely stating that something that isn't verifiable in a scientific way is not worth believing in. I'd bet you believe in lots of things that are not "verifiable in a scientific way"... and not just atheism, as horizoneast has pointed out. First of all, I am acutely aware that your focus on what you call a questionable statement on my part is a diversionary tactic away from the weaknesses of your own claims that the Christian God is the absolute truth. However, I will proceed with some elucidation of my postion, which, obviously, won't impress you but might ring true with some other readers. My statement of above is not a difficult concept to understand. If a person believes in a given thing or concept, wouldn't that person want scientific evidence to back up his or her claims? Of course. How much better is it to point to scientific data to support a conclusion as opposed to merely saying, "It is true". This is basic common sense. Continuing, if there is something that I believe in that might not have good scientific backing, I would NOT try to present that concept as an absolute truth. An example of this might be a particular weight loss program. I might believe in it, but any lack of significant supportive scientific data would prevent me from extolling its virtues as a "definite thing." Now to the present situation. You claim that Christianity is the absolute truth. However, you don't have the scientific backing to say this with any certainty (e.g. what proof do you have of Judgment Day or the afterlife?). Your argument basically comes down to "It is true". Yet, you expect others to believe what you say. It is a definite thing, you say. I, on the other hand, say that Christianity is not the absolute truth because of a lack of scientific data to support that claim (e.g. proof of Judgment Day or afterlife, etc.). However, you claim that because I don't believe the Christian God that you present, I then have to prove his nonexistence. That's erroneous. It is not my responsibility to do that. This is particularly true because I am not claiming that my nonbelief in the Christian God to be an absolute truth. Therefore, because you claim absolute truth in your beliefs, the burden of proof is very much on you. Any statement I made, that may or may not have been accurately worded, is irrelevant. Even if you could show that atheism is totally nonsensical, which I don't believe is true, we would then have a tie of two nonsensical concepts. Once again, claiming my concepts are wrong do absolutely nothing to support the idea that your concepts are correct. It shows the weaknesses of your claims. The burden of proof is on you. Where is your scientific proof to support your claims of absolute truth? 1. What diversionary tactic? 2. If a person believes in a given thing or concept, that person might want scientific evidence to support it. Sometimes, this is impossible or improbable. Sometimes, it is possible--but not everyone will accept the evidence as "scientific". If you believe that life has intrinsic worth and that murder is wrong, what "scientific evidence" will you bring to support these beliefs? Will everyone accept this evidence as "scientific"? 3. Is there anything you hold as absolutely true? 4. When did I demand proof of God's nonexistence? Since you referenced a quote of mine from a previous post, I assumed that you were aware of the interaction that took place there. My apologies if that assumption was incorrect. I will answer your other questions later...don't have time now...thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted July 30, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Hi Ted, I read your post....it was well presented--thank you. Ok, man. Just take a few moments to think about stuff, that's all. Sometimes, it makes all the difference in the world. Hopefully, my words will never cause you to dismiss things simply because I may hit the wrong emotional buttons. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts