24 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeister"I do have objective proof but it is proof to me and not to others. The evidence before me is sufficient for me and thus constitutes proof for me. The evidence is real enough although for you it is unconvincing. That's fine... that's your opinion. The fact that this evidence is unconvincing to you is neither here nor there to me because the chip on your shoulder would never allow you to have anything but disdain for a theist position."
That's rich coming from a man who believes in the reality of God based on nothing more than feelings:HOWARDGEE
You put words into my mouth without proper regard for what I have said. I have never said the above and you know it. There is much more to faith than feelings. The above statement is a concoction of fallacy based on your own pre-determined ...[text shortened]... ip on your shoulder would never allow you to have anything but disdain for a theist position.
Hang on their, you just said you had objective proof but you have described a purely subjective proof. To be objective, it must be clear to others as well as you.
--- Penguin.
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut YOU got it all right, of course.
Exactly , you are right , but neither you or howard seem to be able to appreciate an individual position. Did it ever occur to you that many Christians may have got a hell of a lot wrong?
I bet they think that too.
Has it ever occurred to you that it might be you who is wrong??
No?? Didn't think so.
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt would be nice to give me a chance to answer the question before answering it for me first. But hey ho ...don't bother yourself with such troubling details ...I know you are not really interested anyway.
But YOU got it all right, of course.
I bet they think that too.
Has it ever occurred to you that it might be you who is wrong??
No?? Didn't think so.
25 Mar 07
Originally posted by PenguinOnly if the "proof" or evidence is to be sufficient for others. For example , if you look at scientific models of the world some of them (eg the theory of Global Dimming) are subject to certain interpretations of events in the world . The African famines for example are seen in this context to those who subscribe to this model but they are not objectively proven to the scientific community , however , if one does subscribe to that model they constitute evidence for the individual.
[b]"I do have objective proof but it is proof to me and not to others. The evidence before me is sufficient for me and thus constitutes proof for me. The evidence is real enough although for you it is unconvincing. That's fine... that's your opinion. The fact that this evidence is unconvincing to you is neither here nor there to me because the chip on your s ...[text shortened]... ctive[/i] proof. To be objective, it must be clear to others as well as you.
--- Penguin.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou really need to learn the difference between subjective and objective proofs, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Only if the "proof" or evidence is to be sufficient for others. For example , if you look at scientific models of the world some of them (eg the theory of Global Dimming) are subject to certain interpretations of events in the world . The African famines for example are seen in this context to those who subscribe to this model but they are not objecti ...[text shortened]... y , however , if one does subscribe to that model they constitute evidence for the individual.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell go on then, answer it.
It would be nice to give me a chance to answer the question before answering it for me first. But hey ho ...don't bother yourself with such troubling details ...I know you are not really interested anyway.
Whilst you're at it, try answering this question I asked a while back which you have been repeatedly ignoring:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65390&page=6#post_1241180
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by howardgeeI know the difference fine. One can perceive something in the objective natural world that to one's own subjective perception is sufficient as evidence to support one's beliefs. This evidence can be objective and subjective simultaneously. One interprets (all we all do) the objective information in a subjective way. This means it is not proof to others but it is evidence nonetheless for the individual. It does not fulfil the strict criteria for a scientific proof but neither does that make it a totally subjective thing either.
You really need to learn the difference between subjective and objective proofs, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Your problem is you don't know the difference between all or nothing thinking and analytic thought.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by howardgeea) what would be the point? If he is already so closed as to be answering before I have a chance then he will not listen anyway.
Well go on then, answer it.
Whilst you're at it, try answering this question I asked a while back which you have been repeatedly ignoring:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65390&page=6#post_1241180
b) I looked and could not find your question. But a) might well apply to you also.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterFeel free to give my your answer if it's any different to the one I suggested.
It would be nice to give me a chance to answer the question before answering it for me first. But hey ho ...don't bother yourself with such troubling details ...I know you are not really interested anyway.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo. That's just taking evidence then imposing a pre-conceived notion onto it.
I know the difference fine. One can perceive something in the objective natural world that to one's own subjective perception is sufficient as evidence to support one's beliefs. This evidence can be objective and subjective simultaneously. One interprets (all we all do) the objective information in a subjective way. This means it is not proof to others ...[text shortened]... roblem is you don't know the difference between all or nothing thinking and analytic thought.
26 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterHere are my questions for a fourth time:
a) what would be the point? If he is already so closed as to be answering before I have a chance then he will not listen anyway.
b) I looked and could not find your question. But a) might well apply to you also.
So you believe that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and no better or worse than heterosexuality?
You believe abortions should be allowed?
You agree with the use of contraception?
You disagree with circumcision (except for males in medically desired circumstances)?
You think that females should be allowed to become religious ministers?
26 Mar 07
From the original post:
The question for you to try to answer is this:
"What evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that God does not exist?"
As a counter example, and in a forlorn attempt to bring this thread kicking and screaming back to its original topic, I came across this essay from the other point of view - some examples of evidence that an atheist would find sufficient for him to believe in a given diety.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
I think it's a pretty good set of tests and it certainly describes evidence that would convince me and, I suspect, a large number of atheists while also describing the kind of thing that simply will not do the job.
In fact, the whole site looks pretty good if you want to see what an atheist believes and why (obviously it may not apply to all atheists).
So shall we have another go? Having seen examples of what an atheist would consider convincing evidence for God, is there any theoretically testable evidence that, if demonstrated, would convince any of the theists on this list that maybe their God does not exist?
--- Penguin.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by howardgeeSo you believe that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and no better or worse than heterosexuality?
Here are my questions for a fourth time:
So you believe that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and no better or worse than heterosexuality?
You believe abortions should be allowed?
You agree with the use of contraception?
You disagree with circumcision (except for males in medically desired circumstances)?
You think that females should be allowed to become religious ministers?
The phrase better or worse is misleading here , but yes I think homosexuality is a natural occurence. The Bible got it wrong in my opinion.
You believe abortions should be allowed?
Yes, but I think there are associated problems and ethical problems and each case is individual.
You agree with the use of contraception?
Yes.
You disagree with circumcision (except for males in medically desired circumstances)?
I disagree with circumsion as a religious practice.
You think that females should be allowed to become religious ministers?
Absolutely.
26 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterGood you've answered Howard's questions. Now perhaps mine?
So you believe that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and no better or worse than heterosexuality?
The phrase better or worse is misleading here , but yes I think homosexuality is a natural occurence. The Bible got it wrong in my opinion.
You believe abortions should be allowed?
Yes, but I think there are associated problems and ethic ...[text shortened]... ice.
You think that females should be allowed to become religious ministers?
Absolutely.
Do you concede that it may be you, and not others, who got their interpretation of biblical scripture wrong?