'Sin'

[Sassy]

Why should we want to?

What is wrong with not knowing? Why do you seem so frightened of not knowing?

I don't know why the universe is and I don't feel the need believe something, anything, rather than simply not know - why should I?

I would be very interested to hear that somebody has found a credible answer, and can offer evidence or reasoning to support their case, but none have done so.


"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

You look at the world and would not like to know the creator, that is if created the person called God who did it?
Richard Feynman can only speak for himself... Tell me if sick and finding a lump is not knowing more interesting than not finding and in that case an answer which would make a difference if your first thoughts wrong?

Logically, that man is defeating his own purpose? It is seeking the truth we find it, not knowing is not the way of man.#
God promises if people seek him, seek him with a good heart then they will find him.
Sincerity and truth is what God requires in our inner parts. The ability to think for ourselves is clearly beneficial when finding answers.

[Sassy]

An accusation such as, for example, that Stephen Taylor discriminates against Christians which you are yet to substantiate or retract and apologise for.

My reply is:- Does he support your point and post against Christians or vice versa?

I rest my case. Had he posted from a side not supported by atheists or Christian then we could say he does not discriminate against believers. But his post reflect negatively against Christians and had they not you would not be cheering him on.

Think before you reply. Your support for him shows he is not supporting Christianity or even neutral in his replies.

[Shaker]

My reply is:- Does he support your point and post against Christians or vice versa?

I rest my case. Had he posted from a side not supported by atheists or Christian then we could say he does not discriminate against believers. But his post reflect negatively against Christians and had they not you would not be cheering him on.

Think before you reply. Your support for him shows he is not supporting Christianity or even neutral in his replies.

He challenges and criticises beliefs.

That's not discrimination.

[Stranger]

I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.

I have pointed to philosophical means of making a case for an ontology.

And I have countered the assumption that science, reason, philosophy and logic are naturalistic.

That is a pretty big CV compared to the fat sultans of axiomatic naturalism and their ''don't know but isn't God'' routine.

Yes, Vlad, you have spouted endless -isms and -ists and you have constructed and ritually slaughtered a veritable army of straw men.

Any time you want to address the argument people are actually making, do feel free...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should we want to?


"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

Ah, dogmatic agnosticism and if you will, intellectual wanking.

Feynman is asking us to believe that a man of knowledge like himself is at base a simple ignoramus. Self indulgent bollocks.

[Sassy]

I will tell you my answer after you have apologised for the libellous statement you made about me.

Look at  my reply to shaker.
Your posts are not neutral they show you support atheism at the detriment to Christians and their beliefs.
Your replies leave atheists like Shaker applauding you.
So please feel free not to reply to my posts and I shall no longer reply to yours.
The other believers are free to choose. But wolves in sheeps clothings I don't want to answer.


Even Satan can don the 'angel of light' disguise. In this case your slip is well and truly showing.
Bait other believers all you want under the false banner of being neutral but not this believer.
Your replies show nothing neutral.

[Stranger]

You look at the world and would not like to know the creator, that is if created the person called God who did it?

Clearly, you failed to read or understand what I said.

Richard Feynman can only speak for himself... Tell me if sick and finding a lump is not knowing more interesting than not finding and in that case an answer which would make a difference if your first thoughts wrong?

Ditto, the Feynman quote.

Logically, that man is defeating his own purpose?

That doesn't even make sense.

[Sassy]

He challenges and criticises beliefs.

That's not discrimination.

If not a believer you can only produce atheistic arguments.
He has not brought any arguments which show neutralism.
Had he been neutral his arguments would not have support Christianity or Atheism.
Ever wondered why there is no middle in the belief in God.

Believer verses athiest/agnostic.

The believer saved but the atheist/agnostic both going the same road. No inbetween.

[Gordon]

even at this point you guys are so tight, according to Gordon you aren't prepared to make the case for anything.

What's going down Guys? Why haven't you got the balls to make the case for naturalism?

As usual, Vlad, you mangle and strangle in your on-going quest to deploy an army of straw men: I simply noted that where a fallacious argument is being deployed all that is required is to rebut the fallacy being offered: this doesn't necessarily entail making a counter-argument since there is nothing of substance to counter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Vlad, you have spouted endless -isms and -ists

You shouldn't be frightened of isms and ists in fact you keep contradicting yourselves....first it's an endless list...then it's the same isms....at least get your story straight.

In terms of straw men, He has a name....Be rational.

The trouble is...... yer yeller...intellectually.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As usual, Vlad, you mangle and strangle in your on-going quest to deploy an army of straw men: I simply noted that where a fallacious argument is being deployed all that is required is to rebut the fallacy being offered: this doesn't necessarily entail making a counter-argument since there is nothing of substance to counter.

Blah, Vlad, blah,blah,blah,blah army of straw men:Blah, blah, blah, blah ,blah fallacious argument blah, blah, blah, blah the fallacy blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!

Hot waffle noted Gordon.

[Shaker]

If not a believer you can only produce atheistic arguments.
He has not brought any arguments which show neutralism.
Had he been neutral his arguments would not have support Christianity or Atheism.
Ever wondered why there is no middle in the belief in God.

Believer verses athiest/agnostic.

The believer saved but the atheist/agnostic both going the same road. No inbetween.

Whatever this semi-literate babble may have meant in what passes for your brain before you started typing, the point that the challenging and criticising of beliefs isn't discrimination still stands.

[Gordon]

Blah, Vlad, blah,blah,blah,blah army of straw men:Blah, blah, blah, blah ,blah fallacious argument blah, blah, blah, blah the fallacy blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!

Hot waffle noted Gordon.

Don't be too hard on yourself Vlad: this post of yours, as quoted here, is one of your more lucid efforts.

[floo]

There is a lack of honesty and truth about this post.

Both Vlad and Hope and sought God and experienced God having done so.
What exactly have you done Stephen to find out if God is real?
If nothing the above all becomes useless. Why not tell everyone on this forum exactly what you have done to find God.
Why do the others not give their examples of searching for God. It would be good to know if replies come from being read on up on other atheists offerings or a real experience of the individuals writing.

Vlad and Hope have had experiences which they thought were from god, that is not the same as it actually being so.

I tried to find god as a kid, but in spite of sincere prayers I never had an sign of its presence. If it exists that doesn't do it any credit whatsoever.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Richard Feynman can only speak for himself...

Yes there are certain things about which we can only speak for ourselves.

There are scientists and scientism which believes broadly that what science doesn't know isn't worth knowing.

In scientism circles Scientists become the high priests mediating the last word on pretty well everything.

In this scheme of things scientists tend to become the greatest thinkers, moralists, philosophers and yes human beings..........all at the expense of people who really are.

Unfortunately I think some scientists tend to believe that the above is a bit true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be too hard on yourself Vlad: this post of yours, as quoted here, is one of your more lucid efforts.

Ah,shucks........you have to take some credit. I only put in the meaningful words into what you said.

[Stranger]

Yes there are certain things about which we can only speak for ourselves.

There are scientists and scientism which believes broadly that what science doesn't know isn't worth knowing.

In scientism circles Scientists become the high priests mediating the last word on pretty well everything.

In this scheme of things scientists tend to become the greatest thinkers, moralists, philosophers and yes human beings..........all at the expense of people who really are.

Unfortunately I think some scientists tend to believe that the above is a bit true.

Relevance? Is anybody here arguing for this particular -ism...?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad and Hope have had experiences which they thought were from god, that is not the same as it actually being so.

Prove they are illusion, delusion and mental aberration or mistake then....without argumentum ad ridiculum which is always embarrassing but gets the antitheists going.

[Shaker]

Prove they are illusion, delusion and mental aberration or mistake then....without argumentum ad ridiculum which is always embarrassing but gets the antitheists going.

Who needs an argumentum ad ridiculum when you can borrow, as you have here, Hope's argumentum ad ignorantiam?

[jeremyp]

you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with

You can't demolish nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Relevance? Is anybody here arguing for this particular -ism...?

well.......You quoted Feynman to support dogmatic agnosticism.

[Stranger]

In terms of straw men, He has a name....Be rational.

Even if one poster is making a specific argument (and I'll need a citation to accept that), countering that argument in response to different posters making different points, is still a straw man fallacy.

The trouble is...... yer yeller...intellectually.

I can't help feeling you are projecting your own fear. You seem scared of not knowing and appear to think the rest of use should be afflicted in the same way.

[jeremyp]

Therein lies your reasoning problem again.

What is the difference between a judge passing a death sentence and God?

The judge is real.

[Stranger]

well.......You quoted Feynman to support dogmatic agnosticism.

No, I did not. I suggest a refresher course in English comprehension.

[edit]
PS Even if I was arguing for 'dogmatic agnosticism' (which I wasn't), it would not make your post about scientism relevant.

[jeremyp]

I'm sorry that is grossly underrepresenting my input.
I have pointed out the shortfall between methodological materialism and ontological materialism...which antitheists have skated over or admitted to not know or worse say they don't know but we know it isn't God.....really fellers, how do you know that.

I have pointed to philosophical means of making a case for an ontology.

And I have countered the assumption that science, reason, philosophy and logic are naturalistic.

That is a pretty big CV compared to the fat sultans of axiomatic naturalism and their ''don't know but isn't God'' routine.

All those big words in one post. I think you had better go and have a lie down.