| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/20/12 at 03:22 PM | Reply with quote #46 |
|
Quote: One quick point before my head explodes: Angels are not exclusive to Christianity. Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovas witnesses, and in certain forms Buddhists also believe in angels. But moving on...
Fair enough, but they are pretty much exclusive to theism. I stand corrected.
Quote: This is absolutely asinine. I'm truly astounded. I've seen atheism redefined to be a form of agnosticism, but now you're defining atheism as some form of pantheism, or supernaturalism. I mean, my mind is genuinely blown, I am agog right now. You have robbed the term "atheism" of all it's meaning and basically dissolved this discussion into utter incoherency.
I have done nothing of the sort, atheism has a simple, simple meaning, the lack or a belief in a God, or the belief that there is no God.
Quote: I mean truly and honestly this is brain poison. You're telling me that you can be a card carrying atheist who believes that he has a soul which will move on into the afterlife where he will exist for all eternity? Who is the arbiter of this afterlife? Where did his soul come from?
It does not matter who is the arbiter, or where the soul comes from, there is nothing inherent in the definition of atheism that says that one cannot believe those things.
I am not trying to quibble over details, but this is a main one. You are asking me to support atheism when you have a twisted and distorted view of what atheism actually entails.
I cannot have a discussion with you when we cannot agree on what the definitions of words mean. You keep claiming that atheism means more then it does and then saying that no one has supported it. This is because no one is trying to, since it does not mean what you think it does.
Since we are getting nowhere talking about atheism, lets throw it off the table for the time being. Let's see if there is support for theism. You keep using court analogies, so lets put it on trial. You are the prosecution and I will be the defense. You make your claims, and then I will rebut and we can see if they are should be believed beyond a reasonable doubt or not. If there is room for a reasonable doubt the the ideas should be found not guilty, or in our case, something that should not be believed. (Please keep in mind that I am not saying that they are false if they are not beyond a reasonable doubt, simply that we should not believe them.) |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 03/20/12 at 03:32 PM | Reply with quote #47 |
|
| The whole point of this thread was for you, the non-believer, to present a case against God. I already presented an extensive list of evidence in the other thread entitled "Why should I believe?" If you're looking for my stance on evidence just go read that post.
Till then I'm fairly certain that the OP has received his answer. Just to be clear, OP, there is no logically consistent positive evidence against God's existence. When you ask for non-believers to support their worldview what you're going to find is quibbling and semantics.
I spent a few months bugging atheists to try and prove that God does not exist. What always ended up happening is that the atheist would just retreat into agnosticism, or endlessly try and flip the table and get me to present positive evidence for God's existence that they could then scoff at and assume that as proof.
Although this new "atheists that believe in the afterlife and ghosts" thing is brand new to me. |
| Loading... | |
| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/20/12 at 03:50 PM | Reply with quote #48 |
|
| I know, I already realized that and conceded to the OP that I could not present an airtight case against God, the best I could do was show that belief in God was not reasonable.
I then said that since you spent so long replying to me, I would reply to you, and then we devolved into this, where you eventually come back complaining that I misunderstood the OP, which I already admitted and conceded.
I personally identify as an atheist because I am not a theist, but by your definition, you would call me an agnostic since I do not necessary subscribe to strong atheism in all cases of every possible God. It is because of that reason that I do not attempt to defend the strong atheist position in all cases of every possible God.
Also, I said that atheists can believe in the afterlife or in any strange or bizarre thing they choose, as far as the definition of the term goes, all that is required is that they do not believe that God exists. Just like theists can believe in any strange manor of God, etc. There can be a theist who believes that God exists, while not believing in an after life or a soul. I think you are so focused on your narrow view of what you think these terms mean, that you are missing the actual meanings. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 03/20/12 at 08:25 PM | Reply with quote #49 |
|
| Your post is the exact reason why discussion on these kinds of topics, thanks to this new atheist crusade, has become impossible.
Quote: I personally identify as an atheist because I am not a theist, but by your definition, you would call me an agnostic since I do not necessary subscribe to strong atheism in all cases of every possible God. It is because of that reason that I do not attempt to defend the strong atheist position in all cases of every possible God.
It's this bit right here. You call yourself an atheist who is actually an agnostic by standard definition. You do not try to defend all strong atheist arguments against every God. You don't necessarily describe to strong atheism, but you may.
I've heard WLC refer to this in several of his debates as the taxicab fallacy. You're adopting and abandoning positions on your worldview at will, changing your stance on a subject when it suits you, and retreating to agnosticism when you're cornered. You don't have a cohesive worldview that is founded upon any rational basis, or logical claim. Your worldview is whatever the opposite is of the theist you're talking to at that moment.
Now I can't exactly debate down your worldview if it's constantly shifting and changing to reflect the circumstances. What I can do is point out that if this very liquid philosophy is in fact the worldview that you hold, you can never really come onto forums like this and speak against the existence of God if your worldview is that he may exist, but probably not, though it may be proven, but likely hasn't yet, but we probably don't know, though some people think we do, but I think their wrong for reasons I can't specifiy. |
| Loading... | |
| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/20/12 at 08:43 PM | Reply with quote #50 |
|
Its amazing how you keep telling me things that you assume about me that are not true. I have clearly defined my position and why I hold it. then I told you that you hold a different definition of the terms then you do and then you critize the position you think I hold based on your different understanding of the terms.
You ask me to argue against a position that is virtually unfalsifable, one which I have stated many times that I cannot, and then claim that I am retreating when I restate that I cannot disprove something that is unfalsifable. |
| Loading... | |
| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 06:53 AM | Reply with quote #51 |
|
| I think I do agree with a lot of what is being said, but I also have to say that if contraception was used properly, I think the amount of unwanted pregnancies would drop substantially. The fact that they are not, speaks more to the idea that they are not being used properly, or not at all.
Some parents refuse to get their children birth control, because they think it gives them a lisence to have sex, but to borrow from the parachute analogy, it keeps them safe, should they decide to jump. Imagine if teens were biologically programmed to want to jump from planes (rather then want to have sex), and parents told them that parachutes are against their religious views. You would also have to imagine that skydiving without a parachute was not fatal, but could have consequences that would last your whole life. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 10:11 AM | Reply with quote #52 |
|
Quote: Its amazing how you keep telling me things that you assume about me that are not true. I have clearly defined my position and why I hold it. then I told you that you hold a different definition of the terms then you do and then you critize the position you think I hold based on your different understanding of the terms.
Again I'm going to to take a moment to explain to you what a worldview is. Actually let me just quote a wiki on this:
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics
You see a worldview is the thing you adopt in order to explain things like ontology, eschatology, or epistemology. For example, I hold to a Christian worldview. The Christian worldview encompasses explanations for moral ontology, general eschatology, or divine revelation as a source of moral epistemology, etc.
You see I'm not confused about the standard atheist worldview. As a worldview atheism makes the claim that there is no God. The debate about whether atheism is a branch of naturalism, or vice versa, is a long one. So let me boil this down for you so you can understand why, if I could respond coherently to your posts by slamming my face into my keyboard, I absolutely would.
Now in order for a worldview to be a rational, or coherent one, it must at least make an attempt to explain any of the things I listed above. Traditionally atheism has adopted natural explanations in an attempt to explain these things. For example Darwinism as an explanation for biological complexity, or the Multiverse theory as an explanation for the Fine Tuning problem. An atheist who holds to naturalism is presenting a coherent and valid worldview which is open to debate. Now I argue, as do all apologists, that this worldview is invalid due to it's explanations being weak, and due to it's lack of counter evidence against theistic arguments, but we won't get into that, that's not the point of my post.
What you have done, in culminating your worldview, is take atheism at it's most bare bones and removed it's explanatory scope and power altogether.You've now removed atheisms traditional explanations for things like ontology, or eschatology, by adopting the stance that an atheist is fully capable of accepting the supernatural. You then go on to say that the atheist is also not required to take any strong stance for any particular set of theistic/deistic/pantheistic beliefs.
So this atheism you're describing to me has had it's explanatory scope and power removed from it completely by abandoning it's traditional naturalistic explanations. You adopt, in it's stead, absolutely no explanations for the problems of philosophy and try to defend a pseudo agnostic stance while still calling yourself atheist. What you've done, essentially, is taken the word "atheism" and robbed it of any attributes which make it a coherent, or viable worldview; sort of like taking the engine out of a car that was working perfectly well.
Or to summarize for the TLDR crowd: Atheism has traditionally, as a worldview, sought to explain the problems of philosophy through naturalism and science. This is a logically coherent worldview to adopt, which can be supported by evidence and debate. Your view on atheism as simply the lack of belief in every possible God, while leaving open the adoption of supernaturalism, is basically the metaphorical atheist car that has had its engine removed. By not adopting any hard stance in defense of your position, and instead dabbling in this luke warm form of agnosticism, you've basically presented a very incoherent and unexaminable worldview. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 10:17 AM | Reply with quote #53 |
|
Quote: You ask me to argue against a position that is virtually unfalsifable, one which I have stated many times that I cannot, and then claim that I am retreating when I restate that I cannot disprove something that is unfalsifable.
This is also laughably incorrect, and I would argue a very weak excuse to avoid the direct question as posed by the OP. Christianity as a worldview would be very easily falsifiable through basic evidence and deductive reasoning if evidence existed to speak against it.
Christianity would be defunct if you could do any one of the following:
1, Present a logically coherent naturalistic explanation of the fine tuning of the universe. 2, Show the universe is eternal and was not created. 3, Show the B theory of time to be the correct one. (The Kalaam Argument would be shattered) 4, Show that the Bible was a forged document. 5. Show that the ressurrection of Christ did not happen. 6, Show that Jesus did not exist.
Etc...etc...etc. I can write pages of this stuff. There have actually been attempts to disprove Christianity that have followed the lines of reasoning I show above. None of them have succeeded, obviously, but to say that it's impossible to argue against Christianity is to stop doing real thinking. If you want to excuse your inability to present a coherent anti-theistic argument due to your lack of study in the subject that would be acceptable, however to argue that it's not possible is simply weak.
This is akin to those atheists who debate with William Lane Craig and claim that the debates are unfair. If you want to know the evidence I always present that supports the existence of God, just watch any debate with William Lane Craig, or for that matter read any article on this website. He's been making the same five arguments for more than twenty years, all of which are falsifiable. You have plenty of time to go study them and present a counter argument, there is no excuse not to. |
| Loading... | |
| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 10:28 AM | Reply with quote #54 |
|
Quote: You see I'm not confused about the standard atheist worldview.
I understand what a worldview is, what you keep failing to grasp is that atheism alone does not constitute a world view, much in the same way that theism alone, does not constitute a world view. You recognize this when you say "Christian worldview", not "theist worldview".
I understand you are getting frustrated with me, but understand that the feeling is mutual. You keep claiming things that are not true, and I don't know how many times I have to tell you, but atheism is NOT a worldview, but simply a part of a worldview.
Atheism cannot tell me anything about the origin of life. Atheism cannot tell me anything about phlosophy. Atheism cannot tell me anything about morality. Atheism cannot tell me antyhing about science.
Atheism cannot tell me anything about ANYTHING except that I do not believe God exists.
Atheism is NOT A worldview, and I do not know how to spell that our any better for you.
I have other parts of my world view that inform me of these aspects that you are discussing, but you have not asked me about them, nor are they reliant to the conversation at hand. For example; I think I would probably be a humanist, I might be a naturalist, I definitely think that methodological naturalism is the best arbiter for natural truth, etc, etc.
I feel sorry that you cannot understand that there is more to a world view then one stance on one subject, and that you think it should be so limited that I would define my whole life and everything I believe of the single concept that I do not believe that God exists.
I guess we have sufficiently derailed this thread by now though. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 10:50 AM | Reply with quote #55 |
|
| You're really not listening at all. I'm talking about atheism as a traditional worldview. In philosophy, theology, and apologetics atheism has been held as a traditional worldview, and has been debated as such. The reason why is because an actual person who denies the existence of any supernatural event/entity/God is actually called a naturalist. However a naturalist is also someone who is involved in the science of nature, which would cause a great deal of confusion on the debate stage. I've also heard nudists and vegans referred to as naturalists. There is also the problem of all naturalists being atheists, as anyone who presented a worldview that denied the existence of any supernatural would have to automatically preclude God. As such people who have asserted that there is no God, and that there is no such thing as the supernatural, have traditionally been called atheists. The reason why they've been traditionally called this is so that one can summarize a particular worldview and present it as a defensible position.
I've also never once encountered someone who self identified as an atheist, but who believed that they had a soul and that there was an afterlife. I don't imagine many philosophers ever did, and so it was always traditionally adopted that if someone said "I'm an atheist" we could reasonably conclude they precluded the existence of any supernatural. Otherwise every debate would devolve into long winded speeches about semantics and about how exactly we should "define" atheism. Actually...come to think of it with the presentation of this asinine "New Atheist" movement I've been seeing quite a few debates that WLC participated in where the atheist spent half their time redefining atheism. Shook, Carrier, Harris, and Hitchens to name a few.
What you're present is an incoherent mishmash of various beliefs mixed with agnosticism. Let me elaborate by simply quoting your post:
Quote: I have other parts of my world view that inform me of these aspects that you are discussing, but you have not asked me about them, nor are they reliant to the conversation at hand. For example; I think I would probably be a humanist, I might be a naturalist, I definitely think that methodological naturalism is the best arbiter for natural truth, etc, etc.
Let me just elaborate that you think you would be a humanist, you might be a naturalist, you think that methodological naturalism is the best arbiter for natural truth, etc. You yourself said that an atheists may adopt the supernatural, and then went on to say that Christianity is unfalsifiable. You've basically robbed the traditional atheistic worldview of all is chutzpah and in it's place erected this very non-committal luke warm agnosticism.
Old atheists like Hume, or Flew created a very respectable and functioning traditional atheistic worldview. They made a car that, while I would argue wasn't very well designed, was actually capable of locomotion and basically worked. What you've done is adopted that basic frame, or outer chassis, by calling yourself an atheist, and jumbled the engine parts around with a mishmash of various beliefs that you're not even willing to commit to strongly. The problem I'm having isn't the fact that you've put this car together, I'm trying to point out the fact that it won't drive anywhere. What you've done is rearrange the basic components, added in a few new things, removed several things, and then said, "Eh, it's basically the same car."
If you are actually a naturalist then there are some things you must commit to, and that is the proposition that all problems presented by things like ontology, eschatology, epistemology, etc, must have a natural explanation. If you tell me that you can be a naturalist who is open to the idea of the soul, or afterlife, I really will repeatedly slam my face into my keyboard. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 11:30 AM | Reply with quote #56 |
|
What you need to distinguish between, jbiemans is the difference between the descriptor of a traditional worldview and the semantics of the basic philosophical framework that encompasses it. For example:
I am a theist, a molonist, I subscribe to divine revelation as an explanation for epistemological support for God, I ascribe to the historical existence of Jesus Christ, I ascribe to the historicity of Christ's resurrection, I ascribe to belief in the trinity, I hold to grace as a requirement for salvation, and I subscribe to the A theory of time just to name a few basics of my philosophical framework. But it goes even further. I am, in fact, a protestant Christian who believes grace alone is required for salvation. If I believed that grace and works were required I would be Catholic.
Or to put it much more basically, I am a Christian and hold the traditional Christian worldview.
Now that you know that I hold the traditional Christian worldview you can operate on some assumptions about what I believe. For example, you can assume that I reject naturalistic darwinism as an explanation for the origin of life, that I reject all other religous beliefs and their tennants, that I reject all current quantum theories about the naturalistic origin of the universe, etc.
Why can you assume those things? Because if I told you that I believed that the universe was created through entirely natural mechanisms, that human beings did not have a soul, that there was no afterlife, or that Muhammed was the final prophet of Allah, then I wouldn't be a Christian. And if I told you that I could still hold the traditional worldview descriptor of a Christian, while ascribing to unspecified naturalistic, or even Islamic beliefs, it would be frustratingly impossible for you to ever talk about this subject with me. Why? Because I'm calling myself a Christian, while changing the traditional descriptors and philosophical framework of what a Christian should believe. |
| Loading... | |
| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 11:32 AM | Reply with quote #57 |
|
| Firstly, I used terms like, maybe, I think, possibly, etc, because honestly I have not fully figgured out my world view and my philosophy. I was being honest with you and with myself by using those words. If you want to complain and belittle me for being honest, perhaps I am talking to the wrong person.
Honestly I do not give a **** about tradition and what was traditional. I live in the now, just like everyone else, ideas change and grow. If people like Hume and Flew thought X that does not mean that every atheist must also think X. You are so stuck in the way that you see the world with a holy book and unquestionable leaders, that you cannot see the value of thinking for yourself, for deciding on your worldview on your own and not because it was some received dogma.
I agree with you that if I am a naturalist then there are things that I must commit to, and the lack of the supernatural is one of those thing. As much as I would love to see you slam your face into the keyboard, I do agree with you. That is why I said that I might be a naturalist. I am not 100% convinced that I can fully say that I do not believe that anything supernatural is impossible. Again, I am trying to be honest with you, and it appears to upset you that I can answer your attacks with "I don't know, sorry".
It may have been the case that traditionally atheists were also naturalists, but if that is the case, then they were wrong. While there may be a correlation, there is no direct logically necessary link between the two concepts.
You call the "new atheist" movement asinine because you can no longer pigeon hole us into a belief that you think we hold, you actually have to talk to us and find out what we individually believe. That must be so difficult.
I want my worldview to be my own, not someone else's, so I derive my worldview by taking what I perceive to be the best of the worldviews I see around me. There are times where some ideas come into conflict, if that happens, I evaluate them, and choose the best of the 2.
If you can think of a better word for someone who is not a theist then an atheist, then you can call me that. The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that God exists, therefore I am not a theist. Atheist is the best word that I am aware of to describe the concept of not being a theist, therefore I identify as an atheist. No extra baggage, no worldview necessary, etc.
If it weren't for the existence of theism, atheism would be meaninglessness to me, I would no longer need to bother to identify as one any longer. |
| Loading... | |
| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 12:00 PM | Reply with quote #58 |
|
| You just illustrated the problem here, you want me to say one thing about myself, "I am an atheist" and you want to be able to try to drive my whole identity from that statement. Well, sorry to tell you, but that cannot be done. You just explained quite well, actually, how it does not work even within Christianity.
You say "I hold the traditional Christian worldview" then I ask "which version". You are not a Catholic, so you do not observe the sacraments, Etc. All that I can know about you by you saying you are a christian is that you believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins. I cannot know anything else. You are not simply "a christian", you are also "a protestant", which gives me more information. It goes on and on.
Quote: Now that you know that I hold the traditional Christian worldview you can operate on some assumptions about what I believe. For example, you can assume that I reject naturalistic darwinism as an explanation for the origin of life, that I reject all other religous beliefs and their tennants, that I reject all current quantum theories about the naturalistic origin of the universe, etc.
This is wrong on so many levels, I do not know where to begin. I want so badly to correct the misconceptions here, but I will try to stop myself from quibbling over the little points, and simply state that there are Christians who believe evolution is true, and who also believe in various quantum theories, etc.
Again you illustrate the point quite nicely. There are dogma associated with Christianity, and there are things a Christian MUST hold as part of the definition of Christian, but lets take this back a step, back to theist and atheist.
The only thing that a theist must hold is that God exist, nothing else matters. There does not have to be an afterlife, nor souls, nor angels. God did not have to create anything, etc, etc. All that is required to fit the label thiest is to believe that some form of God exists.
Conversely, the only thing that an atheist MUST hold is that God does not exist, nothing else matters.
You can be a strong atheist, a weak atheist, a negative atheist, a spiritual atheist, a Buhdist atheist, etc. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 04:20 PM | Reply with quote #59 |
|
Quote: This is wrong on so many levels, I do not know where to begin. I want so badly to correct the misconceptions here, but I will try to stop myself from quibbling over the little points, and simply state that there are Christians who believe evolution is true, and who also believe in various quantum theories, etc.
Naturalistic Evolution. That is to say the belief that evolution began, was fostered by, and is contingent upon entirely naturalistic causes without guidance. i.e. All events which lead to the evolution of humankind were natural, undirected, random mutations and natural selection. I do believe in Theistic or Guided Evolution via a supernatural cause. I could even adopt an extreme Molonist view on God using his middle knowledge to affect the initial conditions which bring about evolution, but even then it is not unguided, random, and natural.
And I believe you still don't understand my complaint with your ideas on a worldview. You seem to be under this illusion that I'm trying to pigeonhole you into a certain category, or label you in order to attack a form of straw man. That's not my concern at all, I rarely make any case against atheism unless someone strictly adheres to naturalism and strong atheism. Were that the case I'd print up Plantiga's evolutionary argument against the brain, or the problem of induction.
You seem to think I'm trying to trick you into choosing a certain worldview which I will then attack, I'm not. I study apologetics, apologetics is to act in defense of my belief, not to tear yours down. My problem with the way you're structuring your belief, and frankly the way almost all of the New Atheists seem to do it, is that it is a patchwork of various beliefs which are discarded, picked up, changed, or rearranged randomly. As an example I have watched a debate with Sam Harris where he has adopted in his arguments; atheism, naturalism, humanism, pantheism, agnosticism, and once or twice theism.
When you view your worldview you seem to think it's "adaptable to the times", my language would be more "incoherent" and "non-committal". You see I don't bother arguing against your worldview because, frankly, you don't have a worldview. Heck I could suddenly throw down some salvo fire against, say, a naturalistic evolutionary process and it's incomprehensible implausibility and you could just as easily say you don't necessarily hold to a purely naturalistic stance on evolution. I could rail against the lack of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe and you could, again, simply retreat either into agnosticism, or some strange form of spiritual atheism. There is no point arguing with someone who has no opinion, and no evidence against your opinions. It would be like sword fighting against smoke. My whole point is that you shouldn't bother even adopting that worldview since it's pointless, you can never explain or commit to anything, and you can't even disprove the other guys arguments.
You see it's not open mindedness that you're presenting, it's a lack of intellectual rigour and an embrace of relativism that I find very common nowadays. "How do we know?" and "I can't prove either way." Are not enlightened, or open minded in my opinion, but simply intellectually lazy. And it still baffles me why someone would hold to an extreme relativistic worldview and somehow have a strong enough opinion to try and debate the subject on the internet.
When I came to Christianity I admired the fact that their "dogma" as you called it has been laid out on the table for two thousand years. Christians hold to a very strict doctrine that is easily falsifiable, their doctrine has complete explanatory scope and power, and their teachings have been available for criticism. In fact if you watch William Lane Craig's debates you'll find that he has presented the exact same opening speech almost word for word for the past twenty years and still enjoys an almost perfect win record. That is, objectively, a very strong worldview to hold which has explanatory scope, power, intellectual rigour, potential for study, and is strongly defended by fact while being completely falsifiable.
Your worldview provides no answers to the hard questions, you have no solid or definable stance on almost anything, and the only thing you're willing to commit to is that the Christian God doesn't exist, and then you go on to admit that you have no evidence to even prove the only thing you're willing to commit to. So your supposedly enlightened worldview doesn't go anywhere, and yet you're still confident enough to come onto forums like these and make the claim that the Christian worldview is false? |
| Loading... | |
| jbiemans |
| Posted 03/21/12 at 07:50 PM | Reply with quote #60 |
|
| I never said that my worldview was "adaptable to the times" so I am unsure why that is in quotes. Also, I am unsure why my worldview is even the topic of discussion. I was not saying "You should believe what I believe, and discard what you believe". The question was asked; "Why not believe ?" , my answer; "Because your belief is unjustified.". Then I was told that I need to give reasons for why one should believe that atheism is true. I then explained that I could not do that because I do not believe that atheism is true because of arguments for it, I believe atheism is true, because I do not believe that theism is true.
You keep saying that my worldview is weak and lacks rigor, and it is intellectually lazy, but you have no idea what I am thinking, or what my reasons are for thinking that way.
You are right, Christianity, to a point is falsifiable, but some of it is not. As for Dr. Craig's arguments, I think that each one has a flaw or a fallacy, and I have spent my time on here discussing with people what I think those flaws are. Most of the arguments are only convincing if you already believe, but if you are an outsider looking in, they lack much convincing punch.
I grew up in a Catholic house, where I went to church every Sunday and went to a Catholic school, so its not like the concepts are new to me. There was always a slight lagging doubt in my mind, so as I got older, I began to look and research and critically look at the beliefs and reasons for them, I found that the reasons were lacking or that they were non existent.
You accuse me of being intellectually lazy, but from my perspective, that could not be farther from the truth.
So to summarize, not believing a claim is the default position, always. If you examine the support for a claim and find it lacking, the honest thing to do is to not believe the claim until the support changes. That is my position, and that is why I believe what I believe. It's not that I believe that God does not exist, its that I do not believe that God does exist; similar but different claims.
So if you would like to go through the evidence for the claim "God exists", we can look at it piece by piece and see if it holds up or not.
|
| Loading... | |
