"Faith is the basis for my belief"

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 278
#181
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
 Scientifically, an eternal universe is not well supported. 
Right, but it's still better supported than invisible supernatural universe creating agent who shows up in a book from 2000 years ago and no where else.
Is it, with your invisible thread of events and zero explanability?

How? (A) The universe is observable and (b) the laws of conservation are tested and proven.
And with that observation we think it had a beginning. Observation points to a beginning, not an eternal universe, or argue otherwise. Second, laws in a chance happenstance are unreasonable. What agency brought them about? How? Where are these beginnings observed? Why would we find (discover) sensibility in an unreasoning, irrational, indifferent universe? No reason. You just ASSUME it can happen, without a thread of evidence offered but the gleeful mantra, "I don't know and I don't care!"

The rest of your post looks to me like questions I've already answered with "I don't know" and / or "the answers make no difference to how I live my life, at all." I'll go on not raping, not stealing and not murdering, somehow, while still being pretty sure there's no god watching me and keeping track of how often I jerk off. It's ironic that you mock my worldview because it doesn't 'make sense' of how life started, which it doesn't even attempt to do, as that information is totally immaterial to my life, but you think "magical invisible being did all of this" is somehow sensible. In any case, whatever it is that's keeping you from descending into a murder rampage, keep on believing it. Your testimony, I've heard it, it is completely banal. 

How many posts until you go full Qanon?
Just one!!!

It is obvious what is going on in your country to all but those who are indoctrinated by this misinformation and propaganda. Call it a qanon if you like but prove it is also. Why have Democrats stopped thinking independently? If they vote in Biden they deserve what they get. Can you not see the complicity by the Democrat silence and promoting the defunding of the police? How is that helping crime. Look at the stats in those Dem run cities. Do you not see how Dems praise or are silent on these violent organizations such as Antifa? Watch the fast decline of your country if Biden is elected. Heaven help you. Watch the fast rise of China as the new world #1 power if Biden is elected. Watch his incompetence in how he handles matters like Covid-19. The talk is cheap. Actions should be the judge. And who will be behind this puppet, Biden? Is it not obvious to you he has lost his mental acumen? Socialism is not a good thing. It never works. The power is put in the hands of these government elites. Is that what people want for their country. They are so blinded by hate that they can't think properly. It is all governed by emotions. Is you country going to be that reckless as to vote in Biden? Good luck. I should not care but I do. I realize that as the USA goes so goes the rest of the world. Do you still want to be a free country? Watch what happens if the Dems get hold of your court system. Watch what happens to you prosperity. You will be paying for illegal aliens in large numbers who will flock to your country without borders. They will get free everything while you pay their bill. Taxes will be raised. The election will be compromised by email voting.

Not only this, but how many choose to ignore the obvious? It was the Democrats who were behind the election tampering in 2016. It was them who covered up the Russia hoax and  who was behind it - the Obama administration. It was circle and protect the wagons at all costs. They protected the Dems through the media. The media created misinformation and propaganda. The Dems set up a the Muller hoax, then the Impeachment hoax, then one crisis after another to discredit Trump. Are you blind to these things too?   
#182
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
How many posts until you go full Qanon?
Do you not understand what happened in Nazi Germany and in oh so many dictatorships is the same thing taking place in your country through a massive bombardment of dis and misinformation? You are feeding off a bunch of lies under the guise of the Democrat Party. Do you know of the coming coup if Trump wins? They are already prepping you.

See here, The coming Coup.

  

#183
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Take it t o the politics forum. Wrong topic. 
#184
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Take it t o the politics forum. Wrong topic. 
Is it something you are interested in discussing?
#185
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
If it were, I'd be there, wouldn't I? The answer is no. 
#186
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
If it were, I'd be there, wouldn't I? The answer is no. 
Then it is a waste of my time. I was just using it as an illustration on how duped people can become who do not investigate for themselves but allow others to do their thinking and teaching them group-think as they march them to the slaughter. A charismatic depot can work wonders on misinformation and propaganda. Ideas have consequences. Evolution has consequences. Living as if God does not exist has consequences. 
Topic's author
#187
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
You ASSUME that rational or reasoning faith cannot be a justified true belief (knowledge). Says you. Why are you the arbitrator of what is knowledge? 
That's amusing.  Faith in a young Earth (for example) is not a justified true belief.  If you take issue with that particular belief not being considered knowledge, then simply show it's validity exists outside your head to the wider world.  It's not about what I consider knowledge, but about belief making it above a minimum standard established long ago. It shouldn't be about bringing standards of knowledge down, but bringing the quality of our beliefs up.

I continually argue that the Bible God is knowable and knowledge in Him is reasonable, what He says is justifiable. I gave you the opportunity to argue against this knowledge in the form of prophecy and how reasonable it is to believe. You declined. So, how can I demonstrate to you something you are not willing to explore or reason against?
As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.
You continually say, as does ludofl3x, I don't know, I don't care. Thus you have created the impass, not me. I am willing to discuss whether what I believe is reasonable and whether I have knowledge of such a God.
Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution. It is interesting to note the certainty with which you hold these known false beliefs matches the certainty with which you hold your other less testable claims. Absolute certainty so often seems to run hand in hand with ignorance and flawed epistemologies.
Topic's author
#188
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you not understand what happened in Nazi Germany and in oh so many dictatorships is the same thing taking place in your country through a massive bombardment of dis and misinformation? You are feeding off a bunch of lies under the guise of the Democrat Party. Do you know of the coming coup if Trump wins? They are already prepping you.

See here, The coming Coup
Dis and misinformation? If this is what informs your views, you're aiming that description in the wrong direction:

Dan Bongino
  • Overall, we rate Bongino.com Questionable based on far right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and unproven conspiracies, as well as a complete lack of transparency and a few failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Right Bias, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Failed Fact Checks
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180
History
Founded in 2015, Bongino.com is the website for the Dan Bongino podcast show. Dan Bongino is an American conservative commentator, radio show host, author, former congressional candidate, and former Secret Service agent. He is a member of the Republican Party and ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2012, 2014, and 2016. The website does not feature an about page, mission statement, author names or ownership, thereby demonstrating a complete lack of transparency.


#189
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
You ASSUME that rational or reasoning faith cannot be a justified true belief (knowledge). Says you. Why are you the arbitrator of what is knowledge? 
That's amusing. 
I find your faith amusing too! Pastafarianism is downright absurd and I would debate you on its absurdity if I cared or wanted to do the research on it. From the little I have read I do not find it reasonable enough to spend much time on. It is an adjusted copy-cat with major flaws, IMO. It does not interest me as a credible worldview. I think it is a shield or tag you hide behind that masks your agnosticism or soft atheism.  

Faith in a young Earth (for example) is not a justified true belief.
The paradigm shift during the Age of Reason and Darwinianism changed the way we looked at origins. With this thinking, life now became possible, even justifiable without God. Uniformitarianism and fitting the fossils into that time frame became plausible. Now everything is funnelled through that paradigm.

Is it unreasonable to believe that a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers and fossil record quickly, rather than gradually? It has not been investigated or given a fair hearing as a viable option by secular scientists. Academics are committed to naturalism. I believe you too are involved in their group-think. Thus, Intelligent Design and the age of the earth is immediately shut down in scientific communities as unscientific. Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson gives an example of how flawed evolutionary thinking is as one side of this equation - origins and evolution. 

  If you take issue with that particular belief not being considered knowledge, then simply show it's validity exists outside your head to the wider world.  It's not about what I consider knowledge, but about belief making it above a minimum standard established long ago. It shouldn't be about bringing standards of knowledge down, but bringing the quality of our beliefs up.
Origins can be explained in more than one way yet it is only naturalism that is examined or considered valid. Although the claims can be tested they cannot be verified through observation of the occurrence. Any competing explanation is ignored. The deck is stacked. 

I continually argue that the Bible God is knowable and knowledge in Him is reasonable, what He says is justifiable. I gave you the opportunity to argue against this knowledge in the form of prophecy and how reasonable it is to believe. You declined. So, how can I demonstrate to you something you are not willing to explore or reason against?
As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.
You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 

You continually say, as does ludofl3x, I don't know, I don't care. Thus you have created the impass, not me. I am willing to discuss whether what I believe is reasonable and whether I have knowledge of such a God.
Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution.
You are creating a narrative again, that what I believe is false, based on your assertion. 

I am open to the age of the earth (although I favour a young earth, personally), but not macro-evolution. Again, you have a confirmation bias which coincides with the current paradigm. Do you think the current ideology on origins (naturalism) is infallible? Do you think you have it right?

It is interesting to note the certainty with which you hold these known false beliefs matches the certainty with which you hold your other less testable claims. Absolute certainty so often seems to run hand in hand with ignorance and flawed epistemologies.
There is only certainty in origins if God has revealed. God is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty. 
#190
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

See here, The coming Coup
Dis and misinformation? If this is what informs your views, you're aiming that description in the wrong direction:

Dan Bongino
  • Overall, we rate Bongino.com Questionable based on far right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and unproven conspiracies, as well as a complete lack of transparency and a few failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Right Bias, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Failed Fact Checks
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180
History
Founded in 2015, Bongino.com is the website for the Dan Bongino podcast show. Dan Bongino is an American conservative commentator, radio show host, author, former congressional candidate, and former Secret Service agent. He is a member of the Republican Party and ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2012, 2014, and 2016. The website does not feature an about page, mission statement, author names or ownership, thereby demonstrating a complete lack of transparency.

On the Internet you can find anything to confirm a particular position. Here is what I found on Media Bias Fact Check:

"None of this unsubstantiated juvenile gossip from this fake “fact check” site would matter if some people weren’t falling for it. But due to the current paranoia regarding “fake news” and such, scam artists like Van Zandt have managed to get a free pass from some members of the public who fall for his worthless “ratings” of respected news outlets; they don’t think to stop and to scrutinize the random shadowy figure who’s making up the ratings out of thin air. And so they end up embarrassing themselves by posting a “Media Bias Fact Check” link in response to a legitimate news article on social media, only to then have it pointed out to other commenters that they’ve unwittingly linked to a scam site."

***

"As Just Facts grows in prominence and reputation, an increasing number of scholars, major organizations, and eminent people have cited and recognized the quality work of Just Facts. With this higher profile, Just Facts has also been subject to deceitful attacks. A recent example of such comes from “Media Bias Fact Check,” an “independent media outlet” that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.”"

***

"Fake News: Newspaper fact checkers were once a rarity. Now they're in a position to determine what people can read online, despite their own checkered past. So, who keeps the fact checkers honest?"

***

"CCD Editor’s note: Our site has also come under attack by this dubious website, which forced me to correct them on our About Us page. I’m delighted that someone is finally taking them on in the courts.
* * * * *
Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).

MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist."

***

"So, who is fact-checking the ‘fact checkers’?
Today, PSI has issued Media Bias/Fact Check (MB/FC) site owner, Dave Van Zandt with a pre-action legal notice to take down the defamatory and false smear.
Ironically, the self-styled ‘MEDIA BIAS/ FACT CHECK‘ (MB/FC)  which negatively fact-checked PSI admits it relies on subjective bias to decide how biased others are. In other words MB/FC is a pseudoscientific fact checker!
Apart from unlawfully smearing PSI Mr Van Zandt has smeared other websites that publish scientific articles critical of man-made global warming claims. Among the unfairly smeared are:
Below we help readers to fact check the pseudo fact checker. We put Dave Van Zandt the faceless fact checker under the microscope and discovered the following:
  • Van Zandt Cites No Scientific Qualifications At All
  • Van Zandt Was Exposed By WND As A Fraud And A Liar
  • Van Zandt’s Website (MB/FC) Does Not Apply Any Objective Scientific Method
  • Van Zandt Relies On Unverifiable Subjectivity (Own Bias) To Make Judgments"

***

"Media Bias/Fact Check: Just Another Bogus Leftist Media Watchdog
Spreading Leftist propaganda in the guise of fighting fake news."

***

Phony Baloney: The 9 Fakest Fake-News Checkers

***

Here is a slew of articles on media bias by Real Clear Politics:

***

If you want a good site to find out what is going on, try this:

***

If you want to find out about a person find out what interests them, what they believe, their education and qualifications, political affiliation, who their friends are, what their friends believe, who backs them, etc. What is known of Dave Van Zandt, the editor and owner of Media Bias?

Not much.  
Topic's author
#191
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I  find your faith amusing too! Pastafarianism is downright absurd and I would debate you on its absurdity if I cared or wanted to do the research on it. From the little I have read I do not find it reasonable enough to spend much time on. It is an adjusted copy-cat with major flaws, IMO. It does not interest me as a credible worldview. I think it is a shield or tag you hide behind that masks your agnosticism or soft atheism.  
If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 

Is it unreasonable to believe that a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers and fossil record quickly, rather than gradually? 

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers.  They especially don't organize fossils (or extant life) from simple to complex. There are a number of problems with a worldwide flood (especially within the last few thousand years), but these are a few that come to mind off the top of my head. 

Origins can be explained in more than one way yet it is only naturalism that is examined or considered valid. Although the claims can be tested they cannot be verified through observation of the occurrence.
I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.
You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 
Scripture needs to be consistent with scripture? Nice tautology. "Reasonable" is the least relevant word in that sentence.

Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution.
You are creating a narrative again, that what I believe is false, based on your assertion.

These particular beliefs of yours run contrary to facts of the world.  That's not my narrative, but your beliefs literally running against reality as we know it.

There is only certainty in origins if God has revealed. God is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty. 
Universe creating pixies is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty....magic makes everything plug and play.  Be absolutely certain if you must, but this reasoning does not warrant it.
#192
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Faith is inherently good
Faith in faith(?)

Is faith in NANABOZHO also "good"?
#193
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
what is that
#194
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I  find your faith amusing too! Pastafarianism is downright absurd and I would debate you on its absurdity if I cared or wanted to do the research on it. From the little I have read I do not find it reasonable enough to spend much time on. It is an adjusted copy-cat with major flaws, IMO. It does not interest me as a credible worldview. I think it is a shield or tag you hide behind that masks your agnosticism or soft atheism.  
If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 
Do you actaully hold to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator? No, you use it to lampoon Christianity. Behind this label use, you are an atheist. That is your true belief. Are you still a soft atheist (agnostic) or are you now a hard atheist? 

Is it unreasonable to believe that a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers and fossil record quickly, rather than gradually? 

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers. 
That is not what I said. I said, "a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers." I said the Flood CAUSED the rock layers to form, not organize rocks into layers. 


Is the forming of the strata or rock layers a gradual process of billions of years?

Here are a few models that demonstrates a layering by water and also by volcanos (catastrophism):


How fast can rocks form? It depends on pressure.

And what about the rock layers. If each rock layer represents billions of years, how do you get trees growing through layers of stratification? 

A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.

They especially don't organize fossils (or extant life) from simple to complex. There are a number of problems with a worldwide flood (especially within the last few thousand years), but these are a few that come to mind off the top of my head. 
The assumption is that fossil layers are time indicators. An index fossil is used to estimate the age of rock layers just as much as rock layers are used to determine the age of the fossil. 

Lyell, building on Hutton, created "one of the fundamental philosophies of the geologic sciences."

With mudslides caused by flooding and erosion it is feasible to believe, for example, ocean creatures would be fossilized in great numbers of their kinds throughout the earth, thus you would not expect to find many other creatures in that layer since they do not live in that depth. The eroded sediment would fill into the oceans and entrap whole communities of similar creatures. Bigger creatures would be entrapped behind boulders and rocks above and prevented from sifting to the bottom dwellers in large numbers.

Origins can be explained in more than one way yet it is only naturalism that is examined or considered valid. Although the claims can be tested they cannot be verified through observation of the occurrence.
I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.
Not in the case of origins. We can watch and test natural processes in the present and near past, but not in the distant past. Origins spose the same problem for both of us. You have to construct a model and then test its feasibility. 

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.
You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 
Scripture needs to be consistent with scripture? Nice tautology. "Reasonable" is the least relevant word in that sentence.
Not at all. When you are interpreting a passage of Scripture it is good to compare it with other Scripture to find the meaning. For instance, Jesus' "coming the in clouds." How is that term meant to be understoodT? What do the references to cloud comings mean in the OT? 

"In the OT, only YHVH “rode on the clouds.” That language depicted Deity, the activity of God. And yet, YHVH never literally came out of heaven riding on a literal cloud."

The article goes on to explain the references to the cloud coming in both covenants. 

Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution.
You are creating a narrative again, that what I believe is false, based on your assertion.

These particular beliefs of yours run contrary to facts of the world.  That's not my narrative, but your beliefs literally running against reality as we know it.
Your world of facts on what?The past, origins. What you believe as fact cannot be observed to happen, just demonstrated as reasonable through models. Your  model hypothesis can be tested but you cannot go back and recreate the origins of the universe or the origins of life. Yet your worldview is built upon your supposed paradigm. Then, everything else is funnelled through this naturalistic paradigm too.  Reality as YOU know it.  

There is only certainty in origins if God has revealed. God is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty. 
Universe creating pixies is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty....magic makes everything plug and play.  Be absolutely certain if you must, but this reasoning does not warrant it.
Yours does not have what is necessary to warrant certainty in the fields of ontology and cosmology. It is also a more gullible system of belief in loo of where it starts without sentient Being as Creator. It lacks intention, agency, meaning, purpose, value. Agency is just assumed.  
Topic's author
#195
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 
Do you actaully hold to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator? No, you use it to lampoon Christianity. Behind this label use, you are an atheist. That is your true belief. Are you still a soft atheist (agnostic) or are you now a hard atheist? 
You're basically saying the same thing I just said, except you seem to think Pastafarianism is in opposition to Christianity. I'd say that is a view completely discounting any nuance regarding objection to other religions being injected into science curriculum and/or the appropriate consideration of religious texts and its affect on literature or culture in relevant subjects, but whatever - it's all about YOUR beliefs.  

I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist). If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers. 
That is not what I said. I said, "a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers." I said the Flood CAUSED the rock layers to form, not organize rocks into layers. 
Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.

Looking over your sources, I see some that you're using presumably endorse an ancient Earth.  Clearly, those sources don't agree with your conclusions. Other sources hold the Bible as the ultimate authority and all scientific conclusions must conform to it. [Statement of Faith] The priority is not following the evidence, but following the belief. I believe this to be your position as well which makes addressing this 'evidence' pointless because it does not inform your beliefs. Your beliefs inform your evidence.

This brings to mind a quote from Sam Harris: 'If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?". Seriously.  What point could continuing this discussion serve if you have no interest in evidence?

I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.
Not in the case of origins. We can watch and test natural processes in the present and near past, but not in the distant past. Origins spose the same problem for both of us. You have to construct a model and then test its feasibility. 

Again, only one of our views is interested in being tested. Secondly, I'm surprised to see you concede the "near past" as testable.  How do you determine that the near past is different than the distant past ...other than your incredulity at a distant past?

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.
You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 
Scripture needs to be consistent with scripture? Nice tautology. "Reasonable" is the least relevant word in that sentence.
Not at all. When you are interpreting a passage of Scripture it is good to compare it with other Scripture to find the meaning.
I think you're missing my point. Prophecy itself is a problematic evidence even if it can be understood as perfectly consistent with a particular scriptural interpretation...


#196
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8

If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 
Do you actaully hold to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator? No, you use it to lampoon Christianity. Behind this label use, you are an atheist. That is your true belief. Are you still a soft atheist (agnostic) or are you now a hard atheist? 
You're basically saying the same thing I just said, except you seem to think Pastafarianism is in opposition to Christianity. I'd say that is a view completely discounting any nuance regarding objection to other religions being injected into science curriculum and/or the appropriate consideration of religious texts and its affect on literature or culture in relevant subjects, but whatever - it's all about YOUR beliefs. 
Henderson meant to insult Christians as the main culprit and the main proponent as he saw it of Intelligent Design.

I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).
They are belief systems. They are not formed in a vacuum. You have to believe something to be an atheist. Your belief negates some other belief. 

If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.
What kind of atheist are you?

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers. 
That is not what I said. I said, "a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers." I said the Flood CAUSED the rock layers to form, not organize rocks into layers. 
Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.
Dogmatic of you.

So what, to that statement?

"Fossils, the preserved remains of animal and plant life, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks. Of the sedimentary rocks, most fossils occur in shale, limestone and sandstone." 


"Sedimentary and igneous rocks began as something other than rock. Sedimentary rocks were originally sediments, which were compacted under high pressure. Igneous rocks formed when liquid magma or lava—magma that has emerged onto the surface of the Earth—cooled and hardened. A metamorphic rock, on the other hand, began as a rock—either a sedimentary, igneous, or even a different sort of metamorphic rock. Then, due to various conditions within the Earth, the existing rock was changed into a new kind of metamorphic rock."

Looking over your sources, I see some that you're using presumably endorse an ancient Earth.  Clearly, those sources don't agree with your conclusions.
I said I favour a young earth interpretation of Scripture just as I favour full Preterism. If you can convince me long periods of time is reasonable to believe go ahead. You are not my authority, Scripture is, so convince me from Scripture that I wrongly interpret it. 

What we are mainly debating is which position, Christianity or atheism is reasonable to believe. From where you would have to start and build upon, your position is not reasonable at all for it cannot make sense of origins. IMO, you are very gullible to believe what you do. 

Other sources hold the Bible as the ultimate authority and all scientific conclusions must conform to it.
So do I consider the Bible as my ultimate authority. I look to an authority outside of myself that is necessary for making sense of the universe and life. You have one too, whether that is a science (really scientism) or your own fallible mind. You usually make an appeal to science. Scientists were not around for the BB or the origin of life on planet earth. They interpret data and build models that they feel best explain what happened. With naturalism, everything is fit inside the box (the universe). There is no outside agency. But how is the inner agency even explained? What can chance happenstance do? What is it able to do? You assume an awful lot. 

[Statement of Faith] The priority is not following the evidence, but following the belief. I believe this to be your position as well which makes addressing this 'evidence' pointless because it does not inform your beliefs. Your beliefs inform your evidence.
Follow the evidence? Is that what you are doing? Or, are you building a paradigm (the belief) that you funnel the evidence through? 

What is your highest authority? Is it yourself or science or something else? Please list it. 

This brings to mind a quote from Sam Harris: 'If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?". Seriously.  What point could continuing this discussion serve if you have no interest in evidence?
Uh, Sam Harris is your authority!!! Wow!!!

You are mistaken, I value evidence. I question whether the interpretation of data is sound regarding origins of the universe and life, and evolution. Again, it presupposes that the present is key to the past. 

I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.
Not in the case of origins. We can watch and test natural processes in the present and near past, but not in the distant past. Origins spose the same problem for both of us. You have to construct a model and then test its feasibility. 

Again, only one of our views is interested in being tested. Secondly, I'm surprised to see you concede the "near past" as testable.  How do you determine that the near past is different than the distant past ...other than your incredulity at a distant past?
I am speaking of the last several hundred years with the Age of Reason and the start of the scientific method and revolution. 


#197
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.
You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 
Scripture needs to be consistent with scripture? Nice tautology. "Reasonable" is the least relevant word in that sentence.
Not at all. When you are interpreting a passage of Scripture it is good to compare it with other Scripture to find the meaning.
I think you're missing my point. Prophecy itself is a problematic evidence even if it can be understood as perfectly consistent with a particular scriptural interpretation...
It is obvious to those who use their brains that one interpretation is confirmed by the pages of Scripture. I challenged you to back up your position that Scripture is not its own interpreter. Prophecy is a confirmation that your crazy view is unscriptural. 

Acts 17:10-11 (NASB)
Paul at Berea
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled.

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

Private interpretation or eisogeses is taking Scripture out of context. That is something you were guilty of in our debates. You had no warrant to interpret Scripture the way you did. It was a highly speculative view that had little backbone. It was spineless, IMO. 

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

***
Isaiah 28:9-13 (NASB)
9 “To whom would He teach knowledge,
And to whom would He interpret the message?
Those just weaned from milk?
Those just taken from the breast?
10 “For He says,
‘Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there.’”
11 Indeed, He will speak to this people
Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,
12 He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.
13 So the word of the Lord to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.

Isaiah 28:9-13 (AMPC)
9 To whom will He teach knowledge? [Ask the drunkards.] And whom will He make to understand the message? Those who are babies, just weaned from the milk and taken from the breasts? [Is that what He thinks we are?]
10 For it is [His prophets repeating over and over]: precept upon precept, precept upon precept, rule upon rule, rule upon rule; here a little, there a little.
11 No, but [the Lord will teach the rebels in a more humiliating way] by men with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people [says Isaiah, and teach them His lessons].
12 To these [complaining Jews the Lord] had said, This is the true rest [the way to true comfort and happiness] that you shall give to the weary, and, This is the [true] refreshing—yet they would not listen [to His teaching].
13 Therefore the word of the Lord will be to them [merely monotonous repeatings of]: precept upon precept, precept upon precept, rule upon rule, rule upon rule; here a little, there a little—that they may go and fall backward, and be broken and snared and taken.

Isaiah 28:9-13 (KJV)
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

You interpret line upon line, precept upon precept. You take what was disclosed and you build upon it. 

Topic's author
#198
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).
They are belief systems. They are not formed in a vacuum. You have to believe something to be an atheist. Your belief negates some other belief. 

You don't have to believe anything to be an atheist.  Atheism has no doctrines or popes and is not meant to be a replacement for theism or a worldview. Atheism is nothing more than 'a (not) - theism'...there is no belief involved, at least not an "atheism" that applies to all atheists. You are confused.

If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.
What kind of atheist are you?
Is this you asking about my beliefs or trying to argue about labels? Let me help you - I am a skeptic.  Skepticism is the part of my worldview which led to my atheism. 

Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.
Dogmatic of you.

So what, to that statement?

"Fossils, the preserved remains of animal and plant life, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks. Of the sedimentary rocks, most fossils occur in shale, limestone and sandstone." 


"Sedimentary and igneous rocks began as something other than rock. Sedimentary rocks were originally sediments, which were compacted under high pressure. Igneous rocks formed when liquid magma or lava—magma that has emerged onto the surface of the Earth—cooled and hardened. A metamorphic rock, on the other hand, began as a rock—either a sedimentary, igneous, or even a different sort of metamorphic rock. Then, due to various conditions within the Earth, the existing rock was changed into a new kind of metamorphic rock."
What's your point here? You've admitted the Bible is your authority...

I said I favour a young earth interpretation of Scripture just as I favour full Preterism. If you can convince me long periods of time is reasonable to believe go ahead. You are not my authority, Scripture is, so convince me from Scripture that I wrongly interpret it. 

Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...

What we are mainly debating is which position, Christianity or atheism is reasonable to believe. 

No. At most it would be a debate over Christianity or not-Christianity, but that doesn't describe this discussion - I'm not arguing against Christianity, but rather a particular belief of some Christians which puts priority on a subjective interpretation of the Bible over objective evidence of the world.




Topic's author
#199
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
It is obvious to those who use their brains that one interpretation is confirmed by the pages of Scripture. I challenged you to back up your position that Scripture is not its own interpreter. 
That's not my position.  My position is that the Bible is essentially a literary rorschach.  Finding support for a particular view is not all that surprising or impressive.
#200
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).
They are belief systems. They are not formed in a vacuum. You have to believe something to be an atheist. Your belief negates some other belief. 

You don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. 
This is a most ridiculous and incredulous statement and it does not ring true. 

You would have to believe at least one thing to be an atheist (depending on how you are using the term), there is no evidence or poor evidence for God or gods. Otherwise you would hold to some other belief such as belief in a deity. Not only this, that central belief in no God or gods affects how you look at, think about, and explain the world, the universe, life, morality, and so much more.  

"An atheist, a humanist and an agnostic walk into a restaurant.
The hostess says, “Table for one?”"

Atheism has no doctrines or popes and is not meant to be a replacement for theism or a worldview. Atheism is nothing more than 'a (not) - theism'...
Do you believe that? "Nothing more"? So you at least believe that. That is SOMETHING.

Beliefs are not voids. Atheism is not a void. Principles are build upon other principles to negate or disbelieve in God. To disbelieve in God you have to have a counter-belief. It is as simple as that. 

Here is your starting principle, you does not believe in God or gods. 

there is no belief involved, at least not an "atheism" that applies to all atheists. You are confused.
No, it is you who are confused. Atheists write books and debate on things they have no belief in? How can that be? How can they speak about nothing? 

"To say you simply lack a belief about something is to say that you have no beliefs about it."
That is a belief. As soon as you SAY you have to believe something. 

You continually show me (as do all atheists I come across) that you have numerous beliefs about this God you say does not exist or that you say there is no evidence He exists. 



If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.
What kind of atheist are you?
Is this you asking about my beliefs or trying to argue about labels? Let me help you - I am a skeptic.  Skepticism is the part of my worldview which led to my atheism. 
Arguing about specific labels or things you would have to believe. 

Do you believe that underlined part?

You are skeptical of God. Why classify yourself as an atheist then? I could be skeptical but still believe. Why atheist? Because you believe it fits the bill. You first have to believe there is little or no or supporting evidence for God's existence. That is a belief that leads you to your greater worldview. That greater worldview has to believe many things for you to hold it all built upon a core belief or beliefs. You look at life through naturalism, materialism, and secularism. 

Do you believe the biblical God exists? 

You told me to ask you about your belief. I did. Here is what you said and my response:

YOU: "If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions."
ME: "What kind of atheist are you?"

Now you accuse me of labelling you but a label provides information on what a person believes. You are skeptical of God. That is a belief. You call yourself an atheist. That is a belief. It is a specific belief about something, in this case God or gods. It is a belief that no God or gods exist or at least that there is no evidence for such a Being or beings existing. 


Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.
Dogmatic of you.

So what, to that statement?

"Fossils, the preserved remains of animal and plant life, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks. Of the sedimentary rocks, most fossils occur in shale, limestone and sandstone." 


"Sedimentary and igneous rocks began as something other than rock. Sedimentary rocks were originally sediments, which were compacted under high pressure. Igneous rocks formed when liquid magma or lava—magma that has emerged onto the surface of the Earth—cooled and hardened. A metamorphic rock, on the other hand, began as a rock—either a sedimentary, igneous, or even a different sort of metamorphic rock. Then, due to various conditions within the Earth, the existing rock was changed into a new kind of metamorphic rock."
What's your point here? You've admitted the Bible is your authority...
You said that the biblical flood did not cause all the different rock layers. I reminded you that the majority of fossils occur by sedimentary rock.  Although fossilization can occur through volcanic activity (the same principle is applied - quick cataclismic encasing of the living thing) the vast majority occur by sedimentary rock formations. That is the point. 


I said I favour a young earth interpretation of Scripture just as I favour full Preterism. If you can convince me long periods of time is reasonable to believe go ahead. You are not my authority, Scripture is, so convince me from Scripture that I wrongly interpret it. 

Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...
What I admit to is that a correct interpretation of Scripture is available that is evident from logic and reason. If you think you can make a case that I misinterpret Scripture I invite you to demonstrate I have done so. I remind you that your previous attempt was pathetic. I provide justification for the way I think but if you want to challenge it then go ahead. IMO, the reason you won our debate on the subject of prophecy is because of the mindset of the judges. You have many like-minded people who cannot divorce reason from herd-mentality and group-think, in spite of the arguments put forth. In the Olivet Discourse, the audience of the address is very clearly the disciples. The time frame is very clearly the 1st-century. These things are confirmed by the text and other gospels/Scripture on the subject matter. There is no way you can embellish the clear meaning from the text itself except by eisegesis (what you read into the text), not from what is present in the text, or from gleaning the author's meaning. 

What we are mainly debating is which position, Christianity or atheism is reasonable to believe. 

No. At most it would be a debate over Christianity or not-Christianity, but that doesn't describe this discussion - I'm not arguing against Christianity, but rather a particular belief of some Christians which puts priority on a subjective interpretation of the Bible over objective evidence of the world.
The underlying issue is which worldview competes for the hearts and minds of others for worldviews are in conflict. The reason you are on DebateArt is that you think you have something valuable to share from your worldview, or are interested in exploring and testing your skepticism and its validity or lack of. You may think you need to inform others of how gullible they are. Well, what about your gullibility? You constantly argue against Christianity because of your belief system. Do you think science has nailed down origins? That is what we are speaking about and ties into faith as the basis for what we believe.  

Subjective interpretation! Says you. Do you believe there is no objective interpretation of the Bible? You charge subjective interpretation. Prove it from the texts itself, not from your compiled list of naysayers or by mere assertion. The assertion is not proof.

Objective evidence? What scientist was there at the beginning? They interpret the data just like Christians do. They work from a presupposition. The only avenue they have available is the resent past or the present. That is their key to unlocking the mysteries of the distant past that no human being was there to witness. And they call that science. They approach the whole of science from naturalism when it does not have the ingredients necessary for science in the first place. Science needs to observe repeatability and uniformity of nature. How does chance happenstance provide such a platform? When are you guys going to answer that question? 

#201
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
It is obvious to those who use their brains that one interpretation is confirmed by the pages of Scripture. I challenged you to back up your position that Scripture is not its own interpreter. 
That's not my position.  My position is that the Bible is essentially a literary rorschach.  Finding support for a particular view is not all that surprising or impressive.
A literary rorschach?

What meaning does the text convey? It conveys a specific meaning to specific people. The PRIMARY audience of address from much of the NT is OT Israel. Jesus is addressing His people. Who are His people that He came to? You, playing devil's advocate in two debates proposed people centuries removed from the real audience of address. That is simply NOT true. From the text you can't show that it is true. You have to twist the words to your own meaning to do that. You have to deny what the simple message is to do that.  

He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

I already gave you several Scriptures to show that there is a specific interpretation. 
Topic's author
#202
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Here is your starting principle, you does not believe in God or gods. 
Well, its not a "starting principle" necessarily, but I agree to the rest which you clearly understand as "not belief". Not belief=/=belief. You're agreeing with me.

Do atheists have beliefs? Yes, of course, but not because of atheism. For me, atheism is a result of skepticism, not the other way around. I think atheism can be viewed as silence and the various god beliefs as particular pitches. Not believing C to be the correct pitch does not mean F# is. It means you need to study the music a little more (in silence).

Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...
If you think you can make a case that I misinterpret Scripture I invite you to demonstrate I have done so. I remind you that your previous attempt was pathetic. [...] IMO, the reason you won our debate on the subject of prophecy is because of the mindset of the judges. You have many like-minded people who cannot divorce reason from herd-mentality and group-think, in spite of the arguments put forth.
You acknowledge the necessity of interpretation and place yourself as the arbiter of it. Again, you're agreeing with me.

Subjective interpretation! Says you. Do you believe there is no objective interpretation of the Bible? 
Who on Earth determines an objective interpretation of the Bible? How could we test that interpretation for validity without more interpretation? Interpretation is necessarily subjective. What methodology can be used to determine your interpretation is the correct one? 

Objective evidence? What scientist was there at the beginning?
Objective evidence is something that can be dispassionately tested by others which points strongly to one conclusion over another. The age of the Earth and life evolving by natural selection are backed by objective evidence. On the other hand, the 'creation of the universe' is not, and cannot pass even your own standard - no human existed to witness the claimed creation event.
#203
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Here is your starting principle, you do not believe in God or gods. 
Well, its not a "starting principle" necessarily, but I agree to the rest which you clearly understand as "not belief". Not belief=/=belief. You're agreeing with me.
It may not be the principle you first started with but it is the starting principle of a worldview, the foundation on which you build a worldview, the cornerstone or core that everything rests upon. You sift everything through that paradigm. You can start in two main ways - God/gods or chance happenstance. God is personal; chance is impersonal. God is intelligent; chance is devoid of intelligence. If you do not start with God you start with naturalism, materialism, humanism. 

You can't deny God without first knowing something about what you are denying. That denial concerning God would be a belief. Are you telling me that you have no thoughts, no beliefs at all about the Christian God? I know you used to profess to be a Christian. Thus, you have all kinds of beliefs that negate this God you once believed. And the person who has no belief at all about God/gods is immature (perhaps in the formative years), naive, or very ignorant, IMO. 

The "Four Horsemen" definitely had/have beliefs about God. Atheists have beliefs while telling others atheism is a lack of belief in God. What malarky. Not only that, to 'not believe' one thing you usually believe something else unless they are totally ignorant. That is not the case with most people who claim to be atheists. They are clearly rejecting God. To 'not believe' God they usually have to know what they are not believing unless again, they are ignorant to an incredible degree.  

Do atheists have beliefs? Yes, of course, but not because of atheism. For me, atheism is a result of skepticism, not the other way around.
And to have that skepticism you have to have beliefs about God or else you would not be skeptical and would be building on total ignorance. It is hard to be skeptical of nothing or alternatively everything. I know you are not totally ignorant. You have had numerous beliefs about God and you have had numerous beliefs in forming a rejection of God. It is not from a lack of knowledge. There was a belief you harboured for a long time before rejecting God. 

I think atheism can be viewed as silence and the various god beliefs as particular pitches. Not believing C to be the correct pitch does not mean F# is. It means you need to study the music a little more (in silence).
Silence? You are not silent. You fight against Christianity and religious beliefs. You have to believe something about them to voice an opinion against them. And you have lots of opinions. 

Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...
If you think you can make a case that I misinterpret Scripture I invite you to demonstrate I have done so. I remind you that your previous attempt was pathetic. [...] IMO, the reason you won our debate on the subject of prophecy is because of the mindset of the judges. You have many like-minded people who cannot divorce reason from herd-mentality and group-think, in spite of the arguments put forth.
You acknowledge the necessity of interpretation and place yourself as the arbiter of it. Again, you're agreeing with me.
I am not agreeing with you on one issue. You think there is no correct interpretation. Try debating that, will you. Put your money where your mouth is. 

Subjective interpretation! Says you. Do you believe there is no objective interpretation of the Bible? 
Who on Earth determines an objective interpretation of the Bible? How could we test that interpretation for validity without more interpretation? Interpretation is necessarily subjective. What methodology can be used to determine your interpretation is the correct one? 
An objective interpretation? Understanding what is being said, not reading into the text things it does not say without warrant. Where a text is vague, other texts on the same subject give light on that subject - line upon line, precept upon precept. 

knowing this first: that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
But understand this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of or comes from one’s own [personal or special] interpretation,
[Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving).
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

I am interpreting the text, and I claim I am not adding to it things foreign to Scripture and the primary audience of address like you did. Again, if you think otherwise, I invite you to debate it. 

Objective evidence? What scientist was there at the beginning?
Objective evidence is something that can be dispassionately tested by others which points strongly to one conclusion over another. The age of the Earth and life evolving by natural selection are backed by objective evidence. On the other hand, the 'creation of the universe' is not, and cannot pass even your own standard - no human existed to witness the claimed creation event.
Both views are built upon models of reasoning, one humanistic, one Scriptural. 
Topic's author
#204
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
It may not be the principle you first started with but it is the starting principle of a worldview, the foundation on which you build a worldview, the cornerstone or core that everything rests upon.
Worldviews are not built on non-beliefs. Sheesh, Peter, you've really gone off the deep end haven't you? 

You sift everything through that paradigm. You can start in two main ways - God/gods or chance happenstance.
False dichotomy.  Skepticism, for example, works with both (or neither) options..

And to have that skepticism you have to have beliefs about God or else you would not be skeptical and would be building on total ignorance. It is hard to be skeptical of nothing or alternatively everything.
Having a belief built on insufficient evidence doesn't make one knowledgeable. It makes them credulous. 

I think atheism can be viewed as silence and the various god beliefs as particular pitches. Not believing C to be the correct pitch does not mean F# is. It means you need to study the music a little more (in silence).
Silence? You are not silent. You fight against Christianity and religious beliefs. You have to believe something about them to voice an opinion against them. And you have lots of opinions. 
Its an analogy, Peter. I'm not actually silent. You should be familiar with this concept as an interpreter of Biblical passages and prophecy.

You think there is no correct interpretation. Try debating that, will you. Put your money where your mouth is. 
For the record, I think there might be thousands of 'correct interpretations', and I see no reason to favor one over another, at least, not in any objective sense.  I still have no interest debating interpretation of your Holy book. That is a debate for believers. When you can all agree on one interpretation, let me know - I'll debate that. :-)







#205
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
It may not be the principle you first started with but it is the starting principle of a worldview, the foundation on which you build a worldview, the cornerstone or core that everything rests upon.
Worldviews are not built on non-beliefs. Sheesh, Peter, you've really gone off the deep end haven't you?
Worldviews weigh evidence. Do you have no belief about God? You have all kinds of beliefs about God. You discuss Him all the time. Show me an atheist on this forum that does not hold beliefs about God.

Atheists are very gullible people, in my estimates. They need a lot of blind faith to believe what they do. 

You sift everything through that paradigm. You can start in two main ways - God/gods or chance happenstance.
False dichotomy.  Skepticism, for example, works with both (or neither) options.
BS. I did not say they were the only two. What does skepticism have to do with the two main paradigms? You have stated that you fit into one of those two camps - you identify with atheism. That means you look to and have adopted naturalistic means in explaining origins.  

And to have that skepticism you have to have beliefs about God or else you would not be skeptical and would be building on total ignorance. It is hard to be skeptical of nothing or alternatively everything.
Having a belief built on insufficient evidence doesn't make one knowledgeable. It makes them credulous.
Yet both sides work on reasoned presuppositions built on models. Scientists are generally naturalistic. They looks towards physicism. They rely largely on empirical standards - observation, repetition and verification.

One side can and does make better sense of life's ultimate questions/origins. 

As an atheist you would have to rest on the belief that chance happenstance, not intelligent personal Being(s) are the most likely answer to existence and origins. That belief system is definitely 'credulous,' as I continually point out. I continually invite you guys to make sense of things bases on your starting point - chance happenstance. YOU CAN'T. You lack the knowledge and WISDOM to do so, IMO.  (^8

I think atheism can be viewed as silence and the various god beliefs as particular pitches. Not believing C to be the correct pitch does not mean F# is. It means you need to study the music a little more (in silence).
Silence? You are not silent. You fight against Christianity and religious beliefs. You have to believe something about them to voice an opinion against them. And you have lots of opinions. 
Its an analogy, Peter. I'm not actually silent. You should be familiar with this concept as an interpreter of Biblical passages and prophecy.
I'm not sure of what you are saying, Skep. Use another analogy. 

How are you silent? Are you silent about God? Do you have no ideas, no beliefs about the biblical God? NO, you have all kinds of ideas and beliefs about Him. 

You think there is no correct interpretation. Try debating that, will you. Put your money where your mouth is. 
For the record, I think there might be thousands of 'correct interpretations', and I see no reason to favor one over another, at least, not in any objective sense.  I still have no interest debating interpretation of your Holy book. That is a debate for believers. When you can all agree on one interpretation, let me know - I'll debate that. :-)

You are wrong, and I would be delighted to debate you on your silly assertions about thousands of correct interpretations. Where do you come up with this stuff, Chuck?

You see no reason to favour one over another because you ignore the Scriptures I posted. Let me remind you of just two; private interpretation as frowned upon and Paul admonished Timothy to use Scripture to rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness.

2 Timothy 2:15 (NASB)
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

That tells the reader that there is a correct way to interpret Scripture. You have to find out the Author's meaning, and the meaning is found in the text. What does it say? It seems that you go everywhere but Scripture in forming your opinions.

How did the Bereans check to see if what Paul said was true? They went to Scripture. You should do the same when you are speaking of how to interpret it.  
#206
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
 I still have no interest debating interpretation of your Holy book. That is a debate for believers. When you can all agree on one interpretation, let me know - I'll debate that. :-)
Yet you stick your nose into it then back away. It is not that we always agree as believers, it is whether there is a correct interpretation that can be demonstrated from the text, not from what one reads into the text. 
Topic's author
#207
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Worldviews weigh evidence. Do you have no belief about God? You have all kinds of beliefs about God. 
Yes, but not because of atheism. Atheism (for me) is something I have arrived at by evaluating my previous beliefs and the claims of believers. Atheism is a justifiable position given the inability of believers to bear the burden of their god claims - not an irrational presupposition akin to those preferred by some religious dogmatists.

BS. I did not say they were the only two. What does skepticism have to do with the two main paradigms? You have stated that you fit into one of those two camps - you identify with atheism. That means you look to and have adopted naturalistic means in explaining origins.  
What options outside of the god/chance are you willing to entertain? 

Skepticism is a worldview (unlike atheism).

I haven't "adopted naturalistic means" to explain origins. "I don't know" isn't an explanation. I do think it will likely be explained through natural processes and not magic, but there's still hope for ya! :-p

One side can and does make better sense of life's ultimate questions/origins. 
Magic can explain anything and (because of this) nothing. That is the very reason why conclusions derived from methodological naturalism makes so much more sense. 


Yet you stick your nose into it then back away. It is not that we always agree as believers, it is whether there is a correct interpretation that can be demonstrated from the text, not from what one reads into the text. 

How did the Bereans check to see if what Paul said was true? They went to Scripture. You should do the same when you are speaking of how to interpret it.
I'm not speaking of how to interpret the Bible. That's your cross to bear (pun intended). I have been saying prophecy is weak evidence for god because of (better sit down for this) non-Biblical reasons...
#208
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Worldviews weigh evidence. Do you have no belief about God? You have all kinds of beliefs about God. 
Yes, but not because of atheism. Atheism (for me) is something I have arrived at by evaluating my previous beliefs and the claims of believers.
Yes, you have exchanged those God beliefs for other beliefs. Atheism is not a void. Your worldview now BELIEVES that "methodological naturalism" explains or is the likely explanation of origins. It believes that humanism or human thought is the authority on origins and evolution (to some extent). 

Atheism is a justifiable position given the inability of believers to bear the burden of their god claims - not an irrational presupposition akin to those preferred by some religious dogmatists.
Justifiable position on what? You presuppose more than the believer does. You presuppose that chance happenstance is able to do something. 

BS. I did not say they were the only two. What does skepticism have to do with the two main paradigms? You have stated that you fit into one of those two camps - you identify with atheism. That means you look to and have adopted naturalistic means in explaining origins.  
What options outside of the god/chance are you willing to entertain? 
Either God, chance, or illusion. What is more reasonable?

Name some and let's examine them. What do you propose? 

Skepticism is a worldview (unlike atheism).
Skepticism in God is usually part of the atheists repertoire. Skepticism does not answer the worldview questions but pleads ignorance. Atheism does. Worldviews attempt to answer four or five ultimate questions. Skepticism does not. I don't think skepticism is a worldview. You can't live by 'I don't know.' Skepticism as a worldview can only say, 'I don't know' and plead ignorance. Skeptics live as if they do know. They live inconsistently with 'I don't know.' You don't know yet your comments speak of knowing. Skeptics usually reject God. You reject the biblical God. How can  an 'I don't know' skeptic believe the Bible is not true?   

I haven't "adopted naturalistic means" to explain origins.
You deny God. Without God what do you have left??? 

"I don't know" isn't an explanation. I do think it will likely be explained through natural processes and not magic, but there's still hope for ya! :-p
What is left without naturalistic processes? A Person? God, or you? Do you think you have what it takes to project such an illusion on yourself? Why are you projecting me into this conversation?  : ^D 

One side can and does make better sense of life's ultimate questions/origins. 
Magic can explain anything and (because of this) nothing.
Magic? Again, you personify magic. Magic can't explain anything. People, intelligent, sentient beings explain things. 

That is the very reason why conclusions derived from methodological naturalism makes so much more sense. 
Methodological naturalism doesn't make any sense if chance happenstance is the cause. It doesn't have the agency to do anything. How can chance happenstance do anything? You are the one thinking it can. Explain how.

Yet you stick your nose into it then back away. It is not that we always agree as believers, it is whether there is a correct interpretation that can be demonstrated from the text, not from what one reads into the text. 

How did the Bereans check to see if what Paul said was true? They went to Scripture. You should do the same when you are speaking of how to interpret it.
I'm not speaking of how to interpret the Bible.
But you did speculate. You said there are perhaps thousands of ways to interpret the Bible. I explained that the Bible speaks of a correct way. It does not depend on a private interpretation. It depends on gleaming the right interpretation for God's word to make perfect sense. 

Let me remind you: "I think there might be thousands of 'correct interpretations', and I see no reason to favor one over another,"

That's your cross to bear (pun intended). I have been saying prophecy is weak evidence for god because of (better sit down for this) non-Biblical reasons...
You are wrong. Tell me of anyone you know who can predict hundreds and hundreds of specific prophecies that find fulfillment in one Person and one nation. Show me how the unity of over 1500 years of time and over forty different authors can predict so much about history that is fulfilled in AD 70. Explain away the OT canon as written after AD 70. That is not what recorded history reveals as reasonable to believe. Show me how it is more reasonable to believe even one NT canon writing was written after the fall of Jerusalem. Your view is the weak evidence, not mine. 


Topic's author
#209
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, you have exchanged those God beliefs for other beliefs. Atheism is not a void. Your worldview now BELIEVES that "methodological naturalism" explains or is the likely explanation of origins. It believes that humanism or human thought is the authority on origins and evolution (to some extent).
What beliefs did I exchange my god-belief for? Methodological naturalism? No, I already had that. Humanism? No, I already had that.  Skepticism?  No, again, I already had that. Just because you have a god-belief and lack these views doesn't mean they cannot co-exist in a worldview including a god. 

Atheism is a justifiable position given the inability of believers to bear the burden of their god claims - not an irrational presupposition akin to those preferred by some religious dogmatists.
Justifiable position on what? You presuppose more than the believer does. You presuppose that chance happenstance is able to do something.
This is flawed in 2 ways: 
1. Those making a claim have the burden to substantiate it.  If they cannot (or refuse), then their claim cannot be dismissed in this alone.
2. If I state "I don't know", I presuppose nothing. Also, chance isn't the only option other than god, but I'll get into that a little more below.

What options outside of the god/chance are you willing to entertain? 
Either God, chance, or illusion. What is more reasonable?
Actually, there are many more options than that.  Even if we discount the Christian deity, there are still thousands of other 'revealed' and deistic deities. Also, it is possible  deterministic forces explain origins (this is especially true of life) and was an inevitability of Chemistry and/or the environment.  SO, the options you allow exponentially underestimate the possibilities.

Skepticism in God is usually part of the atheists repertoire. Skepticism does not answer the worldview questions but pleads ignorance. Atheism does. Worldviews attempt to answer four or five ultimate questions. Skepticism does not. I don't think skepticism is a worldview. You can't live by 'I don't know.' Skepticism as a worldview can only say, 'I don't know' and plead ignorance. Skeptics live as if they do know. They live inconsistently with 'I don't know.' You don't know yet your comments speak of knowing. Skeptics usually reject God. You reject the biblical God. How can  an 'I don't know' skeptic believe the Bible is not true?   
I agree skepticism is not quite enough on it's own and other views like humanism help to fill out a worldview. What skepticism has going for it that faith does not is that it is a pathway to knowledge. It is through skeptical inquiry that we learn new things or show  dubious or false claims. You love to attack "I don't know", but this is a mistake in my opinion.  The more we learn about the world around us, the more we realize how much we don't know. I do not follow your apparent position that anything less than absolute certainty leaves an individual in some sort of black hole of ignorance.  We all function with ignorance AND knowledge, and admitting ignorance in one limited field doesn't negate all possible knowledge. It also doesn't mean someone who claims absolute certainty gets a pass on whatever they believe to be true.

I'm not sure what ultimate questions you think atheism seeks to answer...at its core, it is a negative answer to one question: do you believe in gods? There is no "atheist epistemology", no "atheist morality", no "atheist origins", no "atheist purpose of life". Of course atheists can have have answers to these questions, but it's not derived from atheism. Also, I was a skeptic before I was an atheist, so that rant about skepticism and ignorance lacks some nuance unless you're mean to have it apply to Christian skeptics as well....

I haven't "adopted naturalistic means" to explain origins.
You deny God. Without God what do you have left??? 
I reject YOUR preferred deity.  There are still plenty of options besides naturalistic means (of course I think this is the most likely), but any option that can be demonstrated to be true is the one I will accept. 

I'm not speaking of how to interpret the Bible.
But you did speculate. You said there are perhaps thousands of ways to interpret the Bible. I explained that the Bible speaks of a correct way. It does not depend on a private interpretation. It depends on gleaming the right interpretation for God's word to make perfect sense. 
What's your point?  Speculation=/=interpretation.

You are wrong. Tell me of anyone you know who can predict hundreds and hundreds of specific prophecies that find fulfillment in one Person and one nation. Show me how the unity of over 1500 years of time and over forty different authors can predict so much about history that is fulfilled in AD 70. Explain away the OT canon as written after AD 70. That is not what recorded history reveals as reasonable to believe. Show me how it is more reasonable to believe even one NT canon writing was written after the fall of Jerusalem. Your view is the weak evidence, not mine. 
Well, THAT is what I offered to debate before you went rambling through the fields of rabbits trails about Biblical interpretation. Are you alright, man?

Topic's author
#210
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
edit:
1. Those making a claim have the burden to substantiate it.  If they cannot (or refuse), then their claim cannot be dismissed in this alone.
...then their claim *can* be dismissed on this alone.