What If You're Wrong

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me that the point he was making is that 'scientific evidence' is a subjectively derived criteria based a naturalist's truth paradigm (that reality is physicality and everything else is just fantasy). Which is basically "scientism" in a nutshell, of which there are many proponents here on RF.

Then he is is fighting his own strawman. No one has said that there definitely is nothing else. And actually it appears that he wants to deny evidence and pretend to be a skeptic while not knowing what a skeptic is.

 

[Audie]

It seems to me that the point he was making is that 'scientific evidence' is a subjectively derived criteria based a naturalist's truth paradigm (that reality is physicality and everything else is just fantasy). Which is basically "scientism" in a nutshell, of which there are many proponents here on RF.

American association for advancement of science
has a good article on scientism,
one subzy would do well to read too.

 

[Audie]

Then he is is fighting his own strawman. No one has said that there definitely is nothing else. And actually it appears that he wants to deny evidence and pretend to be a skeptic while not knowing what a skeptic is.

I've not seen any one claim that either tho
as @PureX has seen many perhaps he will finally
share an example

 

[thomas t]

So this god that is not flawed designed suffering into the world on purpose? This god only communicated to a single group of people early on and then ignored all of the other people of the world?

As if all suffering is caused by God.
Which is just not true.
Take for instance suffering caused by man - in this case don't blame God. So when man is so eager to inflict suffering on others, lets focus on that one, I suggest.
Man is creation. If he inflicts harm on others, he harms them + God's creation. A creation that does not belong to him. So it's twice as bad.

 

[thomas t]

(which you almost certainly do not at any rate)

of course I do. I regard scripture as perfect!
There are perfect soccer goals.
Perfect poems.
Perfect looking girls and much more.
None of them are idols to me.
When I say scripture is perfect, all of a sudden I make it an idol? No, please.


The standard answers to you as always:
* In my opinion, there is no "obvious evil nature" of the Bible God. It doesn't exist. It exists in your mind, I think. God is not guilty of any evil, I think.
* I am not brainwashed.
* I don't think that my Bible argument fails.


Since you started making empty claims again - let me tell you:
If you want to start going round in circles with me again like you did before: don't do that, please. Honestly, I have other things to do. I cannot afford a disccusion like this:
"You are brainwashed" - "but, I'm not!" - "You ARE breinwashed" - "but I am not" -etc...

No please!

 

[PureX]

Then he is is fighting his own strawman. No one has said that there definitely is nothing else. And actually it appears that he wants to deny evidence and pretend to be a skeptic while not knowing what a skeptic is.

Your "definately" is irrelevant. The ideal is being implied all the time around here: that science is the only true pathway to understanding reality because reality is physicality according to all these philosophical-materialists-turned-to-'scientism'.

I was not following the conversation to remark on anyone's claim to skepticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your "definately" is irrelevant. The ideal is being implied all the time around here: that science is the only true pathway to understanding reality because reality is physicality according to all these philosophical-materialists-turned-to-'scientism'.

I was not following the conversation to remark on anyone's claim to skepticism.

I don't think anyone is quite claiming that. Now one could claim it is as of yet the only reliable pathway to understanding since religion fails continually when it comes to that. Of course that does not mean that religion will never be able to come up with answers. Until then, relying on physical tests is the best that we have. By the way, almost every time I have seen people try to claim "scientism" they cannot justify claim.

 

[PureX]

I don't think anyone is quite claiming that. Now one could claim it is as of yet the only reliable pathway to understanding since religion fails continually when it comes to that.

But that is an absurd clam based on the exact "naturalist" bias that had been brought up. You assume that the "valid understanding" of reality is of it's physicality. And therefor, you assume that science is the only valid means of gaining "real" understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that is an absurd clam based on the exact "naturalist" bias that had been brought up. You assume that the "valid understanding" of reality is of it's physicality. And therefor, you assume that science is the only valid means of gaining "real" understanding.

No, I made no assumptions. My conclusions re based upon positive results. When religions can produce the same then you might have something.

 

[PureX]

No, I made no assumptions. My conclusions re based upon positive results.

So are the conclusions of nearly every theist/religionist that has ever lived.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I'm wrong then I have nothing to lose. I would rather live my life as if Jesus is real and him not be real than live as if he isn't real and he is.

This seems like a very self-centered and short-sighted point of view.

 

[Skywalker]

This seems like a very self-centered and short-sighted point of view.

How is it self centered? That is teaching that anyone can apply and it applies to the long term, not what is easy to the person at the moment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I thought Dawkins made an important point that for many us, our beliefs are conditional to a large extent to the culture we are brought up in. Clearly no one could be expected to become a Christian unless they had had sufficient exposure to Christianity through their upbringing.

I also find the whole Christian- atheist debate wearisome as it's often assumed being a Christian or atheist are the only valid options in regards belief. That's simply not true for many of us.

No, but it's worth remembering that Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

Out of all the people in the world who have a religion, about two thirds of them are either Christian or Muslim. Any conclusions we make about "religion as a whole" are going to be dominated by those two religions.

And personally, I find it a bit wearisome to hear objections to this from members of small religions.

A quick Googling tells me that the Baha'i faith represents about 0.07% of the world's population. While it may be important to you personally, it's almost completely irrelevant to the question of what "religion" is like.

I mean, if someone makes a statement about "religion" that's incorrect for every religion except Christianity, Islam & Hinduism, they're still 80% correct.

 

[thomas t]

And furthermore we are all His children according to the Book,

That's universalism, do you like universalism?
Universal childhood is a common misunderstanding, I think. See John 1:12.

And you better belief that this Father will take full responsibility.

It's rather like John 3:18 says, in my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is it self centered? That is teaching that anyone can apply and it applies to the long term, not what is easy to the person at the moment.

I was thinking especially of Jesus's promises that injustice in this world will be met with justice in the world to come, and that people who suffer now will be rewarded for their suffering.

If Christianity is false, then there's a lot of injustice and suffering that's going to go unaddressed.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, but it seems like your attitude is "meh - if all the wrongs I've trusted God to right don't happen, I wouldn't mind"... which would mean not much compassion for all the people who suffered those wrongs.

 

[Skywalker]

I was thinking especially of Jesus's promises that injustice in this world will be met with justice in the world to come, and that people who suffer now will be rewarded for their suffering.

If Christianity is false, then there's a lot of injustice and suffering that's going to go unaddressed.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, but it seems like your attitude is "meh - if all the wrongs I've trusted God to right don't happen, I wouldn't mind"... which would mean not much compassion for all the people who suffered those wrongs.

I dont think people believe in Jesus because they want people who did wrong to be punished or they want to be rewarded. People who believe in name it and claim it theology want God to address their concerns, and that isn't Bible based teachings. How did what I say sound like not much compassion for people who suffered wrongs? The Bible teaches justice but not rejoicing in the punishment of people.

 

[Audie]

I don't think anyone is quite claiming that. Now one could claim it is as of yet the only reliable pathway to understanding since religion fails continually when it comes to that. Of course that does not mean that religion will never be able to come up with answers. Until then, relying on physical tests is the best that we have. By the way, almost every time I have seen people try to claim "scientism" they cannot justify claim.

I have challenged out pal to find quotes but
we never see any.

OTOH, real easy to find statements of
absolute fact about "knowledge" and " reality"
from the land of woo woo.

Sans some of them naturalistic physical facts
like quotes, this scientism claim looks like
nothing but a cheap grab for the intellectual
high ground

 

[Audie]

So are the conclusions of nearly every theist/religionist that has ever lived.

And "philosophers"?

 

[Audie]

No, I made no assumptions. My conclusions re based upon positive results. When religions can produce the same then you might have something.

Asking a bit much, you. How about just one,
even one, something from woowooland that
Is real.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont think people believe in Jesus because they want people who did wrong to be punished or they want to be rewarded.

I didn't say that anyone did this.

People who believe in name it and claim it theology want God to address their concerns, and that isn't Bible based teachings.

And I didn't mention that, either.

How did what I say sound like not much compassion for people who suffered wrongs? The Bible teaches justice but not rejoicing in the punishment of people.

Maybe a specific example will help: Luke 6:21:

“Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
“Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

The difference between that promise being true and it being false is a lot of hungry people who will go unsatisfied and a lot of weeping people who will stay in sorrow.

You said "if I'm wrong, I have nothing to lose." This suggests to me that you don't consider all that hunger and weeping of other people to be a loss to you.

And that's why I say that your point of view seems to be self-centered and lacking compassion.