• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shortest proof of Jesus Christ

Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Bird123 said:
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Click to expand...

Things generally are when we are closed minded. I'm sorry but you make erroneous assumptions that don't even reflect basic word definitions, try typing atheism and the word definition into a Goggle search, and see what the primary dictionary definition is, it will generally be the first one.
 
Last edited:
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
And it seems to me, that the fact that it seems to you indicate that it is in your mind. But off course that is different because it is you. ;) :D
Click to expand...
Or I was just being polite. But although the term is a vague one, I think I have what would pass for a mind.
mikkel_the_dane said:
Note the problem is that your set of credible assumptions is not the only one around and all you do, is apparently to declare other assumptions wrong based on your assumptions.
Click to expand...
So far no one has offered me any assumptions of the relevant kind so I haven't accepted or rejected any.

And as I tirelessly point out, you and everyone here shares those assumptions. All I do is make them explicit.
mikkel_the_dane said:
You are sort of a scientific skeptic, because you treat your subjective assumptions as naturally objective for all humans.
Click to expand...
No, I expressly brand them assumptions, and like you and everyone else I use them and intend to keep using them unless and until I have a reason not to.
mikkel_the_dane said:
I am a general skeptic, because I treat all assumptions as in the mind and not objective.
Click to expand...
My assumptions are of the mind ─ that's the nature of assumptions. That doesn't make them incorrect ─ and the rewards are enormous. For example I can have conversations like this with my buddy Mikkel.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
blü 2 said:
Or I was just being polite. But although the term is a vague one, I think I have what would pass for a mind.
So far no one has offered me any assumptions of the relevant kind so I haven't accepted or rejected any.

And as I tirelessly point out, you and everyone here shares those assumptions. All I do is make them explicit.
No, I expressly brand them assumptions, and like you and everyone else I use them and intend to keep using them unless and until I have a reason not to.
My assumptions are of the mind ─ that's the nature of assumptions. That doesn't make them incorrect ─ and the rewards are enormous. For example I can have conversations like this with my buddy Mikkel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is where it always ends. That is not real as a part of objective reality. That is real to you as what matters to you.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
I am a general skeptic, because I treat all assumptions as in the mind and not objective.
Click to expand...

Well assumptions may by definition lack proof, but that does not mean there is never any objective evidence to support them. It's not a binary choice between complete subjectivity or complete objectivity, there are degrees of both. Methods like science that are demonstrably successful, with objectively quantifiable results, are clearly at the opposite end of that scale from entirely unevidenced subjective opinion, to objective fact.

If I claimed I could fly, but only when no one could detect me, that is at one end of that scale. I claimed the earth is not flat, then that is at another, what separates the two claims is objective evidence. the fact we can posit hypothetical scenarios, where I might be mistaken about the world not being flat, can be easily weighed against the objective evidence for how likely that is.

I'm in the matrix, and the world is in fact flat = zero objective evidence

The world is not flat = overwhelming objective evidence.

Hmm, now which to believe? It's not exactly "daddy vs chips"...
 
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sheldon said:
Well assumptions may by definition lack proof, but that does not mean there is never any objective evidence to support them. It's not a binary choice between complete subjectivity or complete objectivity, there are degrees of both. Methods like science that are demonstrably successful, with objectively quantifiable results, are clearly at the opposite end of that scale from entirely unevidenced subjective opinion, to objective fact.

If I claimed I could fly, but only when no one could detect me, that is at one end of that scale. I claimed the earth is not flat, then that is at another, what separates the two claims is objective evidence. the fact we can posit hypothetical scenarios, where I might be mistaken about the world not being flat, can be easily weighed against the objective evidence for how likely that is.

I'm in the matrix, and the world is in fact flat = zero objective evidence

The world is not flat = overwhelming objective evidence.

Hmm, now which to believe? It's not exactly "daddy vs chips"...
Click to expand...

Yeah, we agree, but we still end here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

And that you don't know this about science tells me something.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
No, that the objectively real matters to you is subjective.
Click to expand...
But you seem to be saying that's an impediment to actually understanding it and putting it to use. Whereas it seems plain as day that animals, not least us, must evolve so as to be aware of our external environment and to have the ability to exploit it.

So evolution is on our side when it comes to using reasoned skeptical enquiry to explore, describe and seek to explain it. We have the evolved curiosity, we have the evolved perceptual tools, we have the evolved smarts to bring us to a best understanding, on which we stand to reach the next step.

Thus, while there are no absolute statements, "truth" refers to our best understanding for the time being.

And thus you and I can converse on this site, regardless of where we are in the world.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
And that you don't know this about science tells me something.
Click to expand...

I think it says more about you, that you keep falsely assuming I don't know something, without asking me.

Care to show a post where I have made a claim remotely contrary to anything in that link?


  1. Science has limits
  2. Science doesn't make moral judgments
  3. Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
  4. Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
  5. Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Not only have I not contradicted any of those claims, i have made some of them myself, so your straw man accusations are staring to looking a little dishonest to me, care to explain?
 
Bird123

Bird123

Well-Known Member
blü 2 said:
If God is real, has objective existence, describe God in terms such that we can determine whether any real suspect is God or not.

If God is purely conceptual / imaginary, just say so.

(And you forgot to tell me the objective test that will distinguish the spiritual from the imaginary.)
Click to expand...

Round and round we go. You do not listen. When I give you the answers just say you do not believe nor will you take the effort to Discover the answers for yourself. Do you mean to go round and round until i give you the answers you want to hear? Truth isn't a popularity contest.

You think in such limited terms. When you bump into God, you will know it's not your imagination. How? Simple, you will not have the capabilities to imagine this experience.

Once again, if you bump into God and do not already know God, it's not God.

How hard can this be???


That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Bird123 said:
Round and round we go.
Click to expand...
That is, I ask you this straightforward question and you evade it, never reply to jt, never address it.
Bird123 said:
You do not listen. When I give you the answers
Click to expand...
You have NEVER given an answer.

You've gone as far as to say God is "spiritual".

You haven't told me the objective test that will distinguish the "spiritual" from the imaginary.

What is the objective test? Or is there no such test?

Because God exists only as a totally subjective notion?
Bird123 said:
nor will you take the effort to Discover the answers for yourself.
Click to expand...
This is self-serving blather. Please stop it.
Bird123 said:
Do you mean to go round and round until i give you the answers you want to hear?
Click to expand...
Any honest answer from you that satisfactorily addresses the question is fine with me.

But honesty doesn't seem to come into it with you, or you'd have said "I don't know" a long long time back.
 
Bird123

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Sheldon said:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.



Straw man fallacy



Straw man fallacy, and atheism is not a belief.



Straw man fallacy and a poisoning of the well fallacy



Appeal to authority fallacy

The Harry Potter books claim wizards are real, are they real?

Look, I'll keep this short, as it's clear you are very very confused in your rationale, so lets start with some basic facts, and I'll bullet point them for you, you can either try and learn from your errors in that post or not, it's up to you.

  1. Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and my atheism reflects that primary dictionary definition, I do not hold a belief that no deity exists, I simply don't believe any deity exists as there is no objective evidence.
  2. Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about god. If I am faced with a claim or concept of a deity that is unfalsifiable then I remain agnostic about it, but also disbelieve it as we can't learn anything from unfalsifiable claims.
  3. An unfalsifiable claim is a claim where there is no conceivable way to falsify it, even if it were false.
  4. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, something is rational only if at adheres to those principles.
  5. In informal logic, which is everyday reasoning, fallacies are called common logical fallacies.
  6. You have use several of these fallacies in the first few sentences, and I have indicated this above, explained which fallacies, and linked brief definitions of them, so that you can if you want. see the logical errors in your claims.
I hope this helps, but if you don't want to understand what I've said, or atheism or how to steer clear of such basic errors in reasoning, then that is of course your right.

I won't ask you to demsonrate objective evidence for any deity, as I normally do, as you seem very convinced to the point of being closed minded that claims and assertions are actually evidence, but they are not.

One last thing, if you are interested in learning some of the vast amount of objective evidence that makes evolution a scientific fact then you can visits the talkorigins website, this site also has a large database of creationist claims, and debunks these with accepted scientific evidence. now again I doubt you want to view your belief critically, but if you do the evidence at that site is an enormous body of facts and information all scientifically valid.

Oh and if the universe is not over 13 billion years old, you might want to consider how we can see light that has travelled from parts of the universe that is more than 13 billion light years away from our solar system. Claiming things can't have happened by chance, when a) they have already happened, and b) they have not happened purely by chance is a deeply flawed way to deny a scientific fact. Claiming it can only therefore have been created by a deity is called a false dichotomy fallacy, I have linked an explanation for you. It's not a choice between scientific fact, and unevidenced claims involving inexplicable magic or an unevidenced deity. That is the fallacy, if science were completely overturned right now, it would not make your creationist beliefs valid, as you can offer no objective evidence to support it.

regards
Click to expand...

your quote:Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities,

My Answer: You play with words. You say you merely do not believe in deities which is the same as believing God does not exist. Until you know for a fact that God does not exist, you will be dealing with Beliefs regardless of how you label it.

You have allowed religion to corrupt your thinking. They have taught you to value Beliefs. Without proving God does not exist, you recite your beliefs as well as any religious person trying to convert.

By valuing beliefs you make assumptions I am dealing with beliefs. Understandable since religion has pushed beliefs to the point no one is dealing with the facts. Are bias assumptions really a open mind??

Logic: If God exists, then God can be found.

My Answer: God can be found!! I have pointed the way.

Look around you at this world and universe. God places knowledge and truth all around us. How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how?

I merely copy God by placing Truth in the world. I could care less what you or anyone believes. I do not want people to value beliefs above all else as I see you and most everyone are doing. Truth exists in the world so that when one is ready, Truth can be Discovered.

It's so simple. I am merely pointing. What you or anyone does with truth has never been up to me. Each chooses what they want to learn.

Now, you can try to convert my thinking into God does not exist, however you have no idea what I have Discovered. God doesn't serve up all those answers. Why would you expect me to do it?

Don't you see. It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It's about WHAT IS!!!

So much is said about God that simply isn't true. Is it such a crime to place the Real Truth in the world??

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 
Bird123

Bird123

Well-Known Member
blü 2 said:
That is, I ask you this straightforward question and you evade it, never reply to jt, never address it.
You have NEVER given an answer.

You've gone as far as to say God is "spiritual".

You haven't told me the objective test that will distinguish the "spiritual" from the imaginary.

What is the objective test? Or is there no such test?

Because God exists only as a totally subjective notion?
This is self-serving blather. Please stop it.
Any honest answer from you that satisfactorily addresses the question is fine with me.

But honesty doesn't seem to come into it with you, or you'd have said "I don't know" a long long time back.
Click to expand...


Patience, in time, what I have said to you will become clear.

You will just have to live with the fact that Real Truth is not always an agreeable thing.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Bird123 said:
Patience, in time, what I have said to you will become clear.
Click to expand...
Oh, and you forgot to tell me what's the objective test that will distinguish the 'spiritual' from the 'imaginary'.

I'm looking forward to your clear exposition.
 
Last edited:
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
questfortruth said:
FeaturedShortest proof of Jesus Christ
It is wrong to say, that we can not know all. Because there is no limit (for example, 80%) to research. If we get to know all 100%, we get to know, that we are all-knowing. Hence, the all-knowing being does exist.
Click to expand...
QtT..... you didn't mention 'Jesus' once in your OP.
How can you prove, say, 'Jesus the Progressive Socialist' without any words about him at all?
 
Bird123

Bird123

Well-Known Member
blü 2 said:
Oh, and you forgot to tell me what's the objective test that will distinguish the 'spiritual' from the 'imaginary'.

I'm looking forward to your clear exposition.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you work at Discovering who you really are, you can Discover that answer for yourself. Any answer I give you would clearly not be heard. I find repeating myself to one who does not listen is useless energy spent. On the other hand, if you do happen to stumble on Discovering who you really are, you will not need anyone to tell you what is real and what is imaginary.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Bird123 said:
Perhaps if you work at Discovering who you really are
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I know who I really am. What's rather depressing is finding out who you really are.
Bird123 said:
I find repeating myself to one who does not listen
Click to expand...
So we're here:

You don't know what real thing, if any, you intend to denote when you say "God".

You think God is spiritual; and you know that the spiritual is indistinguishable from the imaginary.

But you'll go to any lengths not to admit that these things are the case.

Et voilà!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top