Page 61 of 68 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 676

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #601
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,039
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    Cults don't hide their dogma.



    Under threat of eternal damnation if they go.

    I'd be atheist if I saw the some evidence to become one.
    It is literally all around you. Again, no cult member thinks they are in a cult; it's always all those other people that are in cults. Those "mormons" "scientologists" "catholics" "jews" "islamists" "5 day adventists" "zoroastrians" "mithraists" "wiccans" etc.,etc.,etc.,etc. *insert every single cult to have ever existed here.*
    Like the Trinity flaw, calling Christianity a cult is not a strong argument imo. IOW's I personally don't mind.
    It's not an argument. It's just a fact.

  2. Top | #602
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    I stand corrected. I don't mind being called a cult member. My fellow members of this cult don't meet with me in secret.

  3. Top | #603
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,728
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,704
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    So you are a polytheist then? There is the big guy god with a capital G and little gods with a small g like Jesus that was sent to "spread the word"? Sorta like the big god Zeus ruling and sending little gods to do his bidding.
    Well, if we are to be on the same communication level then I will discuss the "language" you layout above. Polytheism it is then. Sure why not in this particular discussion. God with the capital G is thee boss. The little g's (not meaning the statues) must listen, unfortunately not all do (angels), as it says in scripture.
    What you are calling "the statues" are representations of gods sorta like the crucifix is just a statue but is a representation of Jesus. Surely you don't think Christians are worshiping the crucifix do you?

  4. Top | #604
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    So you are a polytheist then? There is the big guy god with a capital G and little gods with a small g like Jesus that was sent to "spread the word"? Sorta like the big god Zeus ruling and sending little gods to do his bidding.
    Well, if we are to be on the same communication level then I will discuss the "language" you layout above. Polytheism it is then. Sure why not in this particular discussion. God with the capital G is thee boss. The little g's (not meaning the statues) must listen, unfortunately not all do (angels), as it says in scripture.
    What you are calling "the statues" are representations of gods sorta like the crucifix is just a statue but is a representation of Jesus. Surely you don't think Christians are worshiping the crucifix do you?
    There are Christians who do point out the kissing of statues feet similar to what you mention in your post. I don't agree with it either in opinion.

  5. Top | #605
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    8,995
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,509
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Agreed, but you seem to be arguing for a chicken/egg relationship where the egg has no origin; it's just genetically encoded. But in this case, we're not talking about genetics; we're talking about memes, basically. And while we may have a biological (or, perhaps better, neurological) "propensity" for memetic thought, that doesn't mean that the content of the memes is necessarily the driver.
    Religion certainly has an origin, it's just that the genetic encoding likely predates it, and the purpose of the genetic encoding has nothing to do with religion at all. Religion is just something we do as a by-product of how we've evolved to think, a natural outgrowth of our psychological need to resolve the conflicting elements of our existence - do I have to die, why are these bad things happening to me?

    This kind of false optimism / delusion that our psychology creates for us seems to have more adaptive power than the alternative. Complacent people who follow cultural norms and produce babies are the most likely to procreate, and religion allows for a kind of optimism that makes this more likely.

    Sure, authority figures telling mistruths is a part of it, but how many of those people truly believe the stories themselves, too? And why is it so difficult for these people to just stop for 5 minutes and wonder - maybe my beliefs aren't true? This happens sometimes, but usually it doesn't because the incentives aren't there. Why convince myself that Christianity is untrue, when I get so many cognitive benefits from it actually being true?

  6. Top | #606
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,854
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,893
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Agreed, but you seem to be arguing for a chicken/egg relationship where the egg has no origin; it's just genetically encoded. But in this case, we're not talking about genetics; we're talking about memes, basically. And while we may have a biological (or, perhaps better, neurological) "propensity" for memetic thought, that doesn't mean that the content of the memes is necessarily the driver.
    Religion certainly has an origin, it's just that the genetic encoding likely predates it, and the purpose of the genetic encoding has nothing to do with religion at all. Religion is just something we do as a by-product of how we've evolved to think, a natural outgrowth of our psychological need to resolve the conflicting elements of our existence - do I have to die, why are these bad things happening to me?

    This kind of false optimism / delusion that our psychology creates for us seems to have more adaptive power than the alternative. Complacent people who follow cultural norms and produce babies are the most likely to procreate, and religion allows for a kind of optimism that makes this more likely.

    Sure, authority figures telling mistruths is a part of it, but how many of those people truly believe the stories themselves, too? And why is it so difficult for these people to just stop for 5 minutes and wonder - maybe my beliefs aren't true? This happens sometimes, but usually it doesn't because the incentives aren't there. Why convince myself that Christianity is untrue, when I get so many cognitive benefits from it actually being true?
    Perhaps the acquisition and availability of knowledge will help change that, making it possible that folks like ourselves will actually have knowledge as opposed to the lies that are religious explanations. No stress needed. For many people it is absurd to think miracles happen, that dead men walk around and then fly around, ghosts, woo generally. Religion actually suppresses the acquisition of knowledge, Galileo being a great example.

    Conservatives in the U.S. don't want public education because it potentially fosters diversity, acceptance and inquiry, experiment, etc., all things anathema to religion in the long run.

  7. Top | #607
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez
    That was what I thought about the atrib’s question to begin with. The context as presented was why do Christians proclaim miracles are reasonable. Post 236
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib
    Is it really that hard to articulate a good reason for why you believe the Christ mythology?
    That was NOT atrib's "context" in the slightest. The "context" is, what is YOUR "good reason for why YOU believe the Christ mythology?"

    In no way is he asking about "reasonableness." He is asking for you to provide your reason for why you believe, not whether or not your belief is reasonable.
    And further, that the reason be good and not merely something idiotic.

    It strains all levels of credulity that you can't clearly see that.
    What a tortured comprehension……..
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    That was NOT atrib's "context" in the slightest. The "context" is, what is YOUR "good reason for why YOU believe the Christ mythology?"

    In no way is he asking about "reasonableness." He is asking for you to provide your reason for why you believe, not whether or not your belief is reasonable.
    He agreed with my carefully contexted reason. Read my answer again ……..
    Post 236
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib
    Is it really that hard to articulate a good reason for why you believe the Christ mythology?
    Quote Originally Posted by remez
    Here is the articulation plain and simple.


    The theist has reason to believe God exists and miraculously created this universe. Thus if God exists and created the universe, then walking on water would be a cinch for him. Really its that simple. If its reasonable that God exists then it reasonable miracles are possible.

    Is that reasonable?

    To clarify, I'm not asking if God's existence is reasonable. I'm asking you if you understand that miracles would be reasonable given that God exists? For that was the context of your query.
    ……He asked for a reason. I gave one. THEN THEN THEN I asked if the reason I gave was reasonable?
    But note my clarification…..that followed my question……
    Quote Originally Posted by remez
    To clarify, I'm not asking if God's existence is reasonable. I'm asking you if you understand that miracles would be reasonable given that God exists? For that was the context of your query.
    He responded……
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    If a god exists that can create universes, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that this god could also suspend the laws of nature as it sees fit. I have no problem with that argument.
    He agreed.

    Thus if God exists then miracles are possible. Remember he was prompting Christians to articulate why miracles are reasonable to Christians. The “Christian” context is…..God exists.

    That was it, UNTIL he continued with the assertion that all events have natural explanations, none have supernatural. Hence within the context of what I just answered, God exists, I presented the RA (resurrection argument) to begin a discussion addressing natural vs supernatural explanations of a specific historical event.

    Then the rest of you lit upon me for assuming EoG. I do not assume EoG. I reason EoG. I just wasn’t doing that there. As I explained earlier….it would have opened an old can of worms. Again note my clarification was narrowing the context to EoG as given.
    Further….
    I have learned that it would be useless to advance any discussion for my evidence and reasoning for EoG. Because you and skep have dogmatically (and lazily) assumed I could have no reasons. Your pseudo get-out-of-jail pass is to assume that anything I would offer is special pleading on my part. I consider “that” poor reasoning…. a fallacy of special pleading on your part. So to ever engage you about EoG would only invite further insults. So let’s just simply agree to disagree and call it a truce.

    Have a great summer.

  8. Top | #608
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    8,995
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,509
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Agreed, but you seem to be arguing for a chicken/egg relationship where the egg has no origin; it's just genetically encoded. But in this case, we're not talking about genetics; we're talking about memes, basically. And while we may have a biological (or, perhaps better, neurological) "propensity" for memetic thought, that doesn't mean that the content of the memes is necessarily the driver.
    Religion certainly has an origin, it's just that the genetic encoding likely predates it, and the purpose of the genetic encoding has nothing to do with religion at all. Religion is just something we do as a by-product of how we've evolved to think, a natural outgrowth of our psychological need to resolve the conflicting elements of our existence - do I have to die, why are these bad things happening to me?

    This kind of false optimism / delusion that our psychology creates for us seems to have more adaptive power than the alternative. Complacent people who follow cultural norms and produce babies are the most likely to procreate, and religion allows for a kind of optimism that makes this more likely.

    Sure, authority figures telling mistruths is a part of it, but how many of those people truly believe the stories themselves, too? And why is it so difficult for these people to just stop for 5 minutes and wonder - maybe my beliefs aren't true? This happens sometimes, but usually it doesn't because the incentives aren't there. Why convince myself that Christianity is untrue, when I get so many cognitive benefits from it actually being true?
    Perhaps the acquisition and availability of knowledge will help change that, making it possible that folks like ourselves will actually have knowledge as opposed to the lies that are religious explanations. No stress needed. For many people it is absurd to think miracles happen, that dead men walk around and then fly around, ghosts, woo generally. Religion actually suppresses the acquisition of knowledge, Galileo being a great example.

    Conservatives in the U.S. don't want public education because it potentially fosters diversity, acceptance and inquiry, experiment, etc., all things anathema to religion in the long run.
    One of the uncanny things I think about is that until Darwin, plausible alternatives barely existed. So it hasn't even been that long since we've been capable of seeing materialism.

    Knowledge definitely helps, but to me the mistake would be in the assumption that our communities are on the inevitable march to universal secularism. In some places there's been headway, but all it takes is the break-down of these communities before they tread right back into religious thinking.

    And I've heard that in terms of the world's demography, by proportion the world is actually becoming more religious, not less this century.

  9. Top | #609
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,283
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,090
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Only that Christianity ... the faith as according to Jesus is that its.... NOT HIDDEN! ALL is welcome to "come and go" as they please! I'd be atheist if I saw some evidence to become one.
    And I'd be a non-believer-in-leprechauns if I saw some evidence to become one.

  10. Top | #610
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Only that Christianity ... the faith as according to Jesus is that its.... NOT HIDDEN! ALL is welcome to "come and go" as they please! I'd be atheist if I saw some evidence to become one.
    And I'd be a non-believer-in-leprechauns if I saw some evidence to become one.
    Meanwhile you can keep erm..arguing the case for leprecauns.

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •