Well I just find it a fruitless pursuit. I love the forums, its just the atheist-theological debate literally has no conclusion unless we have angles descend into our rooms or we die and find an empty black void of nothingness.
Either way, I prefer to find threads that actually have meaning :P
Well I just find it a fruitless pursuit. I love the forums, its just the atheist-theological debate literally has no conclusion unless we have angles descend into our rooms or we die and find an empty black void of nothingness.
1: it is angels, not angles.
2: you have a point, neither side is willing the accept the other, for to one, the other side's beliefs make no sense, and they would never accept them.
2: you have a point, neither side is willing the accept the other, for to one, the other side's beliefs make no sense, and they would never accept them.
There's a quote I like very much. I think, therefore, I am.
All this states is that an "I' exists. It says nothing of the quality of information that "I" receives and transmits.
But would the child believe in the monster? That is the important matter.
But does that mean the monster actually exists? That is the important aspect when we are speaking of proof. Just because he feels that it is there doesn't mean that it is there. Of course it doesn't mean that it's not either. So as a result proof of the monster's existence hasn't been established.
I understand that very clearly. But these kinds of feelings are something you must experience to know their true value, not something you read from a science book. I can't even explain what I felt.
If you are unsure of what you felt and you know that such a feeling can be attributed to a wide range of other things, what makes you so sure it was the specific God you believe in or any god for that matter?
I don't remember being plugged into a machine when I felt that.
That point went over your head didn't it? The point that I was making was that those feelings can be fully attributed to purely physical reactions in the brain.
The parent or friend could not provide proof to the child that the monster didn't exist.
Which would be a false stance for accepting that it does exist.
I find it a fruitless argument; they won't dissuade your faith, nor will you convince them.
All you have to do is provide evidence of such a beings existence. I and many atheist will flat out reject faith as it is a baseless position. Further more the points I was making were not to show that this God did not exist but to show that the backing for belief in this God is faulty.
Further more let's ask Bladrunner, samy, BigP08, or Nurvana ... if you ever get the chance as to how futile it is to try and provide counter arguments to a belief faith based system. Granted the arguments her specifically might not have had anything to do with it, but each one held a faith in God but now does not. In fact even I myself once held a belief in God.
the other side's beliefs make no sense,
Asking for evidence before believing something is true makes no sense to you guys?
P.S. For the record I do know the feeling you're talking about OperationNilo.
Argh, I think that's not right as well. What I'm trying to explain is that it doesn't matter if the monster is or is not real, what matters is that the child believes in it.
But to believe in it on the pure basis of a "gut feeling" is both fallacious and paranoia on the child's part.
The parent or friend could not provide proof to the child that the monster didn't exist.
1) Have the kid look under the bed himself
2) It isn't up to the parent or friend to provide proof of the monster's non-existence. The child is making the claim of its existence, he must then provide the evidence.
I find it a fruitless argument; they won't dissuade your faith, nor will you convince them.
Arguments are great for improving critical thinking..even if it is an argument that will lead to neither side changing their position.
And yet, here I am. Living proof that one can change.
*cough and pang *cough*
From what to what?
Emp was of Christian faith, if I remember correctly.
-----
I and many atheist will flat out reject faith as it is a baseless position.
Oh ****..I'm doing it..going to my natural side O.o joinin the Theist's team. Batter up!
Now..I resent this statement of "baseless" position. If the person holding faith, such as myself, is actually aware of what they are doing by holding faith..then that person can admit that the position isn't baseless..but senseless.
There is a base, but..I admit..it is fallacious. The position is faith. This is why I always make sure to assert myself as agnostic theistic...to allow whomever I'm speaking to a chance to understand that I do not assert any evidence or reason for my belief.
As long as the person doesn't assert their belief as the undeniable truth, guidelines to follow by, etc., then faith is a stance.
JW to atheist/secularist/etc. I tend to prefer the naturalistic pantheist label because it gets generally to what I do believe instead of what I don't. If one were to ask if I believe in god(s), I'd ask what they mean by that. If they use a common definition like "transcendent supernatural conscious personal entity which controls/creates/etc, such as the Abrahamic God," I'd answer no. If they use the "higher power/being" definition, I'd say yes, as Nature on the whole is the highest/greatest/etc thing that I presently accept, but I don't hold to absolute certainty that nothing is beyond it.
JW to atheist/secularist/etc. I tend to prefer the naturalistic pantheist label because it gets generally to what I do believe instead of what I don't. If one were to ask if I believe in god(s), I'd ask what they mean by that. If they use a common definition like "transcendent supernatural conscious personal entity which controls/creates/etc, such as the Abrahamic God," I'd answer no. If they use the "higher power/being" definition, I'd say yes, as Nature on the whole is the highest/greatest/etc thing that I presently accept, but I don't hold to absolute certainty that nothing is beyond it.
