Openly Gay Conservative has a message for America

[rjd970]

I would ask you to support the above, please. All you've done is make bald assertions with no proof.

We are talking about "proof" here, not belief. You are telling people what their default position should be--about what they should believe, without offering proof as to why that should be their belief, their default position.

We are talking about belief structures here, about a subject that everyone involved agrees is unprovable. The Christian position is that we believe that God exists, but can't prove to you empirically that He does. Our default position is that to believe requires a step of faith.

We share our belief and tell you that it's up to you to believe or not. It's up to you, and we admit that we haven't given an air-tight case that proves empirically that God exists.

Now, as an atheist, you can either believe because we've made a good enough philosophical/theological case (actually, I believe that belief comes more from the ministry of the Holy Spirit to a softened heart, but for the sake of argument, let's just say that our philosophical/theological argument did the trick). Or you could say, "You know, still don't believe it."

And we can agree to disagree. It's unprovable to the degree that you need. Carry on.

Or, as an atheist, you could say, "You're an idiot. God doesn't exist."

Now, there's a burden of proof. You need to support and prove that truth statement--that God doesn't exist.

Again... You may not believe that God exists. And you probably have a very rational reason not to believe that God exists. I haven't proven empirically that He does. But we're not talking about beliefs. We are talking about what is true or untrue. We are talking about whether you made a true statement or not. That is the burden of proof.

Saying, "I don't believe because my default position is that anything doesn't exist unless it's proven empirically to exist" is one thing. To say that a thing actually does not exist until it is proven to exist is another--it's an absurdity.

For instance what if I have expereinced God in some way that SD can't, and that I can't use to prove His existence. But I have experienced Him. Does my inability to prove it to SD alter the fact of God's existence?

If you are blind and I try to describe the color red. Your default position is that the color red doesn't exist because it's unproven to you--and can never be proven. But does that mean the color red doesn't exist? Does that mean that your denial of its existence would require no burden of proof to support your claim that red doesn't exist?

(Of curse not. Your denial doesn't change the existence of the color red.)

Your only recourse in skirting the burden of proof per active denial is that you can't actually prove that it doesn't exist. But to the sighted person, that refusal of proof rings very hollow and seems a bit childish.

(Again... We are talking about truth claims and proof... Not belief. We are talking about whether you disproved the existence of "red". I can understand why you wouldn't believe in the color red.)

So, what we have here is SuperDave claiming that we are wrong. We do not have an atheist claiming to not believe that we are right. We have an atheist actively claiming that we are wrong. So, it's not about his default position or our default position. We have a claim that his default position is correct. But there is a truth between his claim and our claim. There is the fact of whether God actually exists. A claim about that fact is either true or not, despite a person's default positional belief about that fact.

So, if he makes the claim that Christians are wrong and that God objectively does not exist, then he needs to prove it.

Bottom line after all that....I think we pretty much agree.

Atheism is simply a refusal to deny the obvious, IMO.

Quick question, do you believe Horus or Zeus don't exist, or are you simply choosing not to believe in them? What about ghosts? Or Bigfoot? Unicorns? We actually have pictures of ghosts and bigfoot. Does this line of intellectual honesty apply to everything, or only when we are talking about God deniers?

I guess at what point do you simply call something absurd?

And I can describe the color red to a blind person no problem....it is the roughly 650 nm band of the electromagnetic spectrum. There is no way he/she can deny that.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

OK. Then...

How did you guess that my experience is 100% subjective?

What definition of 'subjective' are you using?

If my experience is 100% subjective, what experiences are not subjective? You said that there's no way to determine my "experience" as "fact" because I don't "know 100%" that I actually experienced the experience that I experienced.

Since you appear to be trying to lock me into a box where I can't trust my own experiences, I'll need you to show me why you're not in that same box with all of your experiences.

I don't want to build a straw man here, so I'll let you make your own case.

Lol.....and you wonder why your discussions aren't fruitful.

Do you give everyone the benefit of this? Meaning if I have to grant your experiences that you yourself said you can't prove is now a "fact", then do you accept everyone else who makes claims that they can't prove to you?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

It's because you don't have a scientist telling you what is real and what's not,

No, really old books are though.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Why do you guys feed the trolls? Pearls and swine, etc.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Bottom line after all that....I think we pretty much agree.

Atheism is simply a refusal to deny the obvious, IMO.

Quick question, do you believe Horus or Zeus don't exist, or are you simply choosing not to believe in them? What about ghosts? Or Bigfoot? Unicorns? We actually have pictures of ghosts and bigfoot. Does this line of intellectual honesty apply to everything, or only when we are talking about God deniers?

I guess at what point do you simply call something absurd?

And I can describe the color red to a blind person no problem....it is the roughly 650 nm band of the electromagnetic spectrum. There is no way he/she can deny that.

Philosophically, Horus and Zeus don't cut the mustard to explain all that we see around us. There may have been dudes called Horus and Zeus that were pretty rad, and there may have been legends built up that gave them god-like status. But to call Horus and Zeus "gods" in the same way that Yahweh is claimed to be God (as in the Uncreated Creator), it's comparing apples and oranges, no?

From my perspective, the reality as we see it, really necessitate a Mono-Theistic God. You may not agree, and that's cool. We've debated that point ad nausium to little avail. I'm just answering the question you asked. Why did I accept the idea of Yahweh, but not of Zeus and Horus.

Unicorns? I literally don't have a very valid opinion on that, nor does it affect my life one way or the other. Is it possible that there was a horse-like creature with a horn coming out of it's head? Absolutely!

Bigfoot? How can I say? Is it improbable that there are 8 ft tall primates living in the deep forests of the NW and Canada? Yetis on Everest? And so few have seen them? Maybe. I guess it would depend on what your criteria for "improbable" is. And I guess it would depend on if you wanted me to give you a definitive on the matter.

But again... I don't have a very valid opinion on the matter, mostly because it doesn't effect my life to any great degree. I won't give a definitive, and isn't that what this conversation is about? Whether we choose to have conversations based on what we believe, or whether we're making definite statements? Again... The point in contest is burden of proof. If I make a definitive statement, on either side of an argument, I need to prove that definitive statement.

Ghosts... I believe that ghosts are a possibility. Due to my theological beliefs, I do not believe that ghosts are a probability. In other words, I believe that the human spirit/soul exists after death, so obviously I believe it possible that people can see them after death. But I also believe that the human soul/spirit awaits judgment after death and isn't prescribed to wander the earth, so I don't think them probable.

I also believe that there are spiritual beings besides humans--i.e. angels and demons. So I believe it possible that people can interact, see, hear them and interpret them as ghosts.

But this highlights a problem with the fallacious argument from incredulity... Your point of being incredulous is based on your presuppositions, so what seems absurd to you may not seem absurd to others, and the feeling of absurdity is not proof in either direction.

Similarly, it's why the "greater claim/greater evidence" argument is fallacious. You have defined what is a "greater" claim based on your credulity/presuppositions. If you don't believe in an afterlife (unprovable), then any spiritual claim is a "greater" claim. If I do, it's a very natural claim.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I suspect that he/she is building an argument for empiricism, but will stop short of inferring that now that I have been duly chastised...

My operating definition of "subjective" is:



By that definition, he's told me that any experience I've had with God has been just feelings, tastes and opinions. It's all in my head. I'll wait for him to either prove that I haven't had an in-fact experience with God, or tell me how his experiences are less subjective than my experiences.

Yes, you'll stop short of inferring it right after you infer it.

 

[InVOLuntary]

No, really old books are though.

No, you believe what some scientist theorizes. That's fine, I couldn't care less what you believe. Believers in a higher power use a different set of criteria to form there set of beliefs. You said his beliefs couldn't be backed up by your set of criteria. Your beliefs can't be backed up by a believer's set of criteria.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

No, you believe what some scientist theorizes. That's fine, I couldn't care less what you believe. Believers in a higher power use a different set of criteria to form there set of beliefs. You said his beliefs couldn't be backed up by your set of criteria. Your beliefs can't be backed up by a believer's set of criteria.

Yes, and ultimately you believe something because of what was written down a long time ago.

If you get to narrow down why I believe something, then I get to do the same thing for you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Lol.....and you wonder why your discussions aren't fruitful.

Do you give everyone the benefit of this? Meaning if I have to grant your experiences that you yourself said you can't prove is now a "fact", then do you accept everyone else who makes claims that they can't prove to you?

I never said that you have to grant that my experiences are "fact". I asked why you would assume that they are not, mainly since you went all Nazi about my assumptions toward you.

And the point that you wanted to dissect said "if I"... In other words, it was a thought-construct to prove a point about beliefs and whether they have actuality on facts. Here's my statement:

Saying, "I don't believe because my default position is that anything doesn't exist unless it's proven empirically to exist" is one thing. To say that a thing actually does not exist until it is proven to exist is another--it's an absurdity.

For instance what if I have experienced God in some way that SD can't, and that I can't use to prove His existence. But I have experienced Him. Does my inability to prove it to SD alter the fact of God's existence?

And no. I don't expect everyone to grant my unprovable experiences as fact. You would have known that if you'd comprehended the original quote you commented on. But if a person condescends to tell me that my expereinces are merely subjective, emotional opinion... If a person does that I will have them plead the case for how they know that, or else show how their experiences are less subjective than mine.

And generally, I'll only do that when they act like a nozzle by ignoring the entire intent of the post they're dissecting.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, you'll stop short of inferring it right after you infer it.

Then by all means, stop being shy and lay it all on the line. I'm on the edge of my seat. Give us all you've got. I can stop guessing what your argument is when you get enough courage to answer questions and lay it all on the line.

Or you can just lay back and play the victim while bluffing the pair of deuces you have in your hand.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I never said that you have to grant that my experiences are "fact". I asked why you would assume that they are not, mainly since you went all Nazi about my assumptions toward you.

And the point that you wanted to dissect said "if I"... In other words, it was a thought-construct to prove a point about beliefs and whether they have actuality on facts. Here's my statement:



And no. I don't expect everyone to grant my unprovable experiences as fact. You would have known that if you'd comprehended the original quote you commented on. But if a person condescends to tell me that my expereinces are merely subjective, emotional opinion... If a person does that I will have them plead the case for how they know that, or else show how their experiences are less subjective than mine.

And generally, I'll only do that when they act like a nozzle by ignoring the entire intent of the post they're dissecting.

Yes, I saw the "for instance part", which also contained the part I replied to. Here let me bold that part for you:

For instance what if I have expereinced God in some way that SD can't, and that I can't use to prove His existence. But I have experienced Him. Does my inability to prove it to SD alter the fact of God's existence?

Your final sentence is quite loaded, and I suspect you realize that.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Then by all means, stop being shy and lay it all on the line. I'm on the edge of my seat. Give us all you've got. I can stop guessing what your argument is when you get enough courage to answer questions and lay it all on the line.

Or you can just lay back and play the victim while bluffing the pair of deuces you have in your hand.

Project much? I'm playing the victim, the one who popped a gasket because I had the nerve to say your personal experiences are subjective?

And I'm sure you want me to "lay it all out" so you can keep up your Sye Ten Bruggencate gameplan.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Yes, and ultimately you believe something because of what was written down a long time ago.

If you get to narrow down why I believe something, then I get to do the same thing for you.

I just said that. The problem is you and your buddy treat Christians like we're stupid because we are ignoring science when science is just theory. Nothing can be proven either way. We put our faith in God you put your faith in other men.

 

[BearCat204]

Lot of people going straight to hell ITT

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, I saw the "for instance part", which also contained the part I replied to. Here let me bold that part for you:



Your final sentence is quite loaded, and I suspect you realize that.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you would even read the post, much less that you'd be so sensitive to the phrasing of a "for instance" thought experiment.

Now... Would you care to relate your case for why my experiences with God have to be more subjective than your experiences, considering that you've guessed what those experiences may be, and considering that you really told me about making guesses about you?

Or do you want to accept my apology about the phrasing of a devil's advocate argument to prove a point about beliefs vs proof, and I'll try not to scare you further with the hint of a possibility that a sentence may be loaded?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Project much? I'm playing the victim, the one who popped a gasket because I had the nerve to say your personal experiences are subjective?

And I'm sure you want me to "lay it all out" so you can keep up your Sye Ten Bruggencate gameplan.

OK. So I guess that answered that. Have a good day. :hi:

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I just said that. The problem is you and your buddy treat Christians like we're stupid because we are ignoring science when science is just theory. Nothing can be proven either way. We put our faith in God you put your faith in other men.

Holy moly....that sentence about sums it up.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

OK. So I guess that answered that. Have a good day. :hi:

Yes, it most certainly did. Same to you.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you would even read the post, much less that you'd be so sensitive to the phrasing of a "for instance" thought experiment.

Now... Would you care to relate your case for why my experiences with God have to be more subjective than your experiences, considering that you've guessed what those experiences may be, and considering that you really told me about making guesses about you?

Or do you want to accept my apology about the phrasing of a devil's advocate argument to prove a point about beliefs vs proof, and I'll try not to scare you further with the hint of a possibility that a sentence may be loaded?

Oh no, let's just keep playing your word salad game of "keep asking sh## to just muddy the water and then declare superiority."

It's quite funny that I was the one of being accused of thinking I'm so smart, given how dripping with condescension your posts are.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Holy moly....that sentence about sums it up.

Was it wrong? Has man evolving from nothing but some kind of chemical soup been proven?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Was it wrong? Has man evolving from nothing but some kind of chemical soup been proven?

You said "science is just a theory". Please educate yourself on what a scientific theory actually is.

Also, I'm guessing you meant "evolution is just a theory".

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh no, let's just keep playing your word salad game of "keep asking sh## to just muddy the water and then declare superiority."

It's quite funny that I was the one of being accused of thinking I'm so smart, given how dripping with condescension your posts are.

Listen... I'm really just asking you to do one of two things, since you made the claim that (whatever, unknown-to-you) experience I've had with God are subjective. Either (a) tell me why my (unknown-to-you) experience with God is subjective. (b) Tell me why my (unknown-to-you) experience with God is more subjective than your experiences.

That's pretty much it. We'll boil the entire conversation down to that. No word salad. No mud.

And I apologize if I have offended you. I apologize for anything and everything that I've said in an unkind manner. Seriously and genuinely.

Now, I'm cool either way. If you'd like to support that assertion, we can continue on with the conversation. If not, we can continue on with any other conversation. Or if you'd like to just hit the ignore button, that OK too. (Really, no sarcasm involved. It really doesn't bother me one way or the other. This is just internet to pass the time.)

But I do believe what I believe, and I believe that I am right or else I wouldn't believe it. If you want to jump in and debate a point; if you want to jump in and tell me I'm wrong, then we can debate the points if you want to present your points. If you refuse to do that, then we can't have the debate, and you lose your high ground to chastise me for inferring what your points actually are.

:hi:

 

[InVOLuntary]

You said "science is just a theory". Please educate yourself on what a scientific theory actually is.

Also, I'm guessing you meant "evolution is just a theory".

Surely you could surmise that I was talking about scientific theory of evolution. I thought that was the premise of the debate. Maybe I was giving you too much credit?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Listen... I'm really just asking you to do one of two things, since you made the claim that (whatever, unknown-to-you) experience I've had with God are subjective. Either (a) tell me why my (unknown-to-you) experience with God is subjective. (b) Tell me why my (unknown-to-you) experience with God is more subjective than your experiences.

That's pretty much it. We'll boil the entire conversation down to that. No word salad. No mud.

And I apologize if I have offended you. I apologize for anything and everything that I've said in an unkind manner. Seriously and genuinely.

Now, I'm cool either way. If you'd like to support that assertion, we can continue on with the conversation. If not, we can continue on with any other conversation. Or if you'd like to just hit the ignore button, that OK too. (Really, no sarcasm involved. It really doesn't bother me one way or the other. This is just internet to pass the time.)

But I do believe what I believe, and I believe that I am right or else I wouldn't believe it. If you want to jump in and debate a point; if you want to jump in and tell me I'm wrong, then we can debate the points if you want to present your points. If you refuse to do that, then we can't have the debate, and you lose your high ground to chastise me for inferring what your points actually are.

:hi:

Haha, it's cool man. I actually like you, you're a smart man. I obviously don't agree with you on some things but I appreciate that you really seem to think these things through.

I know I come across as a d-bag sometimes but like you said, it's the internet, and I'm passing time. If we were talking in person I think we'd both be laughing together because most of what I say would come across very differently.

Carry on.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Surely you could surmise that I was talking about scientific theory of evolution. I thought that was the premise of the debate. Maybe I was giving you too much credit?

Oh snap.

Sorry man, you don't seem to know what a theory actually is, so it's kind of hard to surmise what you mean by "science".