Religion Vs God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by NMSquirrel, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    I would have to say yes both I cannot see but only one has and effect that I can feel and measure the exact effect it has on me. So again one is real the other a myth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    My point is that upon carrying a virus, a change is noticeable. If you were the only one who wasn't affected, you could talk about the imaginations of others dictating that they have a virus. This of course, would say nothing about the truth of the claim, since you would stand outside of the normative issues that surround getting a virus.

    Similarly, if you stand outside of the normative issues that dictate approaching god, your experience of the subject is probably not the best avenue for departure.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You introduced a reference to a couple of undefined "camps" irrelevant to my posting; and thereby deflected the question, concealed your lack of answer to it, and assumed the conclusion you were apparently unable to argue for - in the process of attacking the poster of the original argument, me.

    It's a common rhetorical trick of yours, apparently designed to avoid actual debate by providing opportunities to set any debaters the task of defending themselves rather than their arguments.

    A singular lack of honor is visible, in all of that.

    But to return:
    The attempt to reframe the debate into one in which the existence of the god and its relevance to religion is assumed is noted, and the response dismissed accordingly.

    The fact that "begging the question" was at issue is ironic.

    But is another response available?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Still a virus can be detected via science and it can be verified vis symptomes know a god cannot be measure nor proved actually it can and it is call being delusional.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    more correctly, a virus can be detected by the normative issues that frame its detection (of which, science is one)

    If you want to argue that all things detectable are within the purview of such "science", you have a difficult task ahead of you ....
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I would have thought that a veteran poster such as yourself wouldn't have had such trouble determining the camps

    I see assertions in your posts, not questions.
    Haven't the foggiest what you're on a bout here
    the reason you stand defamed is because you whitewashed the argument.

    IOW you can't even deem the suggestion that there are two camps to the argument, simply because you are too gung-ho about your own.
    :shrug:
    On the contrary, your unwillingness to entertain the notion of a camp other than your own kills any chance of discussion at the onset

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Don't know why you can't see the connection between advocating that there is no means to knowing god (because there is no god) and atheism.

    Irony certainly is the word for it, since its clear you are trying to (re)frame the debate into one in which there is only one viewpoint on the existence of god.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There were no such relevant camps. As a veteran poster, I recognized the rhetorical ploy.
    Your continued attempt to establish "camps" whose division assumes the conclusion I would argue against in the first place, is not going to fly with me. I see no reason to assume that what I think is so is false, before beginning a discussion about it.

    Your unwillingness to participate in that discussion would be best handled by remaining out of it.
    Irrelevant. More deflection, rigged with personal attack as always. I pointed to this technique earlier {LGRI}
    You don't seem to be able to respond in any other manner.
    I am trying to maintain the original frame, in which the existence of a god is not assumed by any "camps", and the influence of bringing one on the stage of a religion is therefore open for consideration.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2009
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Huh?
    You can't recognize the clash between two ideologies that the religious sub forum on sci has come to exemplify?

    So you don't consider yourself to be prominently banging the gong of atheism?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    errr ... and you can't fathom a guess which camp a discussion of religion removed from any assumption of god's existence tends to prop?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Easily. It's irrelevant, however, and the personal attack is as well.
    More irrelevancy, rigged with personal attack. To avoid further repetition, let's call that LGRI, for "response one" - I edited the label, into my previous reply above.
    Presuming you have no effective argument in a given discussion is no reason to shove it into some other discussion. Remain silent, if nothing avails you.
     
  13. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Bad example.

    We have evidence of the virus itself and of it's effects.
     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    well sure evidence identifiable by persons who meet the normative requirements for determining it. By your argument, a healthy person (who stands outside of the discipline of medicine and biological analysis) could be justified in labeling the infected as delusional
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Perhaps it would be irrelevant if you didn't insist that the discussion involve relegating the topic to the perimeters of atheism.
    :shrug:

    I mean seriously - Which group of persons are more likely to go at lengths about a discussion about religion removed from any assumption about god's existence?

    Atheists or theists?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    This is your only and standard argument and it is also absurd.

    The simple fact is, there is no physical evidence for god.

    So no matter how much we want to know god, we can't know because there is no evidence.

    There is evidence for a virus, we both can witness this evidence if we wish. We can not do that for god.

    You keep coming back with these ridiculous examples of those who do not look will not know, but it is not the same because no matter how hard you look you won't find these kind of evidences. So no matter what, you have nothing to show.

    Of course if someone doesn't want to look at the evidence of the virus they don't have to, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Just means the person chooses to remain ignorant. The evidence is there for all who want to see unlike your god, there is no evidence for anyone to see of course.

    Next you will come back with, the person is not looking in the right places just like someone who would want to see a virus under a microscope and going to mcdonalds instead.

    These are two different issues and it's a flawed argument on your part. Because again the difference is there is evidence for the virus. It serves only one purpose and that is to deflect away that which you have no answers for.

    To be fair, nobody has these answers, just that some of us figured that out a while ago.
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    standard rebuttals arise from standard arguments
    Do you make this statement from the authority of normative issues that frame the claim of god's existence ... or from an entirely separate means of acquiring knowledge (aka empiricism), as if it has a monopoly on all knowable claims?
    But once again, a discussion of whether there is or isn't evidence is a discussion of the normative issues of qualification that frame a claim.

    At the very least, there are very good reasons why we don't accept a janitor's claim that there is no evidence in legal proceedings ... particularly when in the audience of forensic scientists.
    If we apply the normative issues that surround knowing a virus, sure we can. And if we don't, we can't.

    The claim of evidence for god is much the same.
    Its not ridiculous. Its how all or any claims of evidence function.

    What is ridiculous however is to expect a claim to be evidenced by a means that has no capacity to reveal it. This doesn't necessarily render the means totally dysfunctional. It simply means that it is inappropriate given the pursuit.
    hehe

    fancy that, eh?
    If you really want to pursue this line of thought, you would have to exmine the normative issues that frame the claim. For instance I can howl like a madman about how there is paltry evidence for accurate readings of temperature ... for as long as I only use a tape measure ...

    sure
    well yeah, but it won't be discernible by your average joe popping in for a big mac
    On the contrary, for as long as you steer clear of the normative issues, you are begging the question.

    Kind of like saying there is no evidence of anything beyond the mind and senses because over 200 years of investigation with the mind and senses has not revealed it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    lol
    and if nobody has the answers, how did they figure that out, eh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Light,

    Exactly, so why do you keep comparing the two scenarios. They are not the same.

    I don't expect you to provide evidence for god because there is none.

    However, evidence of a virus can be revealed and you can be invited to see it. You can't do that with god no matter how much someone wants to see the evidence. The evidence you have for god is only in your mind.

    We figured out that there is no answer to that question because there is no evidence to support it and we can't prove it does not exist.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    If you don't want to participate in the discussion, remain silent. When you pretend to be participating while indulging in rhetorical ploys to beg the question at hand, you're called on it. No problem.
    Any existence for which physical evidence could be found, or for which the concept make sense, sure.
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    why?

    Which again brings us back to whether you make this claim based on the standard means one determines evidence (namely, application of the normative issues that surround it) or something else ...
    What's clear is that in your mind you are prepared to entertain the normative issues that surround viruses but can't come to the table when it comes to god.
    :shrug:



    hehe
    Who's this "we"?
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    well yeah, any fool can relegate a topic to the purview of their values and gain a consensus
    :shrug:
    Step outside the normative issues that frame a claim and it all looks zany.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    LG,

    I already explained why.

    Here:


    "Of course if someone doesn't want to look at the evidence of the virus they don't have to, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Just means the person chooses to remain ignorant. The evidence is there for all who want to see unlike your god, there is no evidence for anyone to see of course.

    Next you will come back with, the person is not looking in the right places just like someone who would want to see a virus under a microscope and going to mcdonalds instead.

    These are two different issues and it's a flawed argument on your part. Because again the difference is there is evidence for the virus. It serves only one purpose and that is to deflect away that which you have no answers for."

    No it doesn't bring us back, you are the only one going back in cicles chasing your own tail as if the two are the same. I will tell you when the two are the same, when you have some evidence of god. That's when. Until then, they are worlds apart, as far apart as me claiming there is a tooth fairy. Can you prove to me there is no tooth fairy ? No, well maybe you aren't looking in the right places eh. That is your suggestion and is flawed, because no matter where you tell me to look, the evidence won't be there. That makes them different.

    Why should I. You won't catch me at the tooth fairy conventions either. You are asking me to put blind faith in that which has no evidence to support the idea and when I say that, I am referring to all of the religions versions of god.

    I am not claiming there is not a possibility for one, but there is no evidence that one that has been presented, IE a supernatural being that is still connected to us in spirit etc is real.

    So if this god is real, the reason we have no evidence of it is that it is not connected to us in anyway specifically. So what kind or god is it then ?

    The we is all of us who have enough sense to know the limitation of our current knowledge base. IE, anybody who makes the claim that currently we can neither prove nor dis-prove gods existence.

    That burden is on the person making the claim for it's existence.
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    That's a text book example of circular reasoning.

    The issue is that evidence is determined by application of normative issues that frame it.

    You say that this isn't the case in regards to god, because there is no evidence.

    (But if one hadn't applied the normative issues that frame the claim, how would they know?)

    Answer - because there is no evidence.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Until you begin to approach the issue of the normative issues that frame the claim, your ideas about when the two are the same or different or anything are nothing more than mere expressions of your ideas.
    well maybe you could suggest a few normative issues that surround the claim of the tooth fairy and we could take it from there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The flaw of your view is that you dictate where and what evidence is before you .... even before you begin inquiry of the normative issues that frame the claim.

    (a mode of learning that is on par by reading books by their cover)


    And that's precisely the problem here.
    Your values don't permit inquiry, so its a closed subject to you
    If you readily admit that you don't have a snow ball's chance in hell of coming within 100 feet of merely theoretical issues of application, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that further complexities greet you at the point of conclusion.
    The reason is that your conclusion about the evidence is drawn from assumptions about how we determine connections (assumptions that work perfectly well for examinations of dull matter, but are perfectly lousy in other fields)


    hehe
    "our"?
    who's that again?

    (sounds like a rabid amplification of "me")


    Still waiting for some explanation why this conclusion is the default consensus of "our" knowledge base.

    and to be more precise, the burden is to supply the normative issues that frame the claim.

    Once that done, the burden is on the individual to apply themselves.

    So the ball's in your court.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page