Fweethawt Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 This is a beautiful thing. If this isn't the ultimate "CHECKMATE (insert any religion label here)" argument, then I don't know what is. https://youtu.be/Oj28OkKshTk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. . . . Hint: If you use faith to define what 'the truth' is, then you are making a circular argument. A faith might still lead one to (a faith-derived definition of) the truth via some unconventional method that is (not) reliable because all circular arguments are invalid. . . . So without using faith, please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. John 18 : 38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. . . . Hint: If you use faith to define what 'the truth' is, then you are making a circular argument. A faith might still lead one to (a faith-derived definition of) the truth via some unconventional method that is (not) reliable because all circular arguments are invalid. . . . So without using faith, please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. John 18 : 38 Just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat... I might find an answer, "the truth", though some mechanism per faith that I have no clue how the mechanism works, but by faithfully following, BAM, there she be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. . . . Hint: If you use faith to define what 'the truth' is, then you are making a circular argument. A faith might still lead one to (a faith-derived definition of) the truth via some unconventional method that is (not) reliable because all circular arguments are invalid. . . . So without using faith, please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. John 18 : 38 Just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat... I might find an answer, "the truth", though some mechanism per faith that I have no clue how the mechanism works, but by faithfully following, BAM, there she be. You've just made a faith-based assertion about the power of this unknown mechanism to discover "the truth", End. Without even defining what you mean by, "the truth". If you have no definition of what "the truth" might be, how will you know when this mechanism gives it to you? You'll know by... faith, perhaps? . . . John 18 : 38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So End, you would answer his questions differently? Please explain how the argument put forward in the podcast is in any way flawed. It sounds like you're making the same arguments as the caller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So End, you would answer his questions differently? Please explain how the argument put forward in the podcast is in any way flawed. It sounds like you're making the same arguments as the caller He said faith could be used to believe a true thing and a not true thing which makes it an unreliable path to truth. I'm saying that we may arrive at the same truth via faith or through conventional paths.....which doesn't demonstrate that faith is unreliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. . . . Hint: If you use faith to define what 'the truth' is, then you are making a circular argument. A faith might still lead one to (a faith-derived definition of) the truth via some unconventional method that is (not) reliable because all circular arguments are invalid. . . . So without using faith, please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. John 18 : 38 Just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat... I might find an answer, "the truth", though some mechanism per faith that I have no clue how the mechanism works, but by faithfully following, BAM, there she be. You've just made a faith-based assertion about the power of this unknown mechanism to discover "the truth", End. Without even defining what you mean by, "the truth". If you have no definition of what "the truth" might be, how will you know when this mechanism gives it to you? You'll know by... faith, perhaps? . . . John 18 : 38 No, I can walk to Mr. Jones's house by taking two lefts and a right.....OR I can get to Mr. Jones's house by faithfully following Mr. Jones's dog... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 29, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. . . . Hint: If you use faith to define what 'the truth' is, then you are making a circular argument. A faith might still lead one to (a faith-derived definition of) the truth via some unconventional method that is (not) reliable because all circular arguments are invalid. . . . So without using faith, please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. John 18 : 38 Just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat... I might find an answer, "the truth", though some mechanism per faith that I have no clue how the mechanism works, but by faithfully following, BAM, there she be. You've just made a faith-based assertion about the power of this unknown mechanism to discover "the truth", End. Without even defining what you mean by, "the truth". If you have no definition of what "the truth" might be, how will you know when this mechanism gives it to you? You'll know by... faith, perhaps? . . . John 18 : 38 No, I can walk to Mr. Jones's house by taking two lefts and a right.....OR I can get to Mr. Jones's house by faithfully following Mr. Jones's dog... That is because Mr. Jones' house is constant, unmoving, and in precisely the same spot for anyone who might be searching. Mr. Jones' house is a form of "truth", in that it is "true" for everyone. Conclusions arrived at via faith, or some other vaguely defined (and highly subjective) "mechanism" may, or may not be, constant for everyone, thereby eliminating the possibility of such conclusions being "truth". Assuming, of course, that you are using the same definition for the word "truth" as everyone else, which, I think, goes back to BAA's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. . . . Hint: If you use faith to define what 'the truth' is, then you are making a circular argument. A faith might still lead one to (a faith-derived definition of) the truth via some unconventional method that is (not) reliable because all circular arguments are invalid. . . . So without using faith, please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. John 18 : 38 Just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat... I might find an answer, "the truth", though some mechanism per faith that I have no clue how the mechanism works, but by faithfully following, BAM, there she be. You've just made a faith-based assertion about the power of this unknown mechanism to discover "the truth", End. Without even defining what you mean by, "the truth". If you have no definition of what "the truth" might be, how will you know when this mechanism gives it to you? You'll know by... faith, perhaps? . . . John 18 : 38 No, I can walk to Mr. Jones's house by taking two lefts and a right.....OR I can get to Mr. Jones's house by faithfully following Mr. Jones's dog... That is because Mr. Jones' house is constant, unmoving, and in precisely the same spot for anyone who might be searching. Mr. Jones' house is a form of "truth", in that it is "true" for everyone. Conclusions arrived at via faith, or some other vaguely defined (and highly subjective) "mechanism" may, or may not be, constant for everyone, thereby eliminating the possibility of such conclusions being "truth". Assuming, of course, that you are using the same definition for the word "truth" as everyone else, which, I think, goes back to BAA's point. The Bible pretty much makes the assertions that you have mentioned. To your point, conclusions are only just that with accepted mechanisms... And more to your point, each person performing an "experiment" will have their own built in bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So End, you would answer his questions differently? Please explain how the argument put forward in the podcast is in any way flawed. It sounds like you're making the same arguments as the caller He said faith could be used to believe a true thing and a not true thing which makes it an unreliable path to truth. I'm saying that we may arrive at the same truth via faith or through conventional paths.....which doesn't demonstrate that faith is unreliable.He definitely demonstrated that faith is unreliable. Faith is absolutely unreliable since every religious believer of various faiths believe by faith that they are correct. Obviously they all can't be correct saying they have the correct religion. Faith Itself is not reliable since one can have faith and yet be wrong. If one has faith in something not proven and ends up being proven right somehow, that's the same as a broken clock being correct twice a day. Dumb luck and nothing else... not due to the clock/faith itself. Jesus. This shit is not that hard End Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So End, you would answer his questions differently? Please explain how the argument put forward in the podcast is in any way flawed. It sounds like you're making the same arguments as the caller He said faith could be used to believe a true thing and a not true thing which makes it an unreliable path to truth. I'm saying that we may arrive at the same truth via faith or through conventional paths.....which doesn't demonstrate that faith is unreliable. He definitely demonstrated that faith is unreliable. Faith is absolutely unreliable since every religious believer of various faiths believe by faith that they are correct. Obviously they all can't be correct saying they have the correct religion. Faith Itself is not reliable since one can have faith and yet be wrong. If one has faith in something not proven and ends up being proven right somehow, that's the same as a broken clock being correct twice a day. Dumb luck and nothing else... not due to the clock/faith itself. Jesus. This shit is not that hard End Jeff, if you will read closely please to what I am saying, what you have just written is largely independent of the point I am trying to make. I can address THESE points in another post when I have a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So if you and I Prof were performing an analysis on the same instrument by the same analytical method, we very likely would not come up with the exact same answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable... Please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. . . . Hint: If you use faith to define what 'the truth' is, then you are making a circular argument. A faith might still lead one to (a faith-derived definition of) the truth via some unconventional method that is (not) reliable because all circular arguments are invalid. . . . So without using faith, please define what you mean by, 'the truth', End. John 18 : 38 Just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat... I might find an answer, "the truth", though some mechanism per faith that I have no clue how the mechanism works, but by faithfully following, BAM, there she be. You've just made a faith-based assertion about the power of this unknown mechanism to discover "the truth", End. Without even defining what you mean by, "the truth". If you have no definition of what "the truth" might be, how will you know when this mechanism gives it to you? You'll know by... faith, perhaps? . . . John 18 : 38 No, I can walk to Mr. Jones's house by taking two lefts and a right.....OR I can get to Mr. Jones's house by faithfully following Mr. Jones's dog... Flawed argument, End. You've just substituted your knowledge of where Mr. Jones' house is with his dog's knowledge of where it is. However you get there, you still require someone or something to know where it is. If nobody and nothing knows where it is (or what "the truth" might be) then blindly following any mechanism will get you nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 The Bible pretty much makes the assertions that you have mentioned. To your point, conclusions are only just that with accepted mechanisms... And more to your point, each person performing an "experiment" will have their own built in bias. Then it sounds like you've already decided where you want this mechanism to take you, End. Which is another kind of circular argument. You believe that the Bible is or points to where you've already decided you want to go. The Bible filtering out any other possibility than the one which is acceptable to you. You wouldn't be blindly following a Buddhist, Sikh or Muslim mechanism to get to "the truth", would you? Having pre-decided that "the truth" can only be reached via the Bible? So, in fact you have done what I asked and defined what "the truth" is. It's what you want it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinzon Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 No, he doesn't think outside of the box much. A faith might still lead one to the truth via some unconventional method that is just as reliable...making stuff up much. What truths could faith ever provide that experience of life couldnt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So if you and I Prof were performing an analysis on the same instrument by the same analytical method, we very likely would not come up with the exact same answer.Possibly. But one of us pretending that it has magical powers while measuring it would be a big red flag to at least two of us. However all three of us should be able to see the problem after discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 You wouldn't be blindly following a Buddhist, Sikh or Muslim mechanism to get to "the truth", would you? Having pre-decided that "the truth" can only be reached via the Bible? So, in fact you have done what I asked and defined what "the truth" is. It's what you want it to be. No, one might have faith and be led to the same truth via a faith mechanism regardless the flavor.....back to my original point that the man in the video said faith was unreliable. I gave you a real world example. I assume you are saying that because I have knowledge that dogs are faithful to their owners, that it's illegal for me to use the dog to get to Mr. Jones's house? Doesn't the "real" world use the scientific method? Heck, a lot of times in science, we see the "house" but don't know the mechanism to get there. I think the man gave faith no more than a 50/50 chance of being reliable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So if you and I Prof were performing an analysis on the same instrument by the same analytical method, we very likely would not come up with the exact same answer.Possibly. But one of us pretending that it has magical powers while measuring it would be a big red flag to at least two of us. However all three of us should be able to see the problem after discussion. I get your point but because we don't always have an experiment for what we believe in faith does NOT mean something's not there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So if you and I Prof were performing an analysis on the same instrument by the same analytical method, we very likely would not come up with the exact same answer.Possibly. But one of us pretending that it has magical powers while measuring it would be a big red flag to at least two of us. However all three of us should be able to see the problem after discussion.I get your point but because we don't always have an experiment for what we believe in faith does NOT mean something's not there....Right. Which means that faith is the broken clock that gets lucky. you could literally believe in ANYTHING at all using your logic and still be just as likely to be correct. You are employing magical thinking to direct your life End. This is a bad plan. Edit: sorry End. I'm not trying to be insulting to you. Your arguments are going in circles and it's easy to see this since I used to use the same frustrating illogic. I mean this discourse in a friendly way toward you. At least you don't run away from a tough discussion like IH does. You seem like a decent guy to me. But please look seriously at what you are actually saying. Give yourself permission to not believe for one hour. Just one hour of not having to defend the indefensible in your own mind and feel the relief I felt. You can always go back theoretically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 From Wiki... The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9] The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed, What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith. *I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 So End, you would answer his questions differently? Please explain how the argument put forward in the podcast is in any way flawed. It sounds like you're making the same arguments as the caller He said faith could be used to believe a true thing and a not true thing which makes it an unreliable path to truth. I'm saying that we may arrive at the same truth via faith or through conventional paths.....which doesn't demonstrate that faith is unreliable. Hi End, maybe an issue in this thread is "arrive at," which is ambiguous. I think the phrase can mean at least two things: come to believe something that is true; do that plus provide justification for the belief. Some hypothetical person might say, "my experiences have led me to have faith in antibiotics," but that person has not yet formulated a justification for her/his belief that antibiotics are effective under such and such conditions, etc etc. The person in other words might "arrive at" good decisions about seeking medical treatment without being able to demonstrate that antibiotics are effective. But others could demonstrate that, and those people have expertise and knowledge. No one has demonstrated that religious dogmas are true, although many claim to have expertise and knowledge that they are so. When you unpack their arguments and evidence, you get ... faith-based claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 You wouldn't be blindly following a Buddhist, Sikh or Muslim mechanism to get to "the truth", would you? Having pre-decided that "the truth" can only be reached via the Bible? So, in fact you have done what I asked and defined what "the truth" is. It's what you want it to be. No, one might have faith and be led to the same truth via a faith mechanism regardless the flavor.....back to my original point that the man in the video said faith was unreliable. I gave you a real world example. I assume you are saying that because I have knowledge that dogs are faithful to their owners, that it's illegal for me to use the dog to get to Mr. Jones's house? Yes, End. Invalid argument. Whatever method you use to get to Mr. Jones house, if it involves anyone or anything 'knowing' the location in any way, then you are simply re-discovering pre-existing knowledge. You are not using faith to discover anything new for yourself and by yourself, which is what Dillahunty meant when he says that faith is unreliable. It's unreliable when it comes to humans discovering new truths about reality for themselves - truths that no human had known beforehand. If you now invoke faith to claim that by using the faith, Christians discover God's knowledge in the Bible, you once again employ a circular argument. You cannot use faith to argue for faith. All such circular arguments are invalid. Doesn't the "real" world use the scientific method? The scientific method doesn't involve faith, in the religious sense of that word. Confidence in the scientific methods ability to accurately describe reality is a better way of putting it. Heck, a lot of times in science, we see the "house" but don't know the mechanism to get there. Please give a worked example of what you mean, with the appropriate citation. I think the man gave faith no more than a 50/50 chance of being reliable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 From Wiki... The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9] The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed, What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith. *I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video. It differs because it's based upon evidence. The evidence dictates what is taken to be true. Faith requires no evidence to believe what is true. As we can see here. Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Christians who read the Bible literally need no evidence to believe by faith in the above. In fact they go out of their way to deny the evidence in favor of what the Bible tells them is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 From Wiki... The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9] The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed, What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith. *I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video. It differs because it's based upon evidence. The evidence dictates what is taken to be true. Faith requires no evidence to believe what is true. As we can see here. Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Christians who read the Bible literally need no evidence to believe by faith in the above. In fact they go out of their way to deny the evidence in favor of what the Bible tells them is true. Where does it say no evidence? What you see as evidence vs. what I see may be totally different....i.e. training yourself to be a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts