Religious

[Hank]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you believe the story about Jonah and the Whale...then what WON'T you believe?

Your saying that you are a "critical thinker" is the most erroneous comment since General Custer, who supposedly told his men at Little Bighorn..."Over that hill, I think there are FRIENDLY Indians".

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

General Custer's last words to his men were:

"Take no prisoners."

And they didn't.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you believe the story about Jonah and the Whale...then what WON'T you believe?

There is a story of James Bartley, a crewman on a whaling vessel, who was swallowed whole by a sperm whale in February 1891. Bartley was able to survive for 15 hours (36 hours by some accounts) in the whale's stomach which contained breathable oxygen. Fellow whalers discovered Bartley while butchering the whale. They washed him off with sea water. His skin was bleached by the whale's stomach acid but he eventually made a full recovery.

Unfortunately for those who would offer this story as proof that the original Jonah story is plausible, it has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bartley

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

140 - Re: Religious thread. Is Man inherently Evil? - 06/11/14

(emphasis mine)

I have explained many times what self-defeating means. In fact, it should be self-evident to all with an IQ number above the length of a shoe lace. For example, what does "defeat the purpose" mean? Or whenever we do something that is really dumb and is at "cross purposes" with one another?

The most poignant example AGAIN would be a statement like this:

There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Assuming the one making the statement is serious and is absolutely sure that there is such no thing as absolute truth, then the statement obviously collapses upon itself because his proposition is self-contradictory. Just like athesim!

You claim: There is no God. ...

At this point your argument breaks down. I've never made any such claim, at least not in the sense that such a claim included a subordinate claim that I could prove it. In the post in which I gave in to your incessant insistence that I was an atheist instead of an agnostic I included the proviso that I made no claim that I could provide proof. I only state that I am unaware of any believable evidence ever being presented that there is a god.

You do know what "proviso" means?

Your entire post #140 does not constitute a argument at all since it does not begin with any sort of universally accepted premises and proceed to any kind of conclusion, i.e., it does not have a syllogistic structure. It's more of a rant, a series of unsupported opinions. It does not prove anything. We thus come back to the agnostic position. The question cannot be proven either way. It comes down to the burden of proof, which is yours.

That brings us back to Dawkins' seven point scale.

1. I know there is a god.
2. I think there is a god. I'm not absolutely certain but I live my life as though there is.
3. I don't know if there is or is not a god, but I lean toward believing there is one.
4. I absolutely don't know one way or the other.
5. I don't know if there is or is not a god, but I lean toward believing there is none.
6. I do not think there is a god. I'm not absolutely certain but I live my life as though there is none.
7. I know there is no god.

I assume that you are a 1.0 on the scale. Perhaps, with a little honesty, you might be persuaded that you are a 1.0000000001, just a wee wee wee but south of absolute certainty. I certainly don't claim to be a 7.0, more like a 6.999999999.

But this idea that you cannot prove something can be taken to extremes. For instance, I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and for good reason. The monster is reportedly huge, say 20 feet long. A viable population would have to be at least 100 animals otherwise they would long ago have been wiped out by a lack of genetic variety. The lake has a surface area of 23 square miles and an average depth of 430 feet. That's one animal for every 160 acres, the size of a small farm. Yet sightings are rare and usually (always?) hoaxes. There's other evidence, such as the food supply in the lake, that points to the animal's non-existence. So where am I on the Dawkins scale when it comes to Nessie? 6.9999999999? No. When it comes to Nessie I'm a 7. The same goes for Bigfoot and UFOs.

While it's quite acceptable to be a 7 when it comes to Nessie, Bigfoot and UFOs, when it comes to god people say "no, you can't prove it." The difference is that people, with a few exceptions, have no emotional commitment to Nessie and Bigfoot. But god gives them an escape from the reality that they will one day die, never mind how ridiculous the concept is.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There is a story of James Bartley, a crewman on a whaling vessel, who was swallowed whole by a sperm whale in February 1891. Bartley was able to survive for 15 hours (36 hours by some accounts) in the whale's stomach which contained breathable oxygen. Fellow whalers discovered Bartley while butchering the whale. They washed him off with sea water. His skin was bleached by the whale's stomach acid but he eventually made a full recovery.

Unfortunately for those who would offer this story as proof that the original Jonah story is plausible, it has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bartley

Have you ever seen the jaws of a Great White? I have. A large one could easily swallow a human being whole. EASILY. Also, there are reported cases of constricting snakes that have swallowed crocodiles whole, so why not humans?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

At this point your argument breaks down. I've never made any such claim, at least not in the sense that such a claim included a subordinate claim that I could prove it. In the post in which I gave in to your incessant insistence that I was an atheist instead of an agnostic I included the proviso that I made no claim that I could provide proof. I only state that I am unaware of any believable evidence ever being presented that there is a god.

You do know what "proviso" means?

Your entire post #140 does not constitute a argument at all since it does not begin with any sort of universally accepted premises and proceed to any kind of conclusion, i.e., it does not have a syllogistic structure. It's more of a rant, a series of unsupported opinions. It does not prove anything. We thus come back to the agnostic position. The question cannot be proven either way. It comes down to the burden of proof, which is yours.

That brings us back to Dawkins' seven point scale.

1. I know there is a god.
2. I think there is a god. I'm not absolutely certain but I live my life as though there is.
3. I don't know if there is or is not a god, but I lean toward believing there is one.
4. I absolutely don't know one way or the other.
5. I don't know if there is or is not a god, but I lean toward believing there is none.
6. I do not think there is a god. I'm not absolutely certain but I live my life as though there is none.
7. I know there is no god.

I assume that you are a 1.0 on the scale. Perhaps, with a little honesty, you might be persuaded that you are a 1.0000000001, just a wee wee wee but south of absolute certainty. I certainly don't claim to be a 7.0, more like a 6.999999999.

But this idea that you cannot prove something can be taken to extremes. For instance, I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and for good reason. The monster is reportedly huge, say 20 feet long. A viable population would have to be at least 100 animals otherwise they would long ago have been wiped out by a lack of genetic variety. The lake has a surface area of 23 square miles and an average depth of 430 feet. That's one animal for every 160 acres, the size of a small farm. Yet sightings are rare and usually (always?) hoaxes. There's other evidence, such as the food supply in the lake, that points to the animal's non-existence. So where am I on the Dawkins scale when it comes to Nessie? 6.9999999999? No. When it comes to Nessie I'm a 7. The same goes for Bigfoot and UFOs.

While it's quite acceptable to be a 7 when it comes to Nessie, Bigfoot and UFOs, when it comes to god people say "no, you can't prove it." The difference is that people, with a few exceptions, have no emotional commitment to Nessie and Bigfoot. But god gives them an escape from the reality that they will one day die, never mind how ridiculous the concept is.

I don't have to frame an argument in the form of a syllogism to prove that it's self-defeating. If someone wrote: "All sentences are no longer than five words, the self-defeating nature of the sentence is self-evident.

And the fact that you can't offer evidence renders your atheism absurd. Just because you can't find any believable evidence doesn't mean that none exists. Again, you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to say no such evidence exists in the universe.

Finally, there is plenty of evidence for God outside the bible, as I just stated recently with the various arguments for God. You just don't want to believe. So be it. You'd be far more honest to just admit that: I don't want to believe I was created. I don't want to believe the universe was created, etc., and be done with it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Have you ever seen the jaws of a Great White? I have. A large one could easily swallow a human being whole. EASILY.

Have you seen those rows and rows of razor-sharp teeth that the Great White has? Would it need those teeth if it swallowed its prey whole?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Have you seen those rows and rows of razor-sharp teeth that the Great White has? Would it need those teeth if it swallowed its prey whole?

Have you ever seen the jaws of a large Great White?

Also, I never said the fish swallows all his prey whole.
They would have a tough time swallowing an adult whale whole. Teeth would come handy for that meal.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Have you ever seen the jaws of a large Great White?

Also, I never said the fish swallows all his prey whole.
They would have a tough time swallowing an adult whale whole. Teeth would come handy for that meal.

The story about Jonah and the fish was just a fable, Boxcar...and you are gonna have to deal with that.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Have you ever seen the jaws of a Great White? I have. A large one could easily swallow a human being whole. EASILY. Also, there are reported cases of constricting snakes that have swallowed crocodiles whole, so why not humans?

Getting swallowed whole and living through the experience are not the same thing.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

Getting swallowed whole and living through the experience are not the same thing.

In the belly of the beast for three days. C'mon...

Is it just me...or does Christianity seem to have a mania for the number "three"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The story about Jonah and the fish was just a fable, Boxcar...and you are gonna have to deal with that.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't do reality.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, he doesn't. He doesn't do reality.

That's what happens when you consider a book to be the infallible "Word of God". You are obligated to come up with an excuse for every lunacy reported therein.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In the belly of the beast for three days. C'mon...

Is it just me...or does Christianity seem to have a mania for the number "three"?

I think it does. Also the number "forty". I'm not sure but I think in the flood story in rained for 40 days. And the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years. And didn't Jesus wandered in the wilderness to be tempted by Satan for 40 days?

Also maybe the number 7? I mean beyond the week having 7 days?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't have to frame an argument in the form of a syllogism to prove that it's self-defeating.

Well, you kind of do. All rigorous arguments come down to a syllogism, of a combination of syllogisms, in order to be valid. If I'm wrong then can someone point out a valid accepted argument that is not syllogistic? For example, can the Pythagorean Theorem be proven without syllogisms?

For an argument to be valid the final statement's truth value, the final statement being the proposition or the Q.E.D., has to derive from one or more previous statements. The truth value of those statements must, in turn, derive from other previous statements, all the way back to some primal statements, the premises, whose truth is accepted by all parties. There must be some kind of minimum requirement for some kind of structure or the argument simply is not valid. You are left with claiming to have proven something when you have not.

Let's go through your post #140 sentence by sentence.

Originally Posted by boxcar

140 - Re: Religious thread. Is Man inherently Evil? - 06/11/14

I have explained many times what self-defeating means.

Well, maybe you have. Maybe you have not. Exactly what it means is not really important to the point I'm making here.

Originally Posted by boxcar

In fact, it should be self-evident to all with an IQ number above the length of a shoe lace.

Our old friend the Ad Hominem, which as we all know, or should know, is not an argument at all.

Originally Posted by boxcar

For example, what does "defeat the purpose" mean?

This sentence just asks a question. Again, it does not advance any argument.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Or whenever we do something that is really dumb and is at "cross purposes" with one another?

Same response as previous sentence.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The most poignant ...

Poignant? Invoking a feeling of sadness?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... example AGAIN would be a statement like this:

There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Assuming the one making the statement is serious and is absolutely sure that there is such no thing as absolute truth, then the statement obviously collapses upon itself because his proposition is self-contradictory.

This is a straw man. What has this to do with the question of whether atheism is self-defeating? Nothing! It's a separate question altogether.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Just like athesim!

Circular reasoning. Invoking the proposition to prove the proposition.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You claim: There is no God. But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him. Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -- in which case your philosophy is self-defeating in nature because it is inherently contradictory! And this, sir, makes it a lie because you, implicitly being God, cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense!

Six sentences, all amounting to a big straw man.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Atheism, above all other philosophies, is the most absurd of all human philosophies.

Pure opinion and circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since you are unable to conclusively prove the negative statement, your only other avenue of hope would be to prove [positively] that you have infinite knowledge of all things in the universe.

A red herring, again not addressing the question at hand.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then, and only then, would anyone with a half a brain begin to take your philosophy seriously.

Back to the Ad Hominem.


At this point you drift off into scripture.

My point is that none of your so-called argument addresses the question. It's just a rant. There is not structure. Nothing like ...

A --> B --> C

or even (A and B) --> C

Or an infinite variety of others. I cannot locate anything in boxcar's so-called argument which would qualify and acceptable premises.

I submit to others here that boxcar's post #140 proves nothing. If it does then can anyone, other than boxcar, please explain it to me.