Regarding the Gift

[Zealot]

Stigmatas, cooled embers, grace- such gifts are given to those who prove themselves pure of heart, soul and spirit. The saints are recipients of these and other gifts, but those in league with the Devil also receive gifts- although in their case the gifts are a reward for corruption and not from God. With regard to the saint, divinity touches man and brings him closer to perfection. Meanwhile, he who breathes like the Devil approaches the end of his road to ruin- beyond which there is only misery.

[Goat]

*snip*

But you stake your very life on the unfounded assumption that it will continue to work. That's hardly rational.

Is it unfounded?? Why should I consider it unfounded? It works, it has worked in the past, and it continues to work, and provide results?

From a pragmatic point of view, if it works, and works well, why shouldn't it keep on working in the future?

To throw away a proven methodology because of some metaphysical nonsense seems insane to me.[/quote]

I'm not asking you to throw away a proven methodology. I'm showing you that taking away God throws away that proven methodology.

If the strongest argument you have is "it just works", then that's hardly a foundation. You still haven't answered the question of how you make the connection that because something has worked in the past, it will in the future. You keep dancing around the question.

Dancing is something you scold theists for, goat. Set a good example for us.

Skyler[/quote]

What has God to do with any proven methodlogy? THe scientific method is totally secular, and it is independent of the meaning of if god is there or not there.

Your point is one big logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'. You are making the scientific method into something it isn't to try to prove god.

It sounds to me that you know that God is not a matter of the physical world, and have no evidence for it, but you desperately want to justify your belief in it.

I suggest you stop tilting at windmills.

[Skyler]

*snip*

I'm not asking you to throw away a proven methodology. I'm showing you that taking away God throws away that proven methodology.

If the strongest argument you have is "it just works", then that's hardly a foundation. You still haven't answered the question of how you make the connection that because something has worked in the past, it will in the future. You keep dancing around the question.

Dancing is something you scold theists for, goat. Set a good example for us.

Skyler

What has God to do with any proven methodlogy? THe scientific method is totally secular, and it is independent of the meaning of if god is there or not there.

It's methodologically atheistic, not metaphysically atheistic. You keep confusing the two.

Your point is one big logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'. You are making the scientific method into something it isn't to try to prove god.

I hadn't noticed. What am I making it into?

I suggest you stop tilting at windmills.

"Windmill" is a fascinating analogy for a circular argument. Both go around and around and never get anywhere.

Skyler

[Goat]

*snip*

I'm not asking you to throw away a proven methodology. I'm showing you that taking away God throws away that proven methodology.

If the strongest argument you have is "it just works", then that's hardly a foundation. You still haven't answered the question of how you make the connection that because something has worked in the past, it will in the future. You keep dancing around the question.

Dancing is something you scold theists for, goat. Set a good example for us.

Skyler

What has God to do with any proven methodlogy? THe scientific method is totally secular, and it is independent of the meaning of if god is there or not there.

It's methodologically atheistic, not metaphysically atheistic. You keep confusing the two.

Your point is one big logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'. You are making the scientific method into something it isn't to try to prove god.

I hadn't noticed. What am I making it into?

I suggest you stop tilting at windmills.

"Windmill" is a fascinating analogy for a circular argument. Both go around and around and never get anywhere.

Skyler

Well, honestly, my impression is that you want people to give up a methodology that has been developed and has proven it's worth over hundreds of years, because you can't justify your belief using it's requirements.

That isn't going to happen. People won't give up a methodology that works just because your faith can't meet it's standards.

[Skyler]

Well, honestly, my impression is that you want people to give up a methodology that has been developed and has proven it's worth over hundreds of years, because you can't justify your belief using it's requirements.

1. Aren't you trying to get people to give up a belief that has been developed and proved over hundreds of years, just because it can't be proved scientifically?

2. I don't want you to give up that belief. I want you to realize that if one believes there is no God then to be consistent he/she must reject logic as well.

That isn't going to happen. People won't give up a methodology that works just because your faith can't meet it's standards.

No, people prefer to stick to blind faith even when their worldview is crumbling around them. Sad, isn't it?

[msmcneal]

I want you to realize that if one believes there is no God then to be consistent he/she must reject logic as well.

Two questions:

1. What is your definition of the word "logic"?
2. Why would one have to give up logic just because they give up the god-belief?

[Skyler]

I want you to realize that if one believes there is no God then to be consistent he/she must reject logic as well.

Two questions:

1. What is your definition of the word "logic"?
2. Why would one have to give up logic just because they give up the god-belief?

Whoops, wrong thread.

I meant "the scientific method". And I explained why earlier--there's no rational reason to trust your life to an unfounded assertion, which is all the scientific method is reduced to in the atheistic worldview.

[Goat]

I want you to realize that if one believes there is no God then to be consistent he/she must reject logic as well.

Two questions:

1. What is your definition of the word "logic"?
2. Why would one have to give up logic just because they give up the god-belief?

Whoops, wrong thread.

I meant "the scientific method". And I explained why earlier--there's no rational reason to trust your life to an unfounded assertion, which is all the scientific method is reduced to in the atheistic worldview.

And here you are assuming that the scientific method is 'atheistic'.. Which is wrong. There is a difference between 'atheistic' and 'non-theistic'.

The scientific method is atheistic like plumbing is atheistic, or building a car is atheistic, or going swimming is atheistic, or cooking a meal is atheistic.

The scientific method is great for dealing with things in the physical realm, such as, .. well, science, physics, forensics, history, paleontology, biology, electronics, biology, and all those things we call 'reality'.

It doesn't deal with metaphysics. However, if someone makes a physical claim based on their religious belief, then the scientific method can be used to examine that physical claim.

[Skyler]

And here you are assuming that the scientific method is 'atheistic'.. Which is wrong. There is a difference between 'atheistic' and 'non-theistic'.

The scientific method is atheistic like plumbing is atheistic, or building a car is atheistic, or going swimming is atheistic, or cooking a meal is atheistic.

Or like modern atheists are atheistic. They "don't believe" in the existence of God, rather than believing He doesn't exist. This places them in the same category as plumbing, cats, or rocks.

Which is why I think that definition of atheism is inadequate. It's something that nonthinking items do with regularity.

However, that's the commonly accepted use of the term, so that's the way in which I am using it.

Skyler

[Goat]

And here you are assuming that the scientific method is 'atheistic'.. Which is wrong. There is a difference between 'atheistic' and 'non-theistic'.

The scientific method is atheistic like plumbing is atheistic, or building a car is atheistic, or going swimming is atheistic, or cooking a meal is atheistic.

Or like modern atheists are atheistic. They "don't believe" in the existence of God, rather than believing He doesn't exist. This places them in the same category as plumbing, cats, or rocks.

Which is why I think that definition of atheism is inadequate. It's something that nonthinking items do with regularity.

However, that's the commonly accepted use of the term, so that's the way in which I am using it.

Skyler

Well, I am very puzzled that you have to attempt to redefine words to try to make a point. Words are used for communication, and the term 'atheistic' is very precise, and is 'non-theistic'. Nontheistic doesn't care if God exists or not. Atheistic does not believe in Gods.

Now, if you are so huff and puff critical of the scientific method because it is 'atheistic' (a false claim as far as I am concerned'), what method would YOU suggest be used? Describe your methodology that should be used .

[Skyler]

And here you are assuming that the scientific method is 'atheistic'.. Which is wrong. There is a difference between 'atheistic' and 'non-theistic'.

The scientific method is atheistic like plumbing is atheistic, or building a car is atheistic, or going swimming is atheistic, or cooking a meal is atheistic.

Or like modern atheists are atheistic. They "don't believe" in the existence of God, rather than believing He doesn't exist. This places them in the same category as plumbing, cats, or rocks.

Which is why I think that definition of atheism is inadequate. It's something that nonthinking items do with regularity.

However, that's the commonly accepted use of the term, so that's the way in which I am using it.

Skyler

Well, I am very puzzled that you have to attempt to redefine words to try to make a point. Words are used for communication, and the term 'atheistic' is very precise, and is 'non-theistic'. Nontheistic doesn't care if God exists or not. Atheistic does not believe in Gods.

That being the case, isn't science atheistic rather than nontheistic? It attempts to explain things beginning with the assumption that that "thing" was caused naturally rather than by God. It's not that it doesn't care, rather that it specifically excludes that as a possibility.

Now, if you are so huff and puff critical of the scientific method because it is 'atheistic' (a false claim as far as I am concerned'), what method would YOU suggest be used? Describe your methodology that should be used .

I have no problem with the scientific method. It's methodologically atheistic, and that I have no problem with because as a rule God does not supernaturally intervene in his creation. However, it's not metaphysically atheistic, in that it has as a prerequisite God as the creator and maintainer of order.

If there is no God, there is no such maintainer, and no reason to think that the laws of nature apply in every instance.

Skyler