Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is science fact or faith


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 746 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 20:08:30 GMT
I technically quote every time I am replying to a message. As I am doing now. In this instance I am replying to your message as a whole. As I did at 13:25.

No need to play games. If you find what I say difficult, ever, just say so.

Posted on 3 Mar 2013 20:19:05 GMT
Bellatori says:
Wow Diane... you have been active here. Is this where you are hiding to avoid answering the question about God creating the evil in the world?

Posted on 3 Mar 2013 20:43:23 GMT
Spin says:
The question is not whether Science or Religion is Fact or Faith, but whether what you believe is true or false.

Posted on 3 Mar 2013 20:43:46 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2013 20:44:32 GMT
'Technical quote' is a term made of weasel words. You either quote, or you don't.

You failed to do so, claimed otherwise, and are trying to paper over it with made up terms.

It won't do.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 20:44:22 GMT
Who is trying to paper over what?

Posted on 3 Mar 2013 20:45:00 GMT
You and your blatant lie.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 20:48:21 GMT
As you keep saying. Of which I see no evidence. All I see is you trying to worm your way out of the way you painted yourself into a corner with your abrasive dismissal of religion over and against science.

The simple logical conclusion of which you seem to be running away from. A kind of cognitive dissonance.

If you want to just keep asserting I'm lying etc., and if it helps to ease your dissonance, then go right ahead. But just repeating something over and over does not make it true.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 20:55:51 GMT
Bellatori says:
"But just repeating something over and over does not make it true."

I suspect a lot of theists would not agree with that... they keep repeating the mantra 'God exists' but get stuck on the the next word 'because....'

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 20:59:09 GMT
"mantra"? at least there are logical arguments for belief. unlike for unbelief, which relies on "need proof of logic unit" - entirely. Stuck perpetually at the feet of language.

Posted on 3 Mar 2013 21:00:54 GMT
worse. It goes from studying of a rock, to the denying of human civilization itself.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:04:02 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori: "Your vote counts" is another repetative falsity. Or "Your money is safer in a bank"...

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:18:08 GMT
Bellatori says:
"at least there are logical arguments for belief" The whole point of belief and faith in religion is exactly NOT logical argument. If it does not transcend argument and proof then it is not belief and it is certainly not faith.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:24:56 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:25:59 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:35:03 GMT
Bellatori says:
Yes I can... There is not one jot of evidence that supports the existence of a God. That covers the lot really.

Actually your question rather misses the point. Try asking yourself why you do not believe in Father Xmas. You are asking a negative. A better and more sensible question is why should you believe in Father Xmas.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:35:22 GMT
Ian says:
GtL; you've made the claim that "there are logical arguments for belief" many times but I've never seen you present these logical arguments. I don't suppose you're going to now either...?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:37:40 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:43:39 GMT
There is a straw man evident in your post. Can you see it? It's a common one. One used to argue that God has been unproven.

You allegedly perceive of a "God-shaped hole". Meaning you already have an idea of what God is and what God ought to be, and how God ought to be demonstrated. But all of these concepts are straw-men. Necessary for such empty arguments.

You say there's no proof of God, implying you already know what God is and what you have thus not seen, nor been shown. But that's a simple logical fallacy on your behalf (what do you expect, a man on a cloud, a la sistine chapel?). A fallacy, on which is propped up the rest of your so-called argument. Common bad reasoning. It is a straw man of what religion posits as God. You then knock down this straw man and continue to ignore arguments which point to a different idea of God altogether. You've already made your made up on what God is. But it's not based on any religious argument I know nor propose.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:46:04 GMT
Ian says:
That's it? The existence of 2 religious texts is your proof? What tells you they are anything more than mythology? Or just works of fiction?

You know The Bible and The Koran are true because The Bible and The Koran tell you so?

That certainly is true religion: faith without evidence. I'm happy for you that it's enough for you, but it isn't enough for me.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:49:04 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 3 Mar 2013 21:50:15 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:54:34 GMT
Ian says:
"Am I allowed to believe in a logically sound argument?"

You're allowed to believe in anything you like. But you haven't presented a logically sound argument; "Religion must be true because these religious texts say so" is certainly circular, but not a sound argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:54:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Mar 2013 21:55:05 GMT
James Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:55:36 GMT
Ian says:
I'm assuming that was a response to "true religion: faith without evidence."?

In which case we finally agree on something.

Peace

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Mar 2013 21:57:03 GMT
Bellatori says:
"You say there's no proof of God, implying you already know what God"

A straw man is where you posit something and then knock it down. I am positting nothing. I make no claims. I am simply pointing out that those who do make the claim of God have shown not one jot of evidence to back that claim.

The boot is exactly on the other foot. You are making a claim. I am simply asking for proof. You then slid into solipsism. There is no fallacy in my argument as I am not making one. Nor am I ignoring other points of view. you can point and view all you like but when all your goo and drivel evaporate there still remains the unanswered question. Where is your proof for your claim?

"But it's not based on any religious argument I know nor propose." It is interesting that you insert the word religious in here. You should be able to say the sentence without but the truth is you are special pleading. Once again I repeat what I have said before... all things should be measured by the same standards of logic and reason.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  43
Total posts:  746
Initial post:  2 Mar 2013
Latest post:  13 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions