Arvestaked Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 So my answer remains that I believe God exists because the Bible states that God exists and I believe the Bible to be the true Words of God revealed to man. This is a circular argument. Circular arguments are fallacious arguments. That makes it completely meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Dawkins is an exceptional biologist but a very bad philosopher who has no clue and has shown to be inept to understand humanity beyond it's biological componment. Others make stronger cases such as Carl Sagan or Martin Rees who himself criticised Dawkins extremism. Just a simple response to this... There is a fallacious argument here as well. Someone being critical of another's "extremism" (whatever the context of that critique maybe) in itself does not prove that he is a philosopher without merit. Making blanket statements about his alleged ineptitude is cowardly and useless. I've read a lot of Dawkins and he is just fine, especially since he cites other people with more authority on a subject or cites studies and puts them in the proper context in the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 This is a circular argument. Circular arguments are fallacious arguments. That makes it completely meaningless. Arvestaked, Don't write me off so quickly. Let me explain my argument a little more. The question in this forum is asked, "Do you believe in God?" If I answered this questions that I believe God exists, therefore God exists, then it would be a pure circular argument and would be illogical. But my argument is that I believe God exists Because the Bible states that God exists, and since the Bible attests to God existing and is the true Words of God, then God exists. I believe my argument is not fallacious because I am being honest with what my ultimate starting point is. I am telling you up front that my basic presupposition (starting point) of arguing is the authority of the Bible and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I then base my arguments off of that and I showed earlier the arguments from the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21) and the world around us as two brief examples for the existence of God. Is not every argument based on some kind of ultimate standard...For example, what are you basing your conclusions on? Some people choose human reason, some here use Dawkins, some use their feelings, anything. Since all arguments have an ultimate starting point, then all arguments are circular, then we are all guilty of circularity. No argument can be completely neutral, it's all based on some basic starting point. I choose to base mine on God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ, my Lord and my Savior. What do you believe and why do you believe it? Roger Romans 10:9 "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Just a simple response to this... There is a fallacious argument here as well. Someone being critical of another's "extremism" (whatever the context of that critique maybe) in itself does not prove that he is a philosopher without merit. Making blanket statements about his alleged ineptitude is cowardly and useless. I've read a lot of Dawkins and he is just fine, especially since he cites other people with more authority on a subject or cites studies and puts them in the proper context in the argument. So much has been already written about the book (by including skeptics), I won't repeat what has already been said. Hawkins book is flawed on many aspect. There is really something wrong when a scientist trepass his field and hit on a such a way on people belief. This is the job of philosophers not a scientist who has been shown to be a very bad philosopher. Hawkins introduce his evolutionary theories to explain religion, which is great, but he doesn't consider that perhaps as a behavior of the majority as far back in history, this behavior might have remained because it provided an evolutionary advantage. If you want to sell science, you talk about the beatury of nature, you do not hit on other people belief, you will only alienate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vera Posted April 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 ... my argument is that I believe God exists Because the Bible states that God exists, and since the Bible attests to God existing and is the true Words of God, then God exists. Oh my god!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aratta-Kingdom Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I haven't run out of anything. You're not even asking for arguments; you're stalling by asking for definitions hoping that I would fail to articulate something so you can continue worshiping gaps. As a matter of fact you're asking for definitions of things mentioned in a tangential conversation that has nothing to do with my argument with you. You thing you are being clever and philosophical but real it is just pathetic and lazy. And annoying for that matter. 1. I made it clear in my posts that I don't belive in god. If you were to have a little respect for what the others think, you could/would have noticed that long time ago. At the same time, I must say that I have deep respect for true believers. 2. Throwing big ideas into a conversation doesn't make you look clever either. In fact, your statements contradict each other...and that gives me a reason to believe that you have no clue what you are talking about. 3. Anyone with enough self-confidence, would have stopped this conversation long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 1. I made it clear in my posts that I don't belive in god. If you were to have a little respect for what the others think, you could/would have noticed that long time ago. At the same time, I must say that I have deep respect for true believers. 2. Throwing big ideas into a conversation doesn't make you look clever either. In fact, your statements contradict each other...and that gives me a reason to believe that you have no clue what you are talking about. 3. Anyone with enough self-confidence, would have stopped this conversation long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanetsi Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Okay, time for a twist. Does God believe in you? HA How about another twist: Does God believe in God? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Vanetsi, if you as much as believe in yourself then God believes God 100% more then you believe in yourself!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 True story... On Thursday our company was on a sales call(3-4 of our guys) and came to a 1+ million dollar deal agreement. At the last second the CMO said to everyone in the conference room. "We will give you the check is everyone here believes in God". We got the deal... But I am glad I was not there because my answer would have been "Sorry but I dont" followed by "I dont believe in Santa Clause nor the tooth fairy as well" The important question is that why do religious people with a bit of power(in this case a million dollar deal) have to force their views on others? I use to think that religious people were kind and treated all equal and all that but what I have realized is that the most aggressive are the religious(Bush comes to mind). They have the mentality of my way or the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Azat jan, I know as a fact that not all of us religious people use our religion for our advantages or forcing someone to be on our side... I don't know what kind of a person you working for but I know that me and my whole family and ancestors and everyone that I know who are religious do not have mentality like you explain it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanetsi Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Vanetsi, if you as much as believe in yourself then God believes God 100% more then you believe in yourself!!! Jesus Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 (edited) Arvestaked, Don't write me off so quickly. Let me explain my argument a little more. The question in this forum is asked, "Do you believe in God?" If I answered this questions that I believe God exists, therefore God exists, then it would be a pure circular argument and would be illogical. But my argument is that I believe God exists Because the Bible states that God exists, and since the Bible attests to God existing and is the true Words of God, then God exists. I believe my argument is not fallacious because I am being honest with what my ultimate starting point is. I am telling you up front that my basic presupposition (starting point) of arguing is the authority of the Bible and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I then base my arguments off of that and I showed earlier the arguments from the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21) and the world around us as two brief examples for the existence of God. Is not every argument based on some kind of ultimate standard...For example, what are you basing your conclusions on? Some people choose human reason, some here use Dawkins, some use their feelings, anything. Since all arguments have an ultimate starting point, then all arguments are circular, then we are all guilty of circularity. No argument can be completely neutral, it's all based on some basic starting point. I choose to base mine on God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ, my Lord and my Savior. What do you believe and why do you believe it? Roger Romans 10:9 "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved." It is a circular argument because as you state it the bible's authority is dependent on a god's existence and the god's existence is dependent on the bible's authority. Edited April 13, 2008 by Arvestaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 So much has been already written about the book (by including skeptics), I won't repeat what has already been said. Hawkins book is flawed on many aspect. There is really something wrong when a scientist trepass his field and hit on a such a way on people belief. This is the job of philosophers not a scientist who has been shown to be a very bad philosopher. Hawkins introduce his evolutionary theories to explain religion, which is great, but he doesn't consider that perhaps as a behavior of the majority as far back in history, this behavior might have remained because it provided an evolutionary advantage. If you want to sell science, you talk about the beatury of nature, you do not hit on other people belief, you will only alienate them. What single book by Dawkins are you talking about? He has many books. And I have to say that I am part of the skeptic community and follow it to a reasonable degree and Dawkins is considered a champion of the movement. People need to accept nature as being natural before they can find beauty in it. The universe does become more beautiful when the supernatural is removed from the equation but people who do not want to understand how nature truly works will not be open to seeing it. And there is nothing wrong with a scientist promoting scientific principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 1. I made it clear in my posts that I don't belive in god. If you were to have a little respect for what the others think, you could/would have noticed that long time ago. At the same time, I must say that I have deep respect for true believers. I don't care what your belief is in your heart of hearts. I only care about what you are defending and how you are defending it. 2. Throwing big ideas into a conversation doesn't make you look clever either. In fact, your statements contradict each other...and that gives me a reason to believe that you have no clue what you are talking about. I don't have big ideas. I don't know what that means. 3. Anyone with enough self-confidence, would have stopped this conversation long time ago. Not necessarily. That's a baseless assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 It is a circular argument because as you state it the bible's authority is dependent on a god's existence and the god's existence is dependent on the bible's authority. Of course Rog breaks that circle by randomly declaring the Bible to be "Truth" Rather convenient. But Rog, Arvestaked is absolutely right about your circular thinking about the Bible. You can't rely on the Bible to validate the notion of God and then rely on God to put forth the infallable Bible. That is not "smart". Actually, as I have said before, that is in essence being mentally retarded in that you are unable to analyze your thinking at more than the current step at a time. When thinking about the Bible you assume it is True and when thinking about God you assume it exists while the whole time it is always one validating the other and nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 What single book by Dawkins are you talking about? He has many books. And I have to say that I am part of the skeptic community and follow it to a reasonable degree and Dawkins is considered a champion of the movement. People need to accept nature as being natural before they can find beauty in it. The universe does become more beautiful when the supernatural is removed from the equation but people who do not want to understand how nature truly works will not be open to seeing it. And there is nothing wrong with a scientist promoting scientific principles. As far as I am aware, only one of his books was provided here. As for nature, I see the belief in supernatural as a human behavior therefor natural. But that is beside the point, the point is that his methodology has been shown to only alienate people and fail the purouses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Of course Rog breaks that circle by randomly declaring the Bible to be "Truth" Rather convenient. But Rog, Arvestaked is absolutely right about your circular thinking about the Bible. You can't rely on the Bible to validate the notion of God and then rely on God to put forth the infallable Bible. That is not "smart". Actually, as I have said before, that is in essence being mentally retarded in that you are unable to analyze your thinking at more than the current step at a time. When thinking about the Bible you assume it is True and when thinking about God you assume it exists while the whole time it is always one validating the other and nothing more. Sip, I am not denying that my argument is circular, but I was trying to show that all arguments are based on a starting point if you take it back far enough. Therefore it would seem that all arguments would be called circular. A person who bases their unbelief in God must base that argument on something if you go back far enough. Let me give you a quote: "To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one's conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point." That is the reason why I break the circular chain by stating that my self-authenticating starting point is the Bible. Also, I am arguing for the existence of the Christian God only. The Bible is my starting point. The Bible tells us that God exits, He created the world and He declares His glory in the creation. It is self evident that God exists by looking at the creation around us. There are other arguments that I could use apart from the Bible to prove God's existence, such as: 1) the design and complexity in the universe argue for a creator, 2) the world must have been caused by a supreme being, and 3) the presence of absolute truths, morals, and value only makes sense if God exists. Why do you believe that God does not exist? How do you break your circular argument? I respect those who do not believe in the Christian God. I hope that we can have an honest open dialogue about this without attacking one's character. Roger Psalm 19:1 "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 What single book by Dawkins are you talking about? He has many books. And I have to say that I am part of the skeptic community and follow it to a reasonable degree and Dawkins is considered a champion of the movement. People need to accept nature as being natural before they can find beauty in it. The universe does become more beautiful when the supernatural is removed from the equation but people who do not want to understand how nature truly works will not be open to seeing it. And there is nothing wrong with a scientist promoting scientific principles. I complity agree, ( never expected it from you to be honest) my sentiments exactly, peace and Harmony with sroundings, the Sun (some see it as God, including myself) are much better. there are at list 20 versions of Bible out there, for those who are interested, I would strongly recommend Andrew Collins. http://www.andrewcollins.com/pics/ashes_cover.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Why do you believe that God does not exist? I have never said I believe God does not exist. What I have said is the reasoning you give for the existence of your God is just stupid. As I have told Ashot NUMEROUS times in this thread, if you set forth an idea and expect people to believe you, the burden is on YOU to say why. You can't just say: "Oh look I believe in God because the Bible tells me to and God wrote the Bible so there. Prove me wrong." Hellllllloooo .. HOW many times do we have to rehash this idiotic thing over and over? Admit you believe in God for no good reason and we can get on with our lives. But somehow trying to make a case about why you believe what you believe is only going to lead to more of the same. You and Ashot saying "why don't you believe in God" and me over and over saying I didn't say that. I asked why you believe in your God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 (edited) I have never said I believe God does not exist. It's time to share your own opinion before you coment on ours - DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS OR NOT? What I have said is the reasoning you give for the existence of your God is just stupid. Your reasoning sounds worse to me As I have told Ashot NUMEROUS times in this thread, if you set forth an idea and expect people to believe you, the burden is on YOU to say why. As I have told you twice as more then you have told me, I did not start this topic nor was I the one to forth an idea and expect you to believe in GOD, go hunt the person who did... My suggest is before you post something, go read the whole thread, and if you have - then at a point you were lost my dear Sip!!! You can't just say: "Oh look I believe in God because the Bible tells me to and God wrote the Bible so there. Prove me wrong." Hellllllloooo .. HOW many times do we have to rehash this idiotic thing over and over? Sip you are trying to jump over your own head, it is not possible... you constantly come here with your insults and telling us that believeing in God is wrong and pointless, then state a fact, not that what we say is stupid or idiotic!!! as I said many times before, when someone starts the insulting there is no more arguments left for them, especially when they came in here with no fact to begin with. Admit you believe in God for no good reason and we can get on with our lives. But somehow trying to make a case about why you believe what you believe is only going to lead to more of the same. You and Ashot saying "why don't you believe in God" and me over and over saying I didn't say that. I asked why you believe in your God. No sir you are wrong, there are things that cannot be explained, and if someone tried to explain to you why we believe in God, and you have chosen to neglect it and not even hear about it, nor you will accept it even if you thought it was true, there is not much to be explained to you, you won't get it nor you will accept it, intolerant is your position in this matter my friend, go back to your science and math, there is not room for you in this thread ... I believe in God for my own reasons, for me to know for you to go and find out yourself, without my help ~ I won't help you in this case, anything else you are welcome, this matter is too complicated for you to understand!!! Edited April 14, 2008 by Ashot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 (edited) As far as I am aware, only one of his books was provided here. As for nature, I see the belief in supernatural as a human behavior therefor natural. But that is beside the point, the point is that his methodology has been shown to only alienate people and fail the purouses. I personally have mentioned The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, and Unweaving the Rainbow. The most recently mentioned book, The God Delusion, is also his most recently published one -- 2006, I believe. And so there actually isn't much response to it except for a handful of creationist reactions. Non-theists believe that everything we observe about life in general is a product of evolution and therefore part of nature. Therefore religious and superstitious thoughts are a natural development. But these are the beliefs. Just because the belief in a god is a natural occurance through evolution in society does not make the object of the belief natural in itself. And so it follows that the beliefs may have occured naturally but that does not make them right. Saying belief in a god is natural therefore god is natural is flawed logic. You are making up "facts" about his "methodology." It has not been "shown" anywhere. Many have been converted by Dawkins. That is a fact. Probably very few of them were extremely devout evangelicals but there is a population that does get affected by his books. And it is not just about converting: people who are in the closet, so to speak, can be encouraged to accept who they are and others like me can gain by feeling less alone -- it is quite a lonely position -- and by also being armed by the proper articulation of our ideas. Edited April 14, 2008 by Arvestaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 You are making up "facts" about his "methodology." It has not been "shown" anywhere. Many have been converted by Dawkins. That is a fact. Probably very few of them were extremely devout evangelicals but there is a population that does get affected by his books. And it is not just about converting: people who are in the closet, so to speak, can be encouraged to accept who they are and others like me can gain by feeling less alone -- it is quite a lonely position -- and by also being armed by the proper articulation of our ideas. I have only read the God Delusion, so I can only comment about that one, and that was what Azat brought and my answer related to that. I actually doubt that Dawkins has really converted anyone. And science is not about converting people but enlightmen. Dawkins never has covered adequatly the role of superstitions in human evolution and it's advantage. As a behavior not only it has survived by remained among the majority of the population. The concept of a god is not a delusion, there is no delusion in believing a creator of things which they see as their imediate universe. Dawkins actually rather dismiss the personal god (Judeo-Christian one) than having to deal with this. There is no point in trying to prove the non-existance of something, it's akward thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 I have only read the God Delusion, so I can only comment about that one, and that was what Azat brought and my answer related to that. I actually doubt that Dawkins has really converted anyone. And science is not about converting people but enlightmen. Dawkins never has covered adequatly the role of superstitions in human evolution and it's advantage. As a behavior not only it has survived by remained among the majority of the population. The concept of a god is not a delusion, there is no delusion in believing a creator of things which they see as their imediate universe. Dawkins actually rather dismiss the personal god (Judeo-Christian one) than having to deal with this. There is no point in trying to prove the non-existance of something, it's akward thinking. This is all rhetoric. You can doubt whatever you want but you aren't doubting it for any reason other than you would like it to be so. Saying "science is not about converting people but enlightment" is just meaningless. Anybody has a right to promote science and reason. Writing a book about atheism is not a hypothesis or an experiment; it is simply writing a book promoting science. First you say that you have only read The God Delusion then you say "Dawkins never has covered adequatly..." To that I say how do you know? You have read a book with the purpose of presenting a general understanding to the issue from all sides. And what do you consider accurate? He does mention it throughout his books and talks about the various possibilities. There really is not much more one can do for the layman. Believing in a cause for which there is no evidence is delusional. You make not like it but it is unavoidable. Dawkins deals with all aspects of superstitious thoughts. You must not have been paying close attention. And it is not about proving non-existence. It is about showing that there is no reason to believe. There is a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 This is full of assumptions..., I have absolutly no reason to like it to be so. I am neither an atheist neither a theist. What I have against, is that the name of science is used to sell ideologies (in this case atheism), like it or not, this is what is done. This is not a promotion of science, the goal of the book (again the one which I have read) is not about the beauty of evolution, it is not about the beauty of the universe. Those are the promotion of science, teaching the beauty of nature. As for delusion, this is not what it is to be delusional, adhering to a position because you have been taught about it since childhood is not delusional. The term delusion is a psychitratic term with a clear classification..., it is actually human to believe that everything must have come from somewhere. This is how superstitions have emerged. It's human. We're in a circular discussion, so I will stop here. This is all rhetoric. You can doubt whatever you want but you aren't doubting it for any reason other than you would like it to be so. Saying "science is not about converting people but enlightment" is just meaningless. Anybody has a right to promote science and reason. Writing a book about atheism is not a hypothesis or an experiment; it is simply writing a book promoting science. First you say that you have only read The God Delusion then you say "Dawkins never has covered adequatly..." To that I say how do you know? You have read a book with the purpose of presenting a general understanding to the issue from all sides. And what do you consider accurate? He does mention it throughout his books and talks about the various possibilities. There really is not much more one can do for the layman. Believing in a cause for which there is no evidence is delusional. You make not like it but it is unavoidable. Dawkins deals with all aspects of superstitious thoughts. You must not have been paying close attention. And it is not about proving non-existence. It is about showing that there is no reason to believe. There is a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.