Recent content by TanNinety

I agree with the gist of your argument. For discussion’s sake let’s consider the following. How do we know the starting point is wrong? What if it’s the conclusion that’s faulty? What are your reasons to pick the former to the latter? There is scientific inquiry into various...

Not all consequences of an atheist being wrong are horrible though. One of the consequence is that he is reincarnated over and over(assuming another religion is true and Christianity wrong). Here's a question and I think ivdavid could entertain this as well. According to Christianity, what is...

At this point I think we are going back in circles with the semantic disjoint of what faith each of us is referring to. We have provided good portion of arguments so far, so we can leave it to the readers to draw their conclusions.

Adam was God-breathed (how he became a living soul). Yet the bible shows how Adam was fallible. So, God-breathed is not equal to infallible. Given this your conclusion all or nothing of the bible since it’s God-breathed is not valid. If I say, I never lie, and then I lie, it neither makes me...

You hold an opinion that you are not sure of ..umm faith much? I’m teasing ya :) Here’s how I see your statement: Opinion + Doubt. Opinion: God does not exist. Doubt: We can't know for sure one way or the other unless he physically manifests and does something that proves he exists. Your...

1. I agree that the onus is on you to prove that an invisible pink unicorn lives in your basement. 2. I really don't know if there is one or not. 3. You try to convince me but I just don't see the invisible unicorn. 4. After multiple attempts, I still can't see it. So I still don't know if there...

My contention is that there isn’t any observable evidence against supernatural. If there is, what is it? You are reading no evidence for supernatural as evidence against supernatural, which in my previous posts I pointed out as a logical fallacy. I cannot stress this enough :) To remove all...

I completely agree. So instead of assuming whatever definition I wanted, I went with the definition kpd560 provided. Here’s the skeleton of my argument: If, Sun will rise tomorrow requires no faith at all, hence believing in sunrise is a non-faith based system. Consider, Believing in my god...

That is bad science/logic. One doesn’t try to fit data into a theory. It’s theory that is revised and made to fit data. Person A had experience of god - data – there is no god. Person B had experience of god – similar data – there is no god. Person C had experience of god – similar...

Will you be able to live a meaningful life when you know without a doubt that God exists? I stop lying because I know sky-daddy is watching. Will then my conscience have the same satisfaction of avoiding a vice if I did something because I know I don’t want to be punished rather than do...

Yup, makes sense! On that thought we are both in alignment. But here’s the rub ..logically ..that conclusion is a fallacy. Argumentun ad ignorantiam is logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a proposition is true because it has not been shown false or false because it has not been shown...

I agree with a lot of things you have to say about religion, seekandlisten, but here's where we differ I was going to ask what the scientific approach was but since you edited for clarity I will go with that. I am a bit confused here. Can you tell me what definition of ‘assumption’ you are...

I'm sorry you feel that way, but so far I haven't found logical_bob being disingenuous in his approach at all. However, I do know the people you are referring to, who are a distraction on religious forums, but I don't see that logical_bob fits into that category.

I agree we aren’t miles apart in our thinking :). I will hopefully show the very subtle differences that we hold. I concur with most of the above except for the use of the word ‘proper’. Imagine a theist saying, “I am entitled to say that you don’t have any proper tools/setup to...

So, we are still rejecting evidence here. At the end of the day we are defining evidence in such a way that ‘personal experience’ is out of scope. It’s like saying, prove macro evolution is true, while ‘fossils’ are excluded from my definition of evidence. It wouldn’t fly with an...