Atheists or Creationists - who's got more faith?

[JimL]

No, you have engaged the dishonest practice of taking things out of context by selecting only a portion of what I wrote.

To wit, I wrote: "I wish to be informed of those beliefs so that when I come across their statements I am able to understand what they are saying and refute them accordingly."

You DISHONESTLY took the words "so that you can refute them" out of the full context and even bolded the words to boot.

My emphasis and goal is to be informed. Refuting comes easily after being informed.

BOOM, you're done!

If your action were punishable with imprisonment, you'd be behind bars right now. Hehe

Jorge

Point is, the only reason you wish to be informed of others beliefs is not to objectively analyze them, but so that you can find some way to refute them. You're not looking for truth, you're simply looking to reinforce what you already believe. You're already in prison Jorge, imprisoned in your own mind!

[TheLurch]

Well, here's a clue -- that "science" is a predictable offshoot of Materialism which is a religious position, as I have been stating.

You need to realize that you stating something doesn't make it accurate.

[shunyadragon]

You need to realize that you stating something doesn't make it accurate.

I think the question is more Fundamentalist Creationism versus Science. Science as science is consistent regardless of religious belief. As far as the foundation of science atheist believe the same as scientists regardless of religious belief. The only difference is that atheists will make the philosophical naturalist assumption that God(s) do not exist.

[carpedm9587]

I truly appreciate you keeping it civil but I'll stop here. After (figuratively) 'bashing my head against numerous walls' I finally learned and accepted some time ago that the desire to reject truth and remain ignorant is unconquerable.

Jorge

As you wish, Jorge. Should you change your mind, you know where to find me. However, the desire to be selective about where I spend my time is not equivalent to "rejecting truth." And I am certainly not "rejecting truth" merely because I do not agree with your interpretation of "what is true."

[Jorge]

Point is, the only reason you wish to be informed of others beliefs is not to objectively analyze them, but so that you can find some way to refute them. You're not looking for truth, you're simply looking to reinforce what you already believe. You're already in prison Jorge, imprisoned in your own mind!

Wrong! And even after I corrected you, you seem unable to accept the fact that you are wrong.

But listen, if you have anything that you think will cause me to rethink-change my mind then please post it. I will OBJECTIVELY consider it and then OBJECTIVELY let you know if you're on to something (or not).

My prediction: Either you will not post anything at all (because Materialism is totally bankrupt) OR what you do post will be the same Materialistic nonsense that has been posted umpteen-hundred times before.

But I'll keep an open mind until I see what you have. Go on ... I be waiting.

Jorge

[Jorge]

You need to realize that you stating something doesn't make it accurate.

The same applies to you and everyone else, kiddo.
Yet you seem to want to apply this to ME alone.
Gee ... why do you think that is?

Thing is, I can defend my claim all the way to the Supreme Court because... well, because it's already been done! Thus, I stand on rock-solid facts, ruled points of law and the consensus of the highest academic researchers. You cannot say the same.

Jorge

[Jorge]

As you wish, Jorge. Should you change your mind, you know where to find me. However, the desire to be selective about where I spend my time is not equivalent to "rejecting truth." And I am certainly not "rejecting truth" merely because I do not agree with your interpretation of "what is true."

Yeah, right ...

Good night.

Jorge

[rogue06]

The same applies to you and everyone else, kiddo.
Yet you seem to want to apply this to ME alone.
Gee ... why do you think that is?

Thing is, I can defend my claim all the way to the Supreme Court because... well, because it's already been done! Thus, I stand on rock-solid facts, ruled points of law and the consensus of the highest academic researchers. You cannot say the same.

Jorge

As a general rule most other posters tend to offer corroborating evidence to support their statements whereas you have a strong tendency to use your own assertions as verification for earlier unsupported claims.

[Roy]

So, the reason that you read Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and the like is so that you can refute them,...

...and quote mine them too.

[carpedm9587]

The same applies to you and everyone else, kiddo.
Yet you seem to want to apply this to ME alone.
Gee ... why do you think that is?

I have no idea what you think I am applying to you alone.

Thing is, I can defend my claim all the way to the Supreme Court because... well, because it's already been done! Thus, I stand on rock-solid facts, ruled points of law and the consensus of the highest academic researchers. You cannot say the same.

Jorge

As you wish, Jorge. I will leave you to your "rock-solid facts."

[TheLurch]

As a general rule most other posters tend to offer corroborating evidence to support their statements whereas you have a strong tendency to use your own assertions as verification for earlier unsupported claims.

Based on past interactions here, it seems that most people other than Jorge recognize that materialism (in the sense of a focus on natural causes) is an operational feature of science, but accepting scientific evidence doesn't require one to adopt a philosophical position that material causes are all that are possible. Hence the acceptance of science by people of nearly every faith.

I'm not sure why Jorge is gloating that his argument made it to the Supreme Court, given that (as advanced by COPE), ti was rejected on the state court level.

In any case, even if you leave science out, my point still stands: what we traditionally view as religion is a coherent set of beliefs, generally from a single collection of sources. Atheism it seems to me doesn't have that feature, though my understanding is that some forms of humanism do.

[Jorge]

As a general rule most other posters tend to offer corroborating evidence to support their statements whereas you have a strong tendency to use your own assertions as verification for earlier unsupported claims.

Yeah, right, so you keep saying.
I've called you, O-Mudd and others out on that claim numerous times.
I've pointed to the countless posts where I provided hard evidence and argued my position.
You just ignore everything and continue parroting your mantras.
That is the antithesis of intellectual discourse and honesty.

There is nothing that I nor anyone can do about such attitudes.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I have no idea what you think I am applying to you alone.



As you wish, Jorge. I will leave you to your "rock-solid facts."

HUH?

Are you well?

Did you even notice that my post was in response to a post by TheLurch, not yours?


Jorge

[carpedm9587]

HUH?

Are you well?

Did you even notice that my post was in response to a post by TheLurch, not yours?

Jorge

I am well, thanks for asking.

I did, however, pour through the thread quickly on my way out, and answered one too many posts...

... which would explain why I wasn't clear on what I was applying only to you.

My apologies.

[Jorge]

Based on past interactions here, it seems that most people other than Jorge recognize that materialism (in the sense of a focus on natural causes) is an operational feature of science, but accepting scientific evidence doesn't require one to adopt a philosophical position that material causes are all that are possible. Hence the acceptance of science by people of nearly every faith.

I'm not sure why Jorge is gloating that his argument made it to the Supreme Court, given that (as advanced by COPE), ti was rejected on the state court level.

In any case, even if you leave science out, my point still stands: what we traditionally view as religion is a coherent set of beliefs, generally from a single collection of sources. Atheism it seems to me doesn't have that feature, though my understanding is that some forms of humanism do.

You don't seem to realize (or accept) that I (Jorge) am highly versed in these matters. I've been involved in this area in one way or another (philosophy, sciences, maths) for nearly 45 years. So when you say "most people here other than Jorge recognize ..." you are displaying rank ignorance or blind prejudice. You don't even use the terms entirely properly. There's Methodological Materialism (MN) and Ontological (or Philosophical) Materialism. The fact is that the former is the operational version of the latter. But it doesn't have to be that way. Proper science is "accepted by people of nearly every faith" because proper science is factual whereas "science" derived from MN has ideological/religious elements embedded into it.

As for "Jorge gloating that his argument made it to the Supreme Court" --- again, you'd do best to remain silent as you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Read the 115-page law review document by John Calvert that I had recommended -- that will get you up to speed.

Finally, your last statement is shallow. Just as there are many 'versions' of Christianity, there are also many versions of Atheism. That is why your statement does not disprove the fact that Atheism (in general) is a religion, as I have been stating.

Jorge