What made you a believer?
Options
Averroes
Members Posts: 4
In whatever you believe? just being curious, not gonna hate on anyone.
Comments
-
I believe that if ? existed, he wouldn't require people to believe in him to go to heaven
What happened to this forum? -
<Serious Answer>
Apart from being raised in a Catholic home I was going through some tough times as a teenager and was facing some legal cases, day before sentencing I had a dream where I was talking to my deceased grandmother. While talking to her, her voice changed to that of a man saying "This is ? , don't worry that everything is going to work out, you just need to promise me that you will start to change". I woke up, went to court, got off with 2 year probation and that just deepened my faith.. -
For me it was reading the ? Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Prior to that point I was an agnostic or deist in my position towards ? . However reading Dawkin's book I found that utter absence of evidence supporting a divine being compelling. As I realized it was not any evidence that caused me to entertain an existence for ? but rather the beliefs of other people who I respected. I realized that given all the other things that lack evidence and had sprung from the imagination of mankind, like faeries or unicorns, I could not place ? in some special box. If all these people suddenly chose to believe in faeries I would not alter my belief in faeries. I would not suddenly become agnostic about them. I would think this person holds some really crazy ideas. Once I realized ? belongs on the list right next to faeries, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny it was simple to realize I was an atheist.
-
Finally they decided to put the IC back up. -
Would you like to post an atheist rebuttal to Craig's "refutation" or are you not really interested in having your lame youtube videos ripped to shreds, Blue Falcon?
-
Good to see some things haven't changed.
-
Darkins makes several arguements aginst the existence of ? inthe ? Delusion. The one he puts forward here was directly agianst those that argue ? by design. To select this arguement as being incomplete because it only address the arguement by design is dishonest.
-
-
Am i to do you job too?
-
Dawkins said himself this is the central argument of his book. And if "who created ? " is the big knock down slam dunk argument against ? . Dawkins might as well hang it up. Like Craig said if you applied this insipid logic to science it would completely collapse and Dawkins would be out of a job.
-
It's the central argument, supported by a variety of other arguments that coalesce together to show why you are a ? head.
-
BOSS KTULU wrote: »It's the central argument, supported by a variety of other arguments that coalesce together to show why you are a ? head.
Yes my friend but if the foundations of the argument is faulty the entire argument is moot.
Or in biblical terms
If the foundations be destoryed what can the righteous do? - Psalm 11:3 -
The foundation's of the argument aren't faulty. Craig just says the argument's insufficient because it doesn't address several other arguments for ? . And he's being dishonest because the book does address a variety of other important arguments.
You don't even know your own ? . -
It wasnt a belief. I just knew. Everybody got a measure of faith. I just dont lie to myself about having it.
-
BOSS KTULU wrote: »The foundation's of the argument aren't faulty. Craig just says the argument's insufficient because it doesn't address several other arguments for ? . And he's being dishonest because the book does address a variety of other important arguments.
You don't even know your own ? .
Other arguments that ulitmately lead up to this very faulty argument. Which in effect nullifies all the other "arguments" (which really aren't even arguments but rather angry bitter diatribes against religion and ? ). And the argument is insufficient it doesn't even logically follow the premises leading up to it and even if they did work all they would do is prove that ? shouldn't be argued from the standpoint of creation but that still doesn't disprove ? . The ? delusion is nothing more than the silly atheist rhetorical formula in book form.
1. Exhalt your own intelligence
2. Talk about how stupid everybody else is.
3. Exhalt how great science is
4. Talk about the Old Testament and mass killings that ? commanded
5. Add in some pseudo-intellectual filler
6. Cap it off with some straw-maning of the theist (and by theist I mean christian since that all atheist really seem to care about). And BAM!!
we go the ? delusion. Ever wonder why nobody other than Dawkins acolytes actually take this book seriously? Because its a very low brow attempt at philosophy and an even worse attempt at arguing theology. His little questions have been asked and answered which is why Dawkins will not step foot on the same stage as Craig because he knows He will get destroyed. -
Oh look, another stupid uninformed post from Blue Falcon. What a surprise.
-
BOSS KTULU wrote: »Oh look, another stupid uninformed post from Blue Falcon. What a surprise.
yep when you cannot actually respond with real argumentation jus ignore it and call it a day. Another silly atheist tactic. -
Falcon,
Can you al least concede the intellectual dishonesty professed by Dr. Craig when he mentions that Dawkin's central premise does not address the Ontological and Cosmological arguements for ? when Dawkins has specific chapters devoted to these arguements?
Dawkins addresses several cases for belief.
1. Design
2. Special circumstance (the world is just perfect for us. As are several laws of the universe. Change any of these and we do not exist.)
3. Causation (Cosmological arguement. Something had to start all this.)
4. Ontological ( ? exists because he does. My childish interprestion of this arguement)
5. Personal experience (The hand of ? touch my heart.)
While design is his strongest attack, in fact the creation ? concept is devastated by it, he still touches on several others. -
blue falcon wrote: »yep when you cannot actually respond with real argumentation jus ignore it and call it a day. Another silly atheist tactic.
You didn't provide "real argumentation." You whined that atheists are mean and made up some straw men to knock down like a big fat baby. -
Falcon,
Can you al least concede the intellectual dishonesty professed by Dr. Craig when he mentions that Dawkin's central premise does not address the Ontological and Cosmological arguements for ? when Dawkins has specific chapters devoted to these arguements?
Dawkins addresses several cases for belief.
1. Design
2. Special circumstance (the world is just perfect for us. As are several laws of the universe. Change any of these and we do not exist.)
3. Causation (Cosmological arguement. Something had to start all this.)
4. Ontological ( ? exists because he does. My childish interprestion of this arguement)
5. Personal experience (The hand of ? touch my heart.)
While design is his strongest attack, in fact the creation ? concept is devastated by it, he still touches on several others.
the central premise doesn't address those issues. In other videos and lectures Dr. Craig does address other points of the book. youtubeuser drcraigvideos has lots of them. Now maybe by saying the "central" argument that might mislead others into believing that other issues aren't addressed in the book but Dr Craig does address other points in other lecutures and debates. -
Well what is the point of arguing that Dawkins design argue being flawed for not addressing the Cosmological question? Which Dr. Craig does not 5 minutes into this video set?
-
Everybody believes in ? . We just believe in different contexts. Science is a religion also.
-
Everybody believes in ? . We just believe in different contexts. Science is a religion also.
Come on fam. Everybody clearly does not believe in ? . and people don't even agree on an exact definition of what "? " means. Science isn't a religion because science involves proving and questioning information. Much of religion calls for faith and not questioning what you're told (at least through my experiences). -
Come on fam. Everybody clearly does not believe in ? . and people don't even agree on an exact definition of what "? " means. Science isn't a religion because science involves proving and questioning information. Much of religion calls for faith and not questioning what you're told (at least through my experiences).
That's my point. The word "? " is so broad. Some people believe in the Big Bang, evolution, YHWH, Allah, etc. All of these are answers to the question everybody is trying to answer. There is a higher power. People say that the Big Bang created the universe. The word "? " can apply to the Big Bang also. Or the conditions that caused the Big Bang. The word "? " gives people the stereotypical image of an old ass white guy with a dumb long beard in the sky on a throne when in actuality the term describes a higher power in general. The better question is whether "? " is conscious or not. -
BrowardCounty wrote: »<Serious Answer>
Apart from being raised in a Catholic home I was going through some tough times as a teenager and was facing some legal cases, day before sentencing I had a dream where I was talking to my deceased grandmother. While talking to her, her voice changed to that of a man saying "This is ? , don't worry that everything is going to work out, you just need to promise me that you will start to change". I woke up, went to court, got off with 2 year probation and that just deepened my faith..
I um had a dream my tenth grade spanish teacher was a serial killer who tried to ? me at my old house...that is how much proof you need...lmmfao any a who umm I like actual facts things that are proven not fairy tales
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDKhDUWBWE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SNpPtltyeE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtgKB-slrNU
