Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old November 4th, 2013, 12:10 PM  
Globalist Shill
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 21
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Religion

Because I don't like leaving after my half-arsed arguments have been torn to shreds - and you did actually put forward a thoughtful and intelligently put together post:
Originally Posted by darthearth View Post
I know that we actually don't know whether it was or wasn't actively guided but we pursue science as if it wasn't as is proper, therefore the possibility of direct indication of an intelligent "guider" is still possible.
What exactly is so 'Intelligent' about the retention of my appendix? Just a thought. I've also admitted - in my first post - that there is a chance that a Intelligent Guider - or God - might exist. However, I find that chance so slim it's negligible. I'm not accepting Negative Proof as a refutation.

Atheists seem to love the "non sequitur" claim, but I have never found them to use it appropriately. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect an intelligent designer given the complexity of our bodies, "non sequitur" is supposed to be a conclusion that does not follow from the premise, the premise here is that we have complex bodies that appear to be designed, it is not by any means a "non sequitur" to presume a designer for lack of definitive proof there wasn't.
It actually is a non sequitur. The name of the fallacy itself is the appeal to ignorance. It's commonly used in a bid to put forward irrational and baseless claims. We can speculate that an Intelligent Designer is guiding the process - which I highly doubt - but we can't use a lack of proof to the contrary - or negative proof - to infer it as you do.

Even criminal courts accept eye witness testimony, yes it needs to be considered objectively and rationally in light of all evidence[...]
Criminal courts accept witness testimony. How many criminal courts make a final decision based solely on this witness testimony alone however? I very much doubt a (serious) criminal case was ever settled on witness testimony alone, though I haven't checked myself.

I died and saw a light / met my loved ones is never going to sound rational to an Atheist. I wouldn't bother trying to frame it as such.

As far as your questions are concerned, the issue here is theism, not Christianity or the outright denial of evolution.
Ah. Ok. I retract my statements that were specifically focused on Christianity in that case.

I feel I have an open mind.
It's not that I don't feel that you've an open mind; I just feel that you - like I - have probably had this exact same debate before - or near enough - and walked away with the same views on the issue. Nothing we put forward is going to change the others mind, I'll say that now.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote