The Argument Against Arguing Against Religion

You're simply assuming that the Bible is true without evidence that it is, which is illogical.

The main reason I argue against the religious point of view is, the attempts to displace science with faith in the classroom, passing fairh-based laws at others' expense, etc. It the religious truly wished to live and let live, they would back off.

Fact
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

So to the believer God is considered a fact based on objective reality...

To the non-believer God is not considered a fact based on belief that there was never an actual occurance of the things the bible says and there's no physical proof of His existence.

Logic
1 a
(1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
(2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic>
(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS
(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b
(1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty
(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun

To the believer God is a logical explanation because to themselves their reasoning is valid because they believe what the bible says is true therefore providing evidence to them of a sequence of facts and events seen as inevitable and/or predictable.

To the non-believer God is not a logical explanation because the believers reasoning is faulty since there is not a science within it that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration

Evidence:
: to offer evidence of : PROVE, EVINCE

Now, based on all that's been said above:

To the believer there is evidence of God because their facts are based on objective reality and their logic comes from the bible.

To the non-believer there is no evidence of God because the things the bible contains are not considered facts nor is there logic because there's no demonstration of His existence.

So my assertions is this:

What is fact to me may not be fact to you:

Does that then make it any less a fact?

What is logic to me may not be logic to you:

Does that then make it any less logical?

What is evidence to me may not be evidence to you:

If we continue demanding proof of God, they will continue trying to come up with it, and because they cannot come up with anything, they are left with attacking anything they consider to be negative proof of God as their only option.

Objective reality? Interesting. Don't see that portion of the definition in my dictionary here.

If you left out the bit about there 'never being an actual occurence of the things the bible says' then the rest is agreeable.

It's logical because a ginormous assumption is made at the outset that the bible is an accurate accounting and proof of God's existence. Which is illogical.

Incorrect, as the facts you speak of aren't facts, but assumptions. Those 'assumptions' come from the bible.

Incorrect. A fact is a fact is a fact. That you refute logic in favor of an assumption does not alter what a fact is.

What you call evidence is a book that you assume to be accurate. Since it's accuracy will never be proven it can't properly be labeled evidence.

Appreciate the post Heph! Thanks for taking all the time.

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Metaphysical objectivism is the theory that there is an underlying reality that exists independent of our perception and consciousness. This is in contrast to metaphysical subjectivism.

The importance of perception in evaluating and understanding objective reality is debated. Realism sides that perception is key in directly observing objective reality, while instrumentalism holds that perception is not necessarily useful in directly observing objective reality, but is useful in interpreting and predicting reality. The concept that encompasses these ideas is important to philosophical foundation of science.

The significance of probability to objectivism is recognized when attempting to understand situations with unknown underlying truths. For example, suppose you flip a coin without looking at it, and then cover it with a piece of paper. Objectivism assumes that there is an underlying truth about the state of the coin, regardless of the fact that you cannot see it. Probability becomes useful in understanding and realizing possible situations of this unknown part of objective reality.

Ok, just a quick answer for you here. First of all objective reality is not a crutch for me, thank you very much. I think you will see that with the following statement:

You are saying my perspective is wrong because it doesn't match your perspective.

Your perspective comes from different sources than mine. So who's sources are wrong here? Yours or mine?

I assert mine are correct to me simply because of the perspective I choose.

I also assert that yours are correct to you simply because of the perspective you choose.

Which is my case and point here.

Exactally!

I would also like to add some food for thought, if that's ok, before I call it a night:

A lot of what I say cannot be taken just at face value. I'm a very deep thinker. The way I relate to things, issues, people, is much different than most. I recognize this. I try to be good and keep things in a perspective where people can actually get what I'm saying. However, that doesn't always work out so well for me. I don't take things at face value. I try to look behind the words that appear on the screen. I try to look at it from the perspective of the writer so I can better understand where they are coming from.

So being as I am, I sometimes forget that not everyone see's things this way because I think everyone thinks like me! (LOL, they should though... it would make my life a lot easier! whoooo... just kidding!)

This also applies to me, I shoot from a perspective not shared by many. However, in my opinion your problem is not intelligence, it's communication skills. An idea is worthless in a discussion if you cannot effectively communicate it.

This is not meant to be offensive as I think a lot if not a majority of people who post on this site share this impediment.

I do see a glimmer of intelligence in your words. Your communication skills are improving. Eventually what you are saying will be coming out with crystal clarity. Eventually.

Interestingly enough that is the 3rd Satanic sin.
Sinner.

It's logical because a ginormous assumption is made at the outset that the bible is an accurate accounting and proof of God's existence. Which is illogical.

Questioner wrote:

It's logical because a ginormous assumption is made at the outset that the bible is an accurate accounting and proof of God's existence. Which is illogical.

You may consider it insufficiently substantiated, but that is not the same as illogical.

If you wish to substantiate the Bible as an accurate representation of God's relation with man, for instance, you can do so.

Let's use prayer as an example.

1. Find out from the Bible how and under what circumstances God (as recorded in the Bible) says He will answer prayer.

2. Be sure you are actively meeting those criteria.

3. Pray.

You will find ample substantiation for the Bible's teaching on this by your subsequent experience in receiving answered prayer.

Is this not like a scientific experiment?

The difficulty of course is in repeatability because it is impossible to EXACTLY replicate conditions and circumstances in order to repeat the same thing a second or third time, etc.

But I don't mind having different prayers answered.

Questioner wrote:

It's logical because a ginormous assumption is made at the outset that the bible is an accurate accounting and proof of God's existence. Which is illogical.

You may consider it insufficiently substantiated, but that is not the same as illogical.

If you wish to substantiate the Bible as an accurate representation of God's relation with man, for instance, you can do so.

Let's use prayer as an example.

1. Find out from the Bible how and under what circumstances God (as recorded in the Bible) says He will answer prayer.

2. Be sure you are actively meeting those criteria.

3. Pray.

You will find ample substantiation for the Bible's teaching on this by your subsequent experience in receiving answered prayer.

Is this not like a scientific experiment? The difficulty of course is in repeatability because it is impossible to EXACTLY replicate conditions and circumstances in order to repeat the same thing a second or third time, etc.

But I don't mind having different prayers answered.

real life wrote:

Questioner wrote:

It's logical because a ginormous assumption is made at the outset that the bible is an accurate accounting and proof of God's existence. Which is illogical.

You may consider it insufficiently substantiated, but that is not the same as illogical.

If you wish to substantiate the Bible as an accurate representation of God's relation with man, for instance, you can do so.

Let's use prayer as an example.

1. Find out from the Bible how and under what circumstances God (as recorded in the Bible) says He will answer prayer.

2. Be sure you are actively meeting those criteria.

3. Pray.

You will find ample substantiation for the Bible's teaching on this by your subsequent experience in receiving answered prayer.

Is this not like a scientific experiment? The difficulty of course is in repeatability because it is impossible to EXACTLY replicate conditions and circumstances in order to repeat the same thing a second or third time, etc.

But I don't mind having different prayers answered.

Are you for real?
You are basically asserting prayer as a great and infallible wish machine. Every prayer answered? This is your proof for god?
What an imagination you have RL.
More evidence that religion causes delusional behavior.

real life wrote:

Questioner wrote:

It's logical because a ginormous assumption is made at the outset that the bible is an accurate accounting and proof of God's existence. Which is illogical.

You may consider it insufficiently substantiated, but that is not the same as illogical.

If you wish to substantiate the Bible as an accurate representation of God's relation with man, for instance, you can do so.

Let's use prayer as an example.

1. Find out from the Bible how and under what circumstances God (as recorded in the Bible) says He will answer prayer.

2. Be sure you are actively meeting those criteria.

3. Pray.

You will find ample substantiation for the Bible's teaching on this by your subsequent experience in receiving answered prayer.

Is this not like a scientific experiment?

No, because of the reasons you stated below.

Quote:

The difficulty of course is in repeatability because it is impossible to EXACTLY replicate conditions and circumstances in order to repeat the same thing a second or third time, etc.

But I don't mind having different prayers answered.

It's not just repeatability. If you do the experiment on yourself, the results are all subjective. None of them at all are objective. You need a much larger study group than yourself featuring non-religious people as well as religious people.

Anything less will give you superfluous results.

Anyone who read my post can easily see that you have totally mischaracterized my statement.

But of course, you are, by your own admission, a professing Satanist. Which brings up the question, why should anything you say be believed?

Should we not expect you to mischaracterize, misquote and otherwise misstate?

No answer from you is needed on this. Because it's not necessarily believable anyway.

Summing it up, probably anything you have to say is irrelevant due to a basic lack of reliability.