< 1 2
 
   
 

Atheists Tool Box

 
Balfizar1
 
Avatar
 
 
Balfizar1
Total Posts:  55
Joined  11-07-2019
 
 
 
22 July 2019 20:51
 
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It is problematic when the unknown is defined as a miracle and associated with a deity.  History is riddled with unknowns that were assigned to deity’s as miracles or the will of God(s).  Let us throw another few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods and avert the next earthquake. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.  No one can know everything but those who carry the baggage of deity associated miracles rather than just an unknown fall short of their potential.

Who can know everything that there is to know?  Ans:- a religious fundamentalist, who knows what he knows and all else is assigned to the will of a deity.

 

[ Edited: 23 July 2019 06:19 by Balfizar1]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  469
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
23 July 2019 08:43
 
proximacentauri - 22 July 2019 07:59 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It’s not necessary to know everything there is to know. What is critical is our ability to discern fact from fiction which we typically accomplish through the scientific method. Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?

 

“Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?”  No: I’m curious why Robert Green Ingersoll would fashion his statement in that way.  He chooses to make a case against the supernatural by assuming a few things.  I’m wondering why his assumptions should be considered worth while?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  469
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
23 July 2019 08:43
 
Balfizar1 - 22 July 2019 08:51 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It is problematic when the unknown is defined as a miracle and associated with a deity.  History is riddled with unknowns that were assigned to deity’s as miracles or the will of God(s).  Let us throw another few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods and avert the next earthquake. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.  No one can know everything but those who carry the baggage of deity associated miracles rather than just an unknown fall short of their potential.

Who can know everything that there is to know?  Ans:- a religious fundamentalist, who knows what he knows and all else is assigned to the will of a deity.

Did I stake any claims here?

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  359
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
23 July 2019 10:59
 
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
proximacentauri - 22 July 2019 07:59 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It’s not necessary to know everything there is to know. What is critical is our ability to discern fact from fiction which we typically accomplish through the scientific method. Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?

 

“Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?”  No: I’m curious why Robert Green Ingersoll would fashion his statement in that way.  He chooses to make a case against the supernatural by assuming a few things.  I’m wondering why his assumptions should be considered worth while?

What assumptions do you think he is making?

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  359
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
23 July 2019 11:13
 
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
Balfizar1 - 22 July 2019 08:51 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It is problematic when the unknown is defined as a miracle and associated with a deity.  History is riddled with unknowns that were assigned to deity’s as miracles or the will of God(s).  Let us throw another few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods and avert the next earthquake. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.  No one can know everything but those who carry the baggage of deity associated miracles rather than just an unknown fall short of their potential.

Who can know everything that there is to know?  Ans:- a religious fundamentalist, who knows what he knows and all else is assigned to the will of a deity.

Did I stake any claims here?

Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology), a belief in Noah’s Ark, and the indications that you believe the Bible in its entirety. It would follow then, that you likely believe the will of god supersedes the laws of the universe as we know them, and that he bends the laws to his will whenever he so chooses.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  469
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
23 July 2019 13:01
 
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 10:59 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
proximacentauri - 22 July 2019 07:59 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It’s not necessary to know everything there is to know. What is critical is our ability to discern fact from fiction which we typically accomplish through the scientific method. Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?

 

“Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?”  No: I’m curious why Robert Green Ingersoll would fashion his statement in that way.  He chooses to make a case against the supernatural by assuming a few things.  I’m wondering why his assumptions should be considered worth while?

What assumptions do you think he is making?

He seems to be assuming that:

1. Evidence speaks for itself.
2. He has the correct understanding of the evidence.
3. Anything that doesn’t fit his understanding of the evidence is false.

If he isn’t making these assumptions about his understanding, then he is banking on other people’s understanding of the evidence.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  469
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
23 July 2019 13:02
 
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 11:13 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
Balfizar1 - 22 July 2019 08:51 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It is problematic when the unknown is defined as a miracle and associated with a deity.  History is riddled with unknowns that were assigned to deity’s as miracles or the will of God(s).  Let us throw another few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods and avert the next earthquake. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.  No one can know everything but those who carry the baggage of deity associated miracles rather than just an unknown fall short of their potential.

Who can know everything that there is to know?  Ans:- a religious fundamentalist, who knows what he knows and all else is assigned to the will of a deity.

Did I stake any claims here?

Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology), a belief in Noah’s Ark, and the indications that you believe the Bible in its entirety. It would follow then, that you likely believe the will of god supersedes the laws of the universe as we know them, and that he bends the laws to his will whenever he so chooses.

“Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology) ...”  Specifically, what does an Evolutionary biologist do that a biologist doesn’t do?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7978
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 July 2019 13:26
 
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 01:02 PM
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 11:13 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
Balfizar1 - 22 July 2019 08:51 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It is problematic when the unknown is defined as a miracle and associated with a deity.  History is riddled with unknowns that were assigned to deity’s as miracles or the will of God(s).  Let us throw another few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods and avert the next earthquake. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.  No one can know everything but those who carry the baggage of deity associated miracles rather than just an unknown fall short of their potential.

Who can know everything that there is to know?  Ans:- a religious fundamentalist, who knows what he knows and all else is assigned to the will of a deity.

Did I stake any claims here?

Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology), a belief in Noah’s Ark, and the indications that you believe the Bible in its entirety. It would follow then, that you likely believe the will of god supersedes the laws of the universe as we know them, and that he bends the laws to his will whenever he so chooses.

“Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology) ...”  Specifically, what does an Evolutionary biologist do that a biologist doesn’t do?

Here, let me google that for you:

Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth, starting from a single common ancestor. These processes include natural selection, common descent, and speciation.

The discipline emerged through what Julian Huxley called the modern synthesis (of the 1930s) of understanding from several previously unrelated fields of biological research, including genetics, ecology, systematics, and paleontology.

Current research has widened to cover the genetic architecture of adaptation, molecular evolution, and the different forces that contribute to evolution including sexual selection, genetic drift and biogeography. The newer field of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”) investigates how embryonic development is controlled, thus creating a wider synthesis that integrates developmental biology with the fields covered by the earlier evolutionary synthesis.

Let me further point out, again, that there is a wealth of information out there for the learning - if one is even remotely inclined to do so.

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  359
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
23 July 2019 13:43
 
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 01:01 PM
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 10:59 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
proximacentauri - 22 July 2019 07:59 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It’s not necessary to know everything there is to know. What is critical is our ability to discern fact from fiction which we typically accomplish through the scientific method. Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?

 

“Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?”  No: I’m curious why Robert Green Ingersoll would fashion his statement in that way.  He chooses to make a case against the supernatural by assuming a few things.  I’m wondering why his assumptions should be considered worth while?

What assumptions do you think he is making?

He seems to be assuming that:

1. Evidence speaks for itself.
2. He has the correct understanding of the evidence.
3. Anything that doesn’t fit his understanding of the evidence is false.

If he isn’t making these assumptions about his understanding, then he is banking on other people’s understanding of the evidence.

The word evidence doesn’t appear in the quote. The quote draws a contrast between scientific knowledge and religious beliefs, which he characterizes as facts vs miracles. I don’t think he was making the claim that anything not fitting his understanding “of the evidence” is false. It’s likely he was simply making a general statement contrasting science vs religious belief systems.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2353
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
24 July 2019 06:23
 
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 11:13 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
Balfizar1 - 22 July 2019 08:51 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It is problematic when the unknown is defined as a miracle and associated with a deity.  History is riddled with unknowns that were assigned to deity’s as miracles or the will of God(s).  Let us throw another few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods and avert the next earthquake. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.  No one can know everything but those who carry the baggage of deity associated miracles rather than just an unknown fall short of their potential.

Who can know everything that there is to know?  Ans:- a religious fundamentalist, who knows what he knows and all else is assigned to the will of a deity.

Did I stake any claims here?

Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology), a belief in Noah’s Ark, and the indications that you believe the Bible in its entirety. It would follow then, that you likely believe the will of god supersedes the laws of the universe as we know them, and that he bends the laws to his will whenever he so chooses.

Also, he has tacitly implied that no amount of errors and/or contradictions in the Bible would ever change his mind about the “truth” of the Bible.

Ron

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  469
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
24 July 2019 09:15
 
Jefe - 23 July 2019 01:26 PM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 01:02 PM
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 11:13 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
Balfizar1 - 22 July 2019 08:51 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It is problematic when the unknown is defined as a miracle and associated with a deity.  History is riddled with unknowns that were assigned to deity’s as miracles or the will of God(s).  Let us throw another few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods and avert the next earthquake. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.  No one can know everything but those who carry the baggage of deity associated miracles rather than just an unknown fall short of their potential.

Who can know everything that there is to know?  Ans:- a religious fundamentalist, who knows what he knows and all else is assigned to the will of a deity.

Did I stake any claims here?

Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology), a belief in Noah’s Ark, and the indications that you believe the Bible in its entirety. It would follow then, that you likely believe the will of god supersedes the laws of the universe as we know them, and that he bends the laws to his will whenever he so chooses.

“Perhaps not on this particular thread but in others you’ve professed a disbelief of established science (evolutionary biology) ...”  Specifically, what does an Evolutionary biologist do that a biologist doesn’t do?

Here, let me google that for you:

Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth, starting from a single common ancestor. These processes include natural selection, common descent, and speciation.

The discipline emerged through what Julian Huxley called the modern synthesis (of the 1930s) of understanding from several previously unrelated fields of biological research, including genetics, ecology, systematics, and paleontology.

Current research has widened to cover the genetic architecture of adaptation, molecular evolution, and the different forces that contribute to evolution including sexual selection, genetic drift and biogeography. The newer field of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”) investigates how embryonic development is controlled, thus creating a wider synthesis that integrates developmental biology with the fields covered by the earlier evolutionary synthesis.

Let me further point out, again, that there is a wealth of information out there for the learning - if one is even remotely inclined to do so.

“Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth, starting from a single common ancestor.”  Does a biologist need to assume that life came from a single common ancestor?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  469
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
24 July 2019 09:17
 
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 01:43 PM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 01:01 PM
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 10:59 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
proximacentauri - 22 July 2019 07:59 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It’s not necessary to know everything there is to know. What is critical is our ability to discern fact from fiction which we typically accomplish through the scientific method. Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?

 

“Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?”  No: I’m curious why Robert Green Ingersoll would fashion his statement in that way.  He chooses to make a case against the supernatural by assuming a few things.  I’m wondering why his assumptions should be considered worth while?

What assumptions do you think he is making?

He seems to be assuming that:

1. Evidence speaks for itself.
2. He has the correct understanding of the evidence.
3. Anything that doesn’t fit his understanding of the evidence is false.

If he isn’t making these assumptions about his understanding, then he is banking on other people’s understanding of the evidence.

The word evidence doesn’t appear in the quote. The quote draws a contrast between scientific knowledge and religious beliefs, which he characterizes as facts vs miracles. I don’t think he was making the claim that anything not fitting his understanding “of the evidence” is false. It’s likely he was simply making a general statement contrasting science vs religious belief systems.

“The word evidence doesn’t appear in the quote.”  Where would the facts be coming from if there was no evidence?

“I don’t think he was making the claim that anything not fitting his understanding ‘of the evidence’ is false.”  He assumed that he had the correct information in order to say that the supernatural does not exist.

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  359
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
26 July 2019 20:11
 
TwoSeven1 - 24 July 2019 09:17 AM
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 01:43 PM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 01:01 PM
proximacentauri - 23 July 2019 10:59 AM
TwoSeven1 - 23 July 2019 08:43 AM
proximacentauri - 22 July 2019 07:59 PM
TwoSeven1 - 22 July 2019 11:07 AM
proximacentauri - 21 July 2019 06:06 PM
Balfizar1 - 20 July 2019 10:38 PM

If there was an original sin, it would be that man is born ignorant. If there is salvation it would be the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of mankind. It is rational to seek the unknown, it is irrational to stop short of the truth and succumb to superstition.

Yes, exactly. Religion and rationality don’t mix. Neither do miracles and facts…

“A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie.”
- Robert Green Ingersoll

“A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact.”  Who can know everything that there is to know?

It’s not necessary to know everything there is to know. What is critical is our ability to discern fact from fiction which we typically accomplish through the scientific method. Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?

 

“Are you implying that since we can’t know everything, there is still room for the existence of miracles?”  No: I’m curious why Robert Green Ingersoll would fashion his statement in that way.  He chooses to make a case against the supernatural by assuming a few things.  I’m wondering why his assumptions should be considered worth while?

What assumptions do you think he is making?

He seems to be assuming that:

1. Evidence speaks for itself.
2. He has the correct understanding of the evidence.
3. Anything that doesn’t fit his understanding of the evidence is false.

If he isn’t making these assumptions about his understanding, then he is banking on other people’s understanding of the evidence.

The word evidence doesn’t appear in the quote. The quote draws a contrast between scientific knowledge and religious beliefs, which he characterizes as facts vs miracles. I don’t think he was making the claim that anything not fitting his understanding “of the evidence” is false. It’s likely he was simply making a general statement contrasting science vs religious belief systems.

“The word evidence doesn’t appear in the quote.”  Where would the facts be coming from if there was no evidence?

“I don’t think he was making the claim that anything not fitting his understanding ‘of the evidence’ is false.”  He assumed that he had the correct information in order to say that the supernatural does not exist.

Correct, evidence substantiate facts. No evidence exists to substantiate miracles (or the supernatural). This is the point of the quote. As for your second statement concerning the existence of the supernatural, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. In fact, not one shred of objective evidence exists for the supernatural. I think it naturally follows then that the supernatural and its attendant miracles must be relegated to the realm of the mythical until proven otherwise.

 

 
 < 1 2