Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

quote:

---

So unless you can provide evidence, and define "pixie" as a similar definition to "God", then like I said previously - atheist's subjectivity.

---

Considering nobody has proven or demonstrated that your god exists much less provided evidence or a even a definition, Parsimonium's definition of pixie is similar if not identical to "god" and thus he has fulfilled your requirement. I would say that using your level of burden of proof to "prove" your assertion of god, one could replace
"thousands of Pixians" in the quote to which you were responding with absolutely any mythical being, religious icon, or pure fantasy one desires and it would carry equal weight as your mythical "god".

quote:

---

I've highlighted your error.

​

God existing has no connection to what I am talking about. My argument is that God is a serious notion to most of the planet,m whether an atheist subjectively equates him with pixies or not. What did you think my requirement was? My requirement is proof that pixies are an important and equally serious and proper proposition as God is, NOT proof of God and/or pixies existing!

---

However, given that the arguement is about two entitities for which there is no evidence that either exist, what difference does it make that there is more written about one than the other? It is subjective because there is no evidence for either existing no matter how much importance you put on you personal beliefs. You seem to be making a quantitative argument about your beliefs as you first claim 50% of people believe what you do (I am sceptical about that figure) or that 90% of people believe in god (also sceptical about that figure as there are over a billion buddhists which is an atheist belief in its original conception). If in a year there is one more believer in Jedi and the Force than there are christians and more books written about Star Wars would you be willing to claim we have to take the existence of Jedi and the Force more seriously? According to the logic of your argument, if this were the case, then Yoda should be more important a notion than your god.

quote:

---

In general; Please don't equivocate with GOD. We all know to whom I refer.

---

No, we do not know to whom you refer. As I do not believe your god exists, the debate is equivalent to a debate on pixies, Vishnu, Zeus, or whichever mythical figure one wishes to follow. Just because 90% of ancient Greeks (when there were no christians) probably believed in Zeus does it make the concept of Zeus more or less serious than God. And it is you who is equivocating with your god. You are trying to pump up figures (which do not help your arguement) by lumping muslims, buddhists, hindus and every other religious group into the same belief system as you hold. I doubt the Dalai-lama thinks he believes in your god.This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 02-24-2005 09:00 AM

quote:

---

The fact is that if I am quantatively saying my notion has weight - then are you saying that no quantative amount of evolutionary evidence matters? Well then, that's what I've always said. I'm glad you're now creationist.

---

Step back a minute mike, and see how poor the logic you are using is. You are saying that your notion has weight. All you can do is repeat what you are saying. That you say it and say it often does not increase its veracity. You have in no way establsihed that your god or its definition in any way supports your notion of god in such a way that I am compelled to believe it. I on the other hand do not have to take the evidence for evolution on anybody's say so. I can repeat their experiments, examine their data, make my own observations and either come to the same conclusion or try to show them wrong. I do not have this luxury with your supposed weight of evidence for your god...so sorry, I am not compelled to become a creationist.

quote:

---

They all agree to the definition of God as I have quoted from the dictionary - even Einstein.

---

As Parsimonium already broke down the number of people who do not agree with your definition of god I will not repeat it.

quote:

---

The fact is that I doubt even ten thousand people believe in pixies as a serious and equivalent concept(for debate) as God.

---

So in your mind, majority rules? The majority of Germans in the late 1930's and early to mid 1940's thought Hitler's government was a serious alternative to democracy...was democracy in Germany therefore not a serious concept? You are resting your beliefs on a fairly lousy base.

quote:

---

What matters is that it does matter that you think as God as a pixie or santa fantasy. Because that then tells us that your idea of God is that of a childish one. Indicating that you never got past that childish understanding.

---

No this is not what it tells you. It tells you that I hold all irrational beliefs in equal regard. I think they are all childish.

quote:

---

Think about it. If atheism is just a lack of belief in God, then that means that YOU as atheists dismiss God, as you do the pixies.

---

No, it means we do not believe in god...it is not an active process at all. It is no more an active process of dismissal as my dismisal of the notion that an invisible all powerful monkey is sitting on my shoulder at this moment and powering my computer. If I were to actively dismiss all irrational ideas I would have scant time for anything else.

quote:

---

Don't try and bring "evidence" in at this stage. That's just so lame that you try and get God under science so you can refute him according to your ideological methodo naturalistico/.

---

We would not want evidence for what we assert to get in the way of discussion...sigh...

quote:

---

Th claimant Parisomnium claims that pixies are equivalent. He must show that pixies are a concept similar to that of the creator of the universe, the supernatural being whom existence is for.

---

He must show no such thing. By that logic you must show that your concept of a god is equivalent to every personal belief of every person in the world including those without belief...given there are billions of people in the world..you have your work cut out....all non-existent things are equivalent mike...pixies, gods, and syamsu's arguements...it is trivial to argue about which non existent entity is more important. That your chosen belief is important to you is fine...but it is no more important thant he chosen irrational beliefs of anyone else...they all lack any evidence and thus are equal.

Hi mike,
I am not trying to frustrate you. But in this discussion you have made a few false comparsions and derived conclusions from them that I wanted to point out.Fair enough, you say that a lot of christians take their belief in their god seriously. I don't disagree. That there are christians all over the world is also a fact. Fine.But I disagree with what you imply in this part of your statement

quote:

---

have fairly provided a definition of God from the dictionary. The people I am talking about - all believe in the basic tenets of the Creator.

​

That he created the universe, and is supernatural etc...

---

You are ascribing your Xian belief to people that do not belief in xianity. A hindu may devotely believe in a pantheon of gods. Some of their gods are female....one is part elephant...so they do not believe that "he" created the universe..they do not believe in the same tenets of "the creator"...you and a hindu are not talking about the same beliefs or traditions...not even remotely. By lumping beliefs together the way you are doing you are making arguments about religions being equivalent at the same time that you are saying it is inappropriate to make claims that mythical beings cannot be equated. See what I am saying? Why is this any worse than comparing pixie's and your god?