Calling all Theists: The Argument Challenge

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

Sure. The point is that the average person is a mix of right and wrong and we all must interpret our subjective experiences to form our imperfect belief systems. So at what point does one imperfect belief system get to call another one “wrong” or “Irrational” Who gets to decide that and gets to declare their opinion more right than the alternatives? The majority? The scientists?

Since you ask, I declare myself the ultimate arbiter of which beliefs are silly or not. You might disagree, and declare yourself the ultimate arbiter, but I reserve the right to declare that declaration itself a silly belief.

If you want a univerally agreed-upon arbiter, I would propose you already accept scientists (or at least the concensus of them) as such an arbiter for everything you don’t have a preconcieved belief about. Can you say that about a concensus of priests of various beliefs? (Assuming you could get a concensus from such a group at all.)

@cosmosdan

I agree. I think there’s a major difference between believing things in spite of volumes of evidence against X being true and believing something is true with no evidence for or against.

Well, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence…just not conclusive evidence of absence.

@cosmosdan

And once again, the nature of religious beliefs is much more and much deeper than just objective physical evidence. It’s inappropriate to judge them solely on objective evidence.

Special pleading. Unless you’re going to say that belief in the Smurfs™ is much more and much deeper than physical evidence?

Yes, people with religious beliefs often have subjective evidence amongst their reasons for believing. If you’re calling that evidence ‘much more and deeper’, though, you’re demonstrating a level of bias that makes me doubt that that subjective evidence is being assessed, um, objectively.

@cosmosdan

If I’m doing all that then I’d suspect I’m super human or just not human. I’d hope for some personal honesty and placing a high value on the truth.

Well, we can try.

@cosmosdan

Then that would be your perspective not his wouldn’t it?

Yes, and from my perspective, he seems to have accepted it as evidence when I am not convinced he should have. We are allowed to have opinions of other people’s decisions, as academic and irrelevent as those opinions may be.

@cosmosdan

A sincere spiritual experience can be and often is an epiphany and from my experience in knowing and talking to lots of Christians and other religious people they are more common than you think.

I will concede that if you use a definition of ‘epiphany’ that includes “any religious or spiritual apparition or vision”, then everybody and their pet rock has had an epiphany. However, that’s not what I mean when I use the word, and I don’t think that’s what Liberal meant when he said an epiphany “is actually the only kind of evidence that I would be personally willing to accept”. So, no, by the definition of epiphany I’m using here, I am quote sure that very, very few people have had them.

@lekatt

God can not be defined, because any definition would be a limitation, and God has no limitations.

Well then I guess I won’t limit him by defining him as “existing” or “being real”, then.

@Czarcasm

Whether we can detect it yet or not, if it exists, it has matter and/or energy. There is a lot out there that we have yet to detect, but until it is shown otherwise, there is nothing that exists that we are absolutely prohibited forever from detecting.

I fully agree that there is nothing that exists in or interacting with this universe that we are prohibited from detecting. I’m afraid I remain agnostic on the subject of everything that exists having matter and/or energy, though.

[gonzomax]

People were supposed to have been created in the image and likeness of god. That means god is a man or a woman,.He is a midget or a giant. He is black or white. Is he bald or does he have long hair.Or he is something in between. Mans image is not able to be defined. How could gods.?

[9thFloor]

@gonzomax

People were supposed to have been created in the image and likeness of god. That means god is a man or a woman,.He is a midget or a giant. He is black or white. Is he bald or does he have long hair.Or he is something in between. Mans image is not able to be defined. How could gods.?

I’d guess the religious view that as a metaphor of some kind. The parts that seem to make no frickin’ sense (or easily explained as ancient views of less intellectually evolved people) are typically described that way.

[begbert2]

@gonzomax

People were supposed to have been created in the image and likeness of god. That means god is a man or a woman,.He is a midget or a giant. He is black or white. Is he bald or does he have long hair.Or he is something in between. Mans image is not able to be defined. How could gods.?

I’d guess that that all that was supposed to mean was that God looks like a human rather than a brine shrimp. If you want to nitpick about the bible, there’s better material in there than this.

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

I have.

Who? Where?

Nope. I used to when I was religious.

Your posts sure indicate an agenda to me.

And come to think of it on that earlier post about my ‘beliefs’ about religion, I think I’d actually feel more comfortable referring to them as my thoughts on religion.

Okay.

Is I think god exists , better than I believe god exists?

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

Since you ask, I declare myself the ultimate arbiter of which beliefs are silly or not. You might disagree, and declare yourself the ultimate arbiter, but I reserve the right to declare that declaration itself a silly belief.

A friend of mine attends a conservative church and when we’ve discussed various beliefs people call “truth” I’ve referred to the Church of We’re Right! Not just a little right, but really really right. Those other churches that think they’re right are not as right as us.

Hard to fit on a sign

If you want a univerally agreed-upon arbiter, I would propose you already accept scientists (or at least the concensus of them) as such an arbiter for everything you don’t have a preconcieved belief about. Can you say that about a concensus of priests of various beliefs? (Assuming you could get a concensus from such a group at all.)

And in the areas that science has no answers? What then? Who becomes the arbiter?

Well, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence…just not conclusive evidence of absence.

Except that we have many examples of things that existed long before science knew about them or had any way to examine them and provide evidence.

Special pleading. Unless you’re going to say that belief in the Smurfs™ is much more and much deeper than physical evidence?

No it isn’t. I’m speaking of personal subjective experiences

Yes, people with religious beliefs often have subjective evidence amongst their reasons for believing. If you’re calling that evidence ‘much more and deeper’, though, you’re demonstrating a level of bias that makes me doubt that that subjective evidence is being assessed, um, objectively.

That’s assuming it’s not your bias talking I guess.

If a subjective spiritual experience moves somebody in a positive way, toward love, forgiveness, compassion, or helps them to understand something they didn’t understand before, I’d call that deeper. Whatever that event is, regardless of the labels, science can’t tell us much about it.

Well, we can try.

I think it’s worth the effort, however, placing truth as a high priority, we must recognize our own humanity which includes personal bias.

Yes, and from my perspective, he seems to have accepted it as evidence when I am not convinced he should have. We are allowed to have opinions of other people’s decisions, as academic and irrelevent as those opinions may be.

Of course. You said “his perspective” and that threw me. My point here is that I assume you want to retain the right to interpret your own experiences within the realm of what you think is reasonable and rational and what belief system works best for you in moving forward in life. That creates IMO a moral obligation on your part to extend that right to others. Especially concerning those areas where we have no common objective evidence to observe.

I will concede that if you use a definition of ‘epiphany’ that includes “any religious or spiritual apparition or vision”, then everybody and their pet rock has had an epiphany. However, that’s not what I mean when I use the word, and I don’t think that’s what Liberal meant when he said an epiphany “is actually the only kind of evidence that I would be personally willing to accept”. So, no, by the definition of epiphany I’m using here, I am quote sure that very, very few people have had them.

I am using epiphany in the way it’s defined and you’ll excuse me if I trust my own experiences more than your opinion, or your personal interpretation of Lib’s experience.

Many spiritual experiences for many people , including me, contain a heightened awareness and understanding rather than just a warm fuzzy feeling. That’s what I read into Lib’s description. When you suddenly become aware of something you weren’t aware of before and understand things you didn’t understand before in a very profound way, that’s an epiphany.
If you’re saying very few people have exactly the same type of epiphany that Lib had I’d agree, although I doubt we’d agree on the details. I haven’t seen **Lib ** discuss your particular take on his experience.

[9thFloor]

@cosmosdan

Who? Where?
Your posts sure indicate an agenda to me.

Okay.

Is I think god exists , better than I believe god exists?

I would expect that you would see an agenda and then say that I see an agenda where there is none because if others have one than that means I have one, etc., etc., etc. I know you won’t ever believe that it’s not all a wash with me and that I’m just as deluded as those I accuse of being deluded, just as secularly religious as those I accuse of being religious, just as dogmatic in my agnosticism as those that are religious, etc., etc., etc. It isn’t possible to convince you otherwise and I’ve lost interest in attempting to do so in that regard. It’s 1984.

I’m not sure what you mean by “better.” However you want to express yourself, I guess.

[cosmosdan]

@9thFloor

I would expect that you would see an agenda and then say that I see an agenda where there is none because if others have one than that means I have one, etc., etc., etc. I know you won’t ever believe that it’s not all a wash with me and that I’m just as deluded as those I accuse of being deluded, just as secularly religious as those I accuse of being religious, just as dogmatic in my agnosticism as those that are religious, etc., etc., etc. It isn’t possible to convince you otherwise and I’ve lost interest in attempting to do so in that regard. It’s 1984.

I’m not sure what you mean by “better.” However you want to express yourself, I guess.

Well okay then. Your representation of my views is wrong but hey, I’m all for saving time.

[9thFloor]

@cosmosdan

Well okay then. Your representation of my views is wrong but hey, I’m all for saving time.

Of course. :rolleyes: