I sit corrected. I shouldn’t be speaking for other people.
I sit corrected. I apparently shouldn’t be speaking for myself either.
Continuing my response:
That’s all well and good, but you can’t rationally use scripture to assualt scientific theory. If you believe the Bible, that’s fine, but you can’t say, “The Bible said there was a time before the big bang, therefore the scientific theory is wrong”. That’s mixing apples and oranges. Let me ask you this: What gives you confidence that the Biblical account of creation is in any way accurate, and not one of those parts that you say were written by men and subject to bias? What I guess I’m really asking is, if you admit that the Bible is fallable, but believe some parts of it, what is keeping you from simply believing the parts that are convenient to the argument at the moment, and discarding the inconvenient parts?
Hmmm…did you really get flack for that statement per se? Because I’ve seen a lot of these arguments between theists and atheists, and the usual objection comes when theists assert that everything must have a cause, but then claim that God does not have a cause, which is a blatant contradiction. I don’t have a problem with the idea that eternal things might exist. But I think what sticks in a lot of atheist’s craws is when people blithely insist that God is eternal, but the universe can’t be eternal. My reaction to that is: “Says who?”
All I ask is that if you can’t be bothered to try to learn anything about it, then don’t pretend that you can refute it. Just because we don’t have a 100% working unified theory of the universe doesn’t mean it’s not the “real” answer. Relativity is very real - it has been proven. We know with a very high level of confidence that time is NOT immutable. We also know with a very high level of confidence that the universe is expanding, which implies that at some point in the past, it was very small. The big bang is NOT an attempt to answer the question: “Where did the universe come from?” In fact, I don’t even see the necessity of such a question. The universe “is”. How is it you can accept the premise that God “is”, but balk at that same idea with respect to the natural universe?
Well, no. North and South are linear directions. If you reach the North Pole and continue in the same direction, you will be heading South. It is impossible to be North of the North Pole.
Bingo! Likewise, at the big bang, time ceases to exist as an applicable measurement.
If we were to prove that P = NP, it would mean that we might be able to do lots of jobs, like scheduling airline flights, in much less time. Smart money agrees with your husband, by the way, that P does note equal NP, but it has never been proven.
I’m Jewish, culturally if not religiously, so I used to believe. But no chance that the doctor was praying - the doctor was one of those sure that he was god. And, given the results, who am I to argue?
Pet peeve alert! I hate it when people talk about the amount of matter involved in the Big Bang. One thing we do know is that this was 0. At a Planck interval after the singularity, or even during inflation, the universe was too hot for there to be any matter. It was all energy which eventually froze into matter during the expansion.
Pet peeve off.
Sorry for the group post again. I just haven’t gotten that “submit reply” thing down yet. My success rate is about 50/50.
HEY YOU! Thanks for your honest answers. Sorry you had to sit corrected. On the children’s mortality question, probably shouldn’t have included that one. Hindsight. My Catholic School husband was never groped by a priest either, but savage nuns twisted his ears a lot. He still turns pale in their presence. For the record I’m not making light of the priest issue. Evil, sick people do gravitate toward positions of trust and it somehow seems worse when they hide behind a pretended belief. IWLN
VOYAGER, Pet peeve heard and registered. I was just referring to various arguments and knew there had to be something. Energy’s good. Can’t argue something beyond me, but can have an opinion on whether it sounds off. Good thing we don’t have to base all of our thoughts on science principles or theory’s proven literally on our own. It would get really quiet here or we’d all be discussing politics. Among physicians there appear to be many self-proclaimed gods and I won’t argue either if they get the primary job done. IWLN
AMMO52, There were some very wise people that thought the world was flat too, but they moved on as they learned more. Did that make science invalid or just a work in progress? I have never laid claim to proofs. Much of what I described was more funny to me than anything. Does it make me feel grateful? Of course. Since I believe I was created by God, my inclination is to thank him for the good and get cranky with him over the bad, even when I see the purpose of it. I don’t think anyone with reasoning power would base a true belief on it. BTW, My old boss is no longer an atheist. He climbed some mountain in Tibet(I think) and came home with a different attitude about it. Don’t know specifics though. Did up my tithe the next month and then received a settlement on a pending claim. 
My belief is not based on any fun silly things that happen. I did look at them rationally and know the world is full of coincidence. Still haven’t come up with a good one about my toddler’s discussion with me. And I have not come up with any “overwhelmingly contradictory evidence” that at the very least proves there is no divine power, have you? I realize that it is not possible to prove that something you believe doesn’t exist, really doesn’t. No proof that something exists for you means it doesn’t. I believe that’s rational thought. You have to understand from my aspect, someone who doesn’t believe in God isn’t “using all of that brain that God gave you.” That doesn’t mean I don’t respect your right to come to whatever conclusion your brain gives you.
GUM, I’m not trying to convince anyone of God. Have just answered direct questions. I knew many answers would actually hold me up to more _____(fill in the word i.e. scoffing, ridicule, taunting, correction, stuff, whatever). Have never thought your non-believing is a sham. Have tried really hard not to insult anyone, but maybe not quite as hard for a few.
I hope you’re breakfast digested okay in spite of your choice of bad reading material. IWLN
BLOWERO, I think I answered your questions mostly in the order you asked them. I did take an allergy pill. Knew your questions were going to get me executed at dawn, so figured it may as well be for many crimes instead of just one. Will answer your other questions later, maybe after a few drinks. IWLN
PRICEGUY, Have never looked at “the pit”. Will answer your accusations and questions later. My physical life calls. IWLN
BLOWERO, Okay, no drinks yet, but I might leave part way through.
Yes, both. Just like a science book with correct and incorrect info in it. The book still has value. Deciding which parts are right and wrong. To some extent, the same way you do. It’s really obvious that some parts were not meant to be taken literally, although there are believers that would argue with me on that. Some parts I take on faith, some I do research on as in comparisons with other earlier writing. Some is my version of common sense. If something that seems important is directly contradicted later, I have to decide which one or neither is right. It is subjective and to some extent I also find out what different religious scholars think, but not the hardcore ones. Historical parts of the Bible have been proven to be true and some not true. I don’t use the Bible as a big reference source to validate what I believe. I’m sure I am wrong about parts of the Bible. There are things I hope are true(loving not vengeful) and things I hope are untrue(you’re dead, too late now). So yep, again emotions, faith, comparison. I believe in God, so therefore I love him, would be more appropriate for me.
No. But somehow any decisions made which emotions are involved has become suspect? I am not a very “emotional” person. Fairly analytical about many problems and life decisions, but this just isn’t an area I can stand back and only think with one part of who I am. I don’t feel a strong need to justify my belief. I’m too old to need validation. I answered the questions without any expectations, didn’t expect any one to agree. Hoped being called moron would be minimal even if you thought so. Don’t start now, resist.
With no facts to back it up(again), I have always figured God was more like intelligent energy. This is just because of what I’ve read and it seems like a physical being would be limited. I don’t think God created the universe per se. In some form it and he have always been. This part of the universe was created and or started into motion by him. None of that comes from much but some scripture and speculation. Can’t stand far enough back to see “the big picture”.
Okay, I’m not going to do your quote on this one. You can belittle away. Events aren’t precious, except maybe my daughter’s explanation. There were many more, that I just enjoyed. I’m familiar with selection bias. It is common from believers and non-believers. Many non-believers have used all of the tragic events to at least validate their certainty that there is no God. Was done in this thread during the early question answering. Like I mentioned in last post to ammo I do feel grateful to God for the good things. I suspect that if I didn’t believe in God I would probably be one of those “new ager’s?” who thanks the universe. Unusually good things happen to me on a pretty regular basis or maybe I’m just optimistic and easy to please.
IMHO If I were God and I felt similar to humans as I do to my own children, I would expose them to the opportunity to learn about me, but would not want to make their choices for them. I don’t think God wants us to believe in him because we have to, but because we want to, because we’re open. Don’t know for sure, but life is a learn as you go experience.
I can see it from your point of view. As someone said before I just substitute something I don’t believe exists and basically keep the rest of the story the same. Occam is your friend. To me he’s become my ball and chain. My bad place. Only because he seems to follow me from post to post.
Not going to quote the next one, too long. In reference to my scriptural verses. In no way was I using it to refute anything scientific. Okay, in one way. Just had a different interpretation of the magnitude of the Big Bang. I am allowed opinions as long as I don’t claim to be coming from a position of authority. If I’m looking at the Bible and science at the same time, it actually helps me understand what some writers were trying to say. IMHO.
I did get flack(my siblings, agnostics, skeptics) when I was younger, for saying God always was and even more flack for questioning in church how he could always be, with no place to be. I could wrap my mind around God creating us, just couldn’t join the group who didn’t seem to think it was odd that something(God) was somewhere, but it didn’t exist yet and then he created it and now he’s in the somewhere he created. I finally had to put it on hold because it ticked people off and it was just a circle to go round in. I have no problem with an eternal universe. As I said before I, from layman’s eyes see the BB as part of the formation of our solar system, but not a beginning to the universe. Did I say somewhere that I “balk” at a universe that always was? No doubt I have a lot to learn, but I’m not closed to scientific data.
I thought what was actually considered the North Pole was a few degrees south of magnetic north, due to the axis tilt, so going north would take you to magnetic north before you either started going south or as I pictured continuing North(up in the air), which is not measured that way anymore? Final question, didn’t time begin at the Big Bang? Thanks, IWLN
PRICEGUY, IMHO You threw Occam’s Razor out as a weapon(barb), with no original explanation as to why you believed it. Much of your posting has been angry. I completely agree that I shouldn’t have ridiculed the source, but hey I have already been busted over it enough times.
Doesn’t feel like you’re answering questions as much as issuing challenges and pulling other people, mostly bad people into the discussion.
Not sure why you have to resort to this sort of thing. I think you’re carrying the cross.
In all honesty 9-11 would never have happened if those people really believed in God instead of using him as a handy excuse for hate.
I’m not going to address anything else here since we’re going in a circle. You are angry and if you want to tell me why, I’ll listen. I am never going to trade insults or fight with you though, so it probably won’t be very satisfying to you. I allow myself a little snippy and maybe some mild sarcasm, but no anger. I’ve never been to the pit and don’t know the procedure for it, but I’m game if you want or we can just agree to never agree on anything and leave it at that. Your call. IWLN
What “historical” parts of the Bible do you think have been proven true?
Frankly, very little has been proven historically true in the Bible and much of it has been specifically refuted by archaeology, geology and other historical research.
First of all, show me where I held up William of Occam as validation or admit to being a liar. I won’t leave this alone.
Second of all, show me where I have ridiculed your ignorance or challenged your right to believe what you do. I won’t leave this alone either.
These are statements you made, in Great Debates. You’re expected to be able to back them up.
To be quite frank, I expected you to be familiar with it. I apologize for that.
Correct. I’ve never denied that.
William of Occam isn’t even the source, as has been explained to you multiple times.
At least when I pull people into the discussion, they’re relevant. I did answer your first questions; you haven’t posed any to me that I haven’t answered. Let’s change the focus for a while. You be the aggressor. Ask me questions.
When you go “Oh I could be as mean and hurtful as you but I’m a good person so I’ll just sit here and be nice”… you get answers like these.
Big mother of an opinion of yours. And you still haven’t even tried to explain how my atheism caused the attack.
Convenient for you, isn’t it?
I assure you that my anger doesn’t influence the content of my posts, merely their tone.
You started the debate, not me. If you want to leave, I’m not going to stop you. I won’t, though. The subject is too important to me.
Hmmm…I would think that if any part of the Bible seems more likely allegorical, it would be the creation story, don’t you agree? Yet you made a point about how it says there was “nothingness” before the universe, ostensibly to cast doubt on scientific cosmological theory. Forgive me for saying so, but your particular choice of what you consider the “correct” parts of the Bible seems rather random to me.
You’re changing the subject. First we were talking about basing a belief solely on one’s feelings/emotions. Now you are trying to pretend we’re talking about “decisions” with which emotions are only involved. Not the same thing at all.
Sorry, I don’t know if this is your strange sense of humor again or what. I know I didn’t call you a moron, so I guess you’re making some sort of odd joke? Help me out here.
And you don’t think energy is a physical thing? Energy can be measured. I consider it physical.
I meant physical as in real, not imaginary, existing as an actual entity.
How interesting!
Is that the odd sense of humor again, or do you believe I have belittled you?
No, that’s not selection bias; that’s a logical argument. Believers say God is all-good and all-powerful, and non-believers point out that if God has the power to prevent evil AND is all-good, then He logically could not allow bad things to happen. It is an argument specifically against the Judeo-Christian God who is presumed to be omnipotent and all-loving. They’re not ignoring good things, they are saying that any preventable evil in the world is an argument against the existence of that particular god with those characteristics. It’s not a good argument against an evil, spiteful God, or a weak God, but then nobody I know of actually believes in either of those kinds of gods.
You say that, but the examples you gave (and I presume you would want to hit us with your best examples), while I’m sure are very meaningful to you, are somewhat underwhelming to the outside observer. I’m all for being happy when good things happen to you, but IMO you are attributing things to God that can easily be explained without Him.
I hear this argument a lot. It seems rather facile to me. How exactly would God letting us know he’s there in a more substantial way constitute “making choices” for us? If God did let us know He was there, we’d still be making the choice whether to obey Him or not. But if He doesn’t let us know He’s there, then there’s no choice to be made. What purpose is served by making it deliberately vague?
That makes no sense to me. I repeat that it’s irrational to use scripture to try to refute a scientific theory that you don’t even understand, and in fact don’t care to understand. And I don’t think you’ve addressed this point.
O.K., then they were wrong. Fair enough. I agree it’s a weak argument. There are much better ones.
Tsk, tsk, IWLN - you aren’t going to be one of these debaters who says something and then pretends she never said it, leaving us scrambling back through the thread to dredge up quotes, are you? Earlier you wrote:
You are clearly questioning where the universe “came from”. If that doesn’t constitute “balking” at an eternal universe, I’ll eat my hat. If it’s eternal, it didn’t have to “come from” anywhere.
Well I don’t think going vertically upward takes you in any of the 4 directions, but it’s hardly germane to the point, anyway.
Yes, that’s my understanding of it. (Or at least right after the big bang.)
Oh, and I hope I didn’t offend you with my smart-aleck comment about you drinking. I was just teasing; I apologize if I was being snotty.
And a tip, if it helps: You can type in the quote tags like this: [ quote ] blah, blah, blah… [ /quote ] (but no spaces inside the brackets) rather than have to use the “reply with quote” button every time.
It’s not just you. Energy is physical. It’s just matter in another form.
Ah! I believe we have our first “No true Scotsman” argument.
AFAIK, biblical scholars generally agree that the contents of the bible are to be taken literally unless there are internal indicators to the othewise.
Guilty as charged. I just got tired of being mauled by the angry bear and decided to poke him. I’ll be turning in my kilt and hanging my head in shame. I am sorry.:o IWLN
BLOWERO, Still answering other post.
DIOGENES THE CYNIC
Boy do I regret saying some historical parts of the Bible have been proven true. I still believe it, have seen some documentaries that I don’t think were “religious, but weeding through all of the stuff out there and then checking sources will probably take me the rest of my natural life span and not getting at least a few college credits for it just sucks. Plus I never look through sites that start out with “Dear Friend” or Dear Brother & Sister in Christ”(they kind of creep me out usually). I found a few things that didn’t seem to be in dispute by either “side”, but they were set up in comparison boxes and when I pasted them, they were speaking in “tongues”. The temptation was there to say I’m wrong and get out of all that homework. Still is, but I’m not ready to fold yet. IWLN
URBAN RANGER
You found enough bible scholars that agree on this! I’m shocked. I could agree to take the Bible more literally if I didn’t know how many revisions it had went through. I’m either going to have to take up Hebrew or try to use as much common sense as I can. (Don’t laugh, I still have some left).
AMMO, I saw the eclipse, it was orange; so I’m going back to the cheese theory.:eek:
PRICEGUY, I’m still trying to decide if I should try one more time. I’ll try and if it seems worth sending, I will. One thing I’ll say really quick right here is I didn’t originally compare you to terrorists. I did say that was just as incorrect as your comparison. Doesn’t have anything to do with atheism, just with hate and nor morals. I do think someone who really believes in God would have a hard time explaining slaughter and suicide, IMHO.
Last time I’ll bring up William of Occam. If you’ll look in my first post about him, I did indicate I was aware it wasn’t originally his philosophy. Yep, said it in a smart mouth way. I try to look at the source of an idea(or the promoter in this case), if possible, then the idea. It’s obvious we look at many things differently. Liar, naw, ask my mother.
In your opinion beliefs and attitudes like mine have opened the door for all of the evil occupations and events you mentioned.(That is what I got from it, true or false?) Not going to quote them all again. Beliefs like love and peace, gratitude, believing in God, not feeling required to know everything. Is that the atrocities you think I am committing? Or is it because I am trying to be nice. I have had to try harder with you. I don’t agree that your anger doesn’t influence the content of your posts, IMHO. Tone is a large part of the message. I do find angry people difficult to deal with because I don’t understand the emotion in situations like this. And if we are required to back up ALL of our statements, there would be no talk of believing or not believing in God. Positing most likely scenarios isn’t backing anything up. I could pull up the words of another poster and it wouldn’t be any more credible or my uncle.
You are right, I did start the debate which is the only reason I’m still here.
Okay I have a few.
- Why is it so important to try and prove(or state) your position as an Atheist? Why don’t Atheists just pity us and live life?
- Why is being “open” bad when it comes to God and good when it comes to science?
- Why do you consider trying to be nice and respectful a negative? An insult?
- I don’t pity you, I haven’t once threatened to pray for you(I don’t think), so how am I managing to make you angry?
- God isn’t an unnecessary plurality to me. Why isn’t that okay when I respect your right to feel that way?
Okay, I’m not near as good at being aggressive as you are, but I’m probably 100 years older than you; I used to be. Can we meet in the middle. You lighten up on the anger and I’ll try and be more snippy. IWLN
But it’s not, or rather, my comparison isn’t incorrect. You do see that the subway bombers et al have the same basis for their beliefs as you do, right? I never said you were a subway bomber; you seem to be a good person. But how do you know they’re wrong and you’re right, when you have the same basis?
blowero said it, but I’ll say it myself: True Scotsman.
You also said
and
and
and
Time and time again, you acted as if William himself matters, even after having been explained to that he doesn’t. Several times. As you were told, I would have adhered to the principle under any other name. Instead of attacking the principle and explaining why you don’t think it’s valid (as you apparently don’t), you chose to attack William of Occam. Then you accused me of holding up the source as validation. I’m still waiting for your retraction of that.
For the love of all that is holy, why? This is precisely the backwards way of doing it. This is the exact opposite of the reasonable, rational thing to do.
Yes, it is obvious. No, that doesn’t clear your name. You lied about me. Admit it.
Partly true. Attitudes like yours created victims for phonies. Beliefs formed on the same basis as yours, not like yours, led to the Tokyo subway bombing and so on.
No way for you to know. But if my posts are guided by anger or other irrational emotions, it should be easy for you to poke a hole in their logic, shouldn’t it?
I think we had a breakthrough here. Think carefully about what you just wrote. It’s really quite profound.
Yes, it is. If we have to choose between two scenarios and one is more likely, we have good grounds to choose that one.
Nope. Have I said it would be?
Because it is my firm opinion that the world would be a much better place if everyone were rational. A world without religion is the world I dream about.
Imagine it. No Muslims or Jews fighting. No Christians opposing gay marriage or bombing abortion clinics. No John Edward or James Van Praagh making big money off being a total phony. No people wasting their lives with astrology, New Age, witchcraft or whatever they want to call it these days. No-one spending their money on homeopathic drugs or magnetic bracelets.
Every mind I save to my side is one step closer to that.
No, I don’t expect to convert you. But there are others reading this thread, and if one of them gets a sudden flash of insight, thinks “hey, he’s right!”, then I won a small but significant victory.
Furthermore, I can’t leave you (plural you) alone because you affect me. If I want to marry my boyfriend, you affect me. If my girlfriend wants to have an abortion, you affect me. It happens all the time.
Being open-minded is good, but not so open that your brain falls out. I am, in fact, open to the possibility that God exists. I really am. It’s just that I’m still waiting to see the first tiny shred of evidence that would even hint in that direction. I treat claims of God the same I treat other claims; I examine them logically and rationally, submitting them to burden of proof. I don’t believe in dowsing, because there’s no evidence it works. I don’t believe in astrology, because there’s no evidence it works. I don’t believe in an afterlife, because there’s no evidence there is one and some that there isn’t.
I’m the same way in science. If someone comes up to me and says HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (this has happened), I look for evidence. I examine the argumentation. If there is enough evidence that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, I start believing that it doesn’t. If there isn’t, I don’t.
I really do have the same standard of proof for all claims. It’s just that some claims I’ve heard before, and you start being able to weed them out when you hear them. You can find water with a stick? The last 500 guys making the claim couldn’t, so I don’t give that claim much attention.
I don’t, and honestly don’t understand where you got the impression that I do.
I have explained above why I want everyone to be rational. Talking to a nonrational makes me upset for that reason. To make a comparison that you’ll probably breathe fire at me for, I’m angry at rapists because if they just chose not to rape, the world would be a better place. If religious people just chose to view the world rationally, the world would be a better place. I’m not making any kind of moral comparison between you and a rapist, mind, just stating that my view of rapists is analogous with my view of religious people.
It’s not OK because it’s not logical. It’s not rational. It’s not subjective. God either is or isn’t an unnecessary plurality. I think God is, and you haven’t so far shown me a single shadow of a reason why he shouldn’t be. It has nothing to do with respect. I haven’t tried to brainwash you, I haven’t come to your house with a gun to force you to change your views. But this is a debate. It’s not a feelgood forum. You can’t expect me to just not challenge your side of the argument out of respect for your rights.
BLOWERO,
Okay, I’m not going to go in order this time, because I didn’t mean what seems to have come across (again). No offense taken on the drinks. I prefer Long Island ice tea, if you’re taking orders. I am virtually impossible to really offend in this setting.
To clear up the first misunderstanding: My quote.
I was not embracing this, I was disputing the part about it being “the beginning of the universe”. I know it sounds like I’m asking questions, it was rhetorical, but in a “devil’s advocate” sort of way. I was feeling a little snippy and making fun of “something from nothing” Again, I’m not trying to refute anything scientific. And I believe in God, so telling me I’m doing something irrational just doesn’t have the same ring to it. Since I have no problem with science and God, I’m going to compare. If I look in dozens of books, history, (Bible too) and science, to form my belief or opinion, then does it hurt anything. I can tidy it up later as needed. I guarantee you I won’t be going on the lecture circuit any time soon. I don’t question where the universe came from. What has recently been being discussed and the explanation by SentientMeat actually fits more to answer my childhood questions about where God was hanging out. I am not questioning where the universe came from any more than I can rationally question where God came from. If they’re both timeless, then there obviously was no beginning. Maybe God is the “timeless, invisible universe. I hadn’t really thought about energy being physical, even though yes it is, busted. Maybe I should have said unlimited energy or immeasurable energy. This is one of those thinking out loud questions and it’s 3:00a.m. so don’t laugh. Where do you think our energy goes, when we die? There’s no such thing as becoming nothing, right? Not talking about our bodies, just the energy? Okay, I’m quitting….I’ll finish tomorrow.
Back to the beginning of your post, if I said nothingness, anywhere other than that darn quote from earlier, I didn’t mean it. I gotta stop that sarcasm thing while I’m here. IMHO, the creation story if you’re talking about Adam and Eve was either:
a. Totally symbolic physically and had more to do with the souls of man and woman.
b. It was something that happened waaaay later, if it was a physical thing. I think I said it before, but Cain going to another land and meeting up with people was the first time I got in trouble in Sunday school. I kept asking where the other people came from.
I’m leaning toward a. and that just makes more sense with our info on evolution and that verse in the Bible about all life coming from the ocean. Just read recently on some “religious” sites that evolution was still being hotly denied. I don’t see what the big deal is. If I’m somehow related to a chimp way way back, it doesn’t change me. Still me. I do wish uncle chimp would have passed down thicker hair though.(on my head only). I’m always open to c. none or only part of the above.
Okay, emotions. I don’t consider the basis of my belief is solely emotions. I still believe my belief is made up of multiple factors. I know you think “feeling the presence of God” is purely an emotional thing, but it’s not. Here comes another horrible comparison, you have a headache, it’s there, you don’t know what caused it, awe this one’s not working out very well, but it’s a physical manifestation of unknown origin. Okay, I’ll stop. Comparing God to a headache may not have seemed as funny to him as it does to me. I’ll go one step further. Read a recent study on someone who was stimulating part of the brain and it triggered “religious or God” type feelings. What if that part is meant to be there (God, the electrician), but in some people it’s not as developed, they are "religiously challenged. Or the other side, what if it is all just an unnecessary biological function and God doesn’t exist, but due to this electrical stimulation, we are sure he does. Am I going to feel tricked when I’m dust? No, I’m not hedging my bets, I really believe. (I stopped saying know, because it seems to be a hot-button). We‘ll all find out eventually. Picturing God as unlimited energy, wouldn’t some of us be “charged” now and then?
Yes, it’s my strange sense of humor, but almost everyone gets it in person. I’ve only been called a moron once. But I knew when I touched briefly on life events, feelings or anything like that I was leaving myself open to it. No you haven’t belittled me, but I can imagine from your side when I broach certain topics, I’m going to hear about it. I think you have selection bias bias though. Many believers want to believe in a purely perfect sweetie pie guy (I do want to), but they need to get a grip on reality. There are more energies/forces at work in this world than God. We’re living a physical life here and I don’t get why anyone thinks it is supposed to be perfect. It is a very short span of time when you compare it to timeless. Haven’t most of us learned how precious the good is because that isn’t all we know (old argument). I still believe we’re here to learn as opposed to being pre-programmed zombies. I have had bad and yep grumbled to God, but finally figured out what I could learn from it. I think a good part of this leg of the journey is on our own and bad is very relative, with this part being more like being in labor, it hurts like hell, is over pretty quickly, you don’t remember how much it hurt and you get something good from it.
As for under-whelming experiences, I only gave you a few off the top of my head things. My life has been filled with awesome things, but someone who doesn’t believe in God can come up with dozens of other explanations, even I can. Still going to be grateful to the God that allowed it all to happen and glad that I get to be where I am, so we can debate it and not have to hide our beliefs.
From what I understand, God did in a more substantial way let people know he was there up until a couple of thousand years ago. Only rumors and scripture though, don’t know for sure. That didn’t seem to work much better. Maybe since many aren’t sure of God, you get to avoid the being “willfully disobedient”. I don’t know. I can only use parallels of my life. When my husband came along, if I hadn’t been open to love, I would have missed out on one of the best experiences of this life. I think we’re supposed to be open to God and then he’ll do the hard part of letting you know him. Or he’s just busy somewhere else. Many have tried to explain God’s motives or reasons, I have no clue. Okay this is way too long, if I didn’t answer something, it wasn’t deliberately.
Thanks for your tip on the quotes. I got a good laugh at my self out of that. I’ve never used the “reply with quote”, always used that quote thingie at the top and cut and pasted, went back and forth to posts. It was such a pain, I tried to not quote if I could. Hey I always do things the hard way first, then when I find a easier way, yaaah. I have spent very little time on any type of message board, so all of the abreviations and sweet little jabs, like the Strawman, Scotsman, etc.; I have to look up to see how big the jab is or just what the heck it means. Hey I’m learning. I thought AFAIK was some sort of bad word.:eek: IWLN
yes dear. pat pat pat
The good people at Jesus Seminar, and I think most of them at the Hebrew University (IIRC the name correctly), and a few others.
I love to leave them alone, except that there are always Christian proselytizers around. Also, I see Christians have their minds hobbled by some outdated dogma. Yes, I pity you, that’s why I am trying to beat some sense into you.
“Open” is not the same as “gullible.” There are loads of crackpot pseudoscientific mumble come out all the time. We just laugh at them. Therefore, just because something cloaks itself with science does not mean that they are accepted without question.
You continue to lose me every time on this one. I am not being deliberately obtuse. When I look at these types of events, they were racist, wanted political prisoners freed or were just filled with hate. The foundation or basis of my belief is God. A belief in anything does not entitle one to commit violence, break any laws, etc. If I were a killer and an Atheist, it would not mean being an Atheist is my excuse for killing. That’s lame. Do you not want to be free to chose your own morals and thoughts or do you just want to chose for everyone else? Are you convinced that thought and actions that aren’t strictly arrived at with pure logic have no value or are destructive? Help me here. Define your opinion of my “basis for belief” one more time and tell me what the evil people’s “basis for belief” is or how it correlates.
Time and time again, you acted as if William himself matters, even after having been explained to that he doesn’t. Several times. As you were told, I would have adhered to the principle under any other name. Instead of attacking the principle and explaining why you don’t think it’s valid (as you apparently don’t), you chose to attack William of Occam. Then you accused me of holding up the source as validation. I’m still waiting for your retraction of that.
I did explain why it’s not valid. It does provide a “best guess”, but not always the right answer. It has it’s uses, but not for all situations. I didn’t accuse you of anything. I gave you my opinion. Accused is completely different than a flip comment and then a question. Keep waiting. I think I’ve said this before that I already agreed I shouldn’t have knocked the source as part of my disagreeing on the principal. It was not a personal attack or a lie. You brought it up, not me. You opened that door for debate.
For the love of all that is holy, why? This is precisely the backwards way of doing it. This is the exact opposite of the reasonable, rational thing to do.
Pulling in a later part of your post as an example. If some derelict on the street or me:p, the lady with her brain falling out, were to tell you HIV doesn’t cause AIDS; IMHO you probably wouldn’t bother to even investigate. Because the person who gave you the information was not particularly credible. You might not see it as a worthwhile investigation.
Yes, it is obvious. No, that doesn’t clear your name. You lied about me. Admit it.
Again, she politely declined. A lie is a false statement with deliberate intention to deceive. So even if you think I made a false statement, if you look at it rationally, you don’t know my intent. We will continue to have a different opinion on this. If I said I lied, it would be a lie.
Partly true. Attitudes like yours created victims for phonies. Beliefs formed on the same basis as yours, not like yours, led to the Tokyo subway bombing and so on.
This is totally an aside, are you referring to the release of Sarin gas or is this a different incident? I already addressed the “same basis as yours” earlier.
No way for you to know. But if my posts are guided by anger or other irrational emotions, it should be easy for you to poke a hole in their logic, shouldn’t it?
Simple. But I’ll do it later.
I think we had a breakthrough here. Think carefully about what you just wrote. It’s really quite profound.
You would have to back up your statements of not believing in God. You can’t prove to me he doesn’t exist, nor can I prove to you he does. No breakthrough. Remember this is about backing up all of our statements with proof, not just likely or unlikely.
Yes, it is. If we have to choose between two scenarios and one is more likely, we have good grounds to choose that one.
Why do you have to choose since you don’t have enough information. Scenarios where you have to consider which is more likely are not proof. You can still be wrong. Why not just say you don’t know, if you’re unsure. I’m not unsure. If you are, why play mind games.
IMHO, You have not backed anything up. Bringing in any other name or source doesn’t work either unless they or their ideas are proven fact. You have given me your opinion, I’ve given mine. Our reasons are the only back up we have.
Because it is my firm opinion that the world would be a much better place if everyone were rational. A world without religion is the world I dream about.
Imagine it. No Muslims or Jews fighting. No Christians opposing gay marriage or bombing abortion clinics. No John Edward or James Van Praagh making big money off being a total phony. No people wasting their lives with astrology, New Age, witchcraft or whatever they want to call it these days. No-one spending their money on homeopathic drugs or magnetic bracelets.
Every mind I save to my side is one step closer to that.
No, I don’t expect to convert you. But there are others reading this thread, and if one of them gets a sudden flash of insight, thinks “hey, he’s right!”, then I won a small but significant victory.
Furthermore, I can’t leave you (plural you) alone because you affect me. If I want to marry my boyfriend, you affect me. If my girlfriend wants to have an abortion, you affect me. It happens all the time.
Your dreams are not rational. If you somehow managed to remove all religion from the world, don’t you realize there would still be evil people, pure evil. Many people have dreamed about making “the perfect world”, or at least a much better place. Usually this was about “peace and love”. Just as unrealistic. Muslims and Jews would still fight over borders, because each would have their own perfectly rational reasons. Religion can have very little to do with God. The “Christians” that are opposing gay marriages or bombing abortion clinics do not believe in God(at least the bombers, anti-gay marriage is about fear), with almost any of the main religions included. They chose to ignore the parts about not judging and doing unto others, etc. Religion has it’s faults, big ones. Doesn’t have anything to do with what God really wants us to be. If you were to somehow take away “religion”, that would not make people rational and for some, it would take away their motivation for trying to be good. Not logical, but some people resist doing wrong because they fear God. Not nearly as good a reason as just trying to be a good person, but it exists. Many of the people who seem to need John Edward(he’s that “contact the dead guy, right?”) are actually more gullible because they are afraid that their loved ones aren’t okay. They want them in a happy place, not in the dirt. A stronger belief in God, not religion would make people like John Edward unnecessary. There is a lot of stuff like Astrology, etc. that does work(suck people in) because people are seeking answers. Higher power answers, more knowledge. They aren’t going to become rational because they have a need. If they were to suddenly become rational as in thinking God doesn’t exist; many would be depressed, suicidal. Rational isn’t going to make weak people strong. You seem to think that being rational isn’t subjective. Our experiences make rational different from person to person. You want people to think like you do. It’s just not going to happen. No, you can’t “convert” me or anyone who truly knows God. People like me (plural me) don’t affect you. I would sing at your wedding if you married him. Politics has interfered with gay marriages more than “religion”. Yes, there are some very vocal anti-gay opinions, but the general “religious” population wouldn’t try to stop it. This is IMHO only from all of the people I’ve known over the years. The “typical” sentiment is they don’t want to know what you’re (plural you, not necessarily you) doing, but don’t dispute your right to be together. Not phobes, just can’t identify. Politicians are just reluctant to step out on anything that might interfere with their career. I don’t believe it would. The abortion issue is a non-issue. It’s been legal for 30+ years, right? I hate it, wish it didn’t exist, but the alternatives aren’t any better.
Being open-minded is good, but not so open that your brain falls out. I am, in fact, open to the possibility that God exists. I really am. It’s just that I’m still waiting to see the first tiny shred of evidence that would even hint in that direction. I treat claims of God the same I treat other claims; I examine them logically and rationally, submitting them to burden of proof. I don’t believe in dowsing, because there’s no evidence it works. I don’t believe in astrology, because there’s no evidence it works. I don’t believe in an afterlife, because there’s no evidence there is one and some that there isn’t.
Do you believe that your idea of rational will be the same as the next “rational” person. By the way, I did see a homeopathic dr. I called her my voodoo dr. because I was such a skeptic. She really helped me with one medication, but in general I’m more comfortable with traditional medicine, even though it hasn’t been much help. Using pluralities, I should still be seeing the homeopathic dr. She was too “New Agy” nice; so I found a place to order the med.
I really do have the same standard of proof for all claims. It’s just that some claims I’ve heard before, and you start being able to weed them out when you hear them. You can find water with a stick? The last 500 guys making the claim couldn’t, so I don’t give that claim much attention.
Using the same standard of proof for buying a car or finding water, deciding whether to turn left or right, many things make sense. I’d like to know if you used pluralities for picking your mate or girlfriend/boyfriend. If so, how? Is who you love, always rational? When you care about people, do you only care about the one’s that pass your test? Only asking because of God and love. Don’t answer if you feel it’s invasive.
I don’t, and honestly don’t understand where you got the impression that I do.
Give me a break. You’re telling me you don’t think trying to be nice and respectful is a negative? Above is your answer. The two answers below were in reply to my rational statements about not wanting this debate to be nasty. I deserve it because I’m trying to have a debate, not a fight? Even though IMHO you have said things that are false, I am not calling you names. I am as good of a person as I can be and that makes more sense for the good of this world you seem so worried about. That’s about morals, not God.
Oh wait, here’s your reason below. You’re upset because you’re not getting what you want. Non-rational upsets you. Everyone should be rational because you want them to be.
I have explained above why I want everyone to be rational. Talking to a nonrational makes me upset for that reason. To make a comparison that you’ll probably breathe fire at me for, I’m angry at rapists because if they just chose not to rape, the world would be a better place. If religious people just chose to view the world rationally, the world would be a better place. I’m not making any kind of moral comparison between you and a rapist, mind, just stating that my view of rapists is analogous with my view of religious people.
Many rapists don’t make a choice. They are mentally ill. This is not a choice. Their illness makes them evil. I don’t believe your “typical” religious person fits into the mentally ill category. They function well, they care about each other. Take care of the poor and generally follow a pretty moral path.
It’s not OK because it’s not logical. It’s not rational. It’s not subjective. God either is or isn’t an unnecessary plurality. I think God is, and you haven’t so far shown me a single shadow of a reason why he shouldn’t be. It has nothing to do with respect. I haven’t tried to brainwash you, I haven’t come to your house with a gun to force you to change your views. But this is a debate. It’s not a feelgood forum. You can’t expect me to just not challenge your side of the argument out of respect for your rights.
Life is not necessarily OK, logical or rational. It is subjective depending on our own personal experiences. No, it’s not a feel good forum. I do expect you to challenge me. Respect is something that is an opinion of each individual. Pluralities tell me it’s not logical to expect it from everyone. Tolerance is not a weakness. I don’t disagree that some “religious” people are not what they should be. Again, that’s not about God at all. If the purpose of your presence here is hoping that someone else has an AHA moment and becomes rational about everything, and you receive your small but significant victory, well I wish you the best. What if you’re wrong? Unfortunately, I don’t share your hope that the world will be a better place. It is what it is. You can only try to help one person at a time, create tiny ripple effects. That’s about it. There have always been wars, murders, people who take advantage of each the gullible ones. If everyone tried harder to be decent, moral, good, it would be a better world. That is rational. Taking God out of the equation won’t serve that purpose. Sorry, felt like I was entitled to a closing argument, since you got one. Okay, you sounded a little less angry, so I tried to up the snippy. How’d I do? IWLN