Gee, thanks sweetie. Quit it. You’re messing up my hair.
IWLN wrote
I can’t think of even one Atheist who has killed in the name of Atheism. I can think of a number of Believers who have killed in the name of god. Muhammad, the founder of one of the largest religions immediately springs to mind, but I don’t want this to have a racial slant. The religion isn’t really the killer, it’s the blind faith in any religion that is.
This may or may not be true. But it avoids the point that many many conflicts in this world involve “god-given” territory. Maybe the Jews and Muslims wouldn’t be fighting without religion, but it’s a certainty that they are fighting with it.
I’m afraid the need for each is the same. If more people believed in John Edward, perhaps we’d have fewer wars.
Okay, I only made the religious scholars crack because I was trying to look something up and found too many different answers. On a site where many of the debates are about God, you’d having a tough time with the “other side”, without us. We have our purpose and so do flies. I don’t need you to try and beat any sense into me. Priceguy is hard at work. I don’t think I’m gullible, but I was naive to think I could slip in, ask a few questions and slip away. Just remember dirt can’t say “I told you so”. 
IWLN
Whoah! Better take it easy with those, or you’ll start seeing other things besides God.
(Sorry, I don’t know how to make 'em)
Oh, I see. Yeah, don’t get confused by that. The big bang is the “beginning” of time only in the sense of it being a terminus, NOT in the sense of being an origin. Most cosmologists will tell you the universe doesn’t have a beginning. Since you looked at Sentient’s thread, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
It dissipates into the atmosphere as the body cools. (The atmosphere actually becomes warmer by an infinitessimal degree!)
Either that, or use Mr. Winky.
I’d ask you what those other “factors” are, and what “feeling the presence of God” entails, but I’ve had this conversation with enough theists that I can predict what will happen: You will most likely either decline to answer, or the answer you give will be inadequate when viewed by any objective standard. I will then point out the indadequacy, and you will become offended and mistakenly assume I am making fun of you.
If I had a nickel for every time this happens: A theist claims to want to understand where atheists are coming from, and why we don’t accept his “personal evidence” of God, but when we explain it, he gets offended.
Not by me.
Again, if you want to know why I lack belief in God, how else can I explain it to you? Slight coincidences don’t prove anything - that’s the only rational way to look at it. I’m sorry if that offends you, but I think I have a right to disagree with you.
Think what you like, but the fact is that people believe all sorts of unsubstantiated things. Gamblers think some sort of mystical force can affect which card they are dealt depending on which seat they occupy at the table; pedestrians think the traffic light will change faster if they push the button over and over when they actually only need to push it once; superstitious people believe that spilling salt will bring them bad luck. Demonstate that stuff with a repeatable, double-blind study and then maybe I’ll believe it. Sorry, but I’m not the one with the bias. Anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it.
I thought you weren’t going to witness.:rolleyes:
I know you’re sick of Occam’s Razor, but doesn’t it make more sense to suppose that those are made-up (or at least elaborated) stories, than to suppose that God used to perform miracles, but inexplicably gave it up, coincidentally right at the time when people are starting to question His existence? Besides, you seem to alternately put stock in the Bible and then turn around and say it’s not reliable. Make up your mind.
And that would be advantageous to God because…?
You seem to be implying that one can’t be open to love unless one believes in God. I assure you that’s not true.
But what does “being open to God” mean? Isn’t that just another way of saying you have to believe in God first? That’s a big part of the reason I don’t buy it - you have to believe in God before God will give you a reason to believe. A little too circular for my taste.
Yeah, sorry about that - I couldn’t resist. It’s sort of a running joke around here that theists invariably resort to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
No, it’s not. God is what you believe in; he cannot possibly be the basis of that belief. You stated earlier that the basis of your beliefs is feelings and emotions, plus some “personal proof” that you refuse to divulge and therefore has to be treated as nonexistent by me.
And I’d still like to know how you can be so sure that you’re right and they’re wrong.
I’ve never said it was an excuse. It’s not. But it is the reason they do it.
I definitely don’t want some ancient ghostwritten books dictating my morals and thoughts.
No, they can have value, and they don’t have to be destructive. If, for example, a Christian nurse goes to Africa to help sick children because she believes God wants her to, that’s just as good as if an Atheist nurse does it just because she wants the children to be better.
Here’s your own definition of your basis for belief:
Since you still refuse to tell me about the personal proof, I’m forced to ignore it. What’s left is feelings and emotions. That’s the same basis any religious person has, including the people you call evil. It’s an exact correlation.
Why not? Can you give me anything but unfounded assertions?
Bull. Shit. Sorry if I offended you. You asked me why I held up the source as some kind of validation. That is a direct accusation towards me of holding up the source as some kind of validation. I trust you’re able to see that. Throughout my posts I made very clear that William of Occam was utterly irrelevant and not even the source of the principle, just of its name. You cannot possibly have missed that, and the only conclusion I can make is that you lied.
This seems like a good point, but you have to agree that it’s miles and miles away from not accepting Occam’s Razor because one guy who liked it was kicked out of the Catholic church.
What did you do then? You uttered a demonstrably false statement that you, provided your brain was working at at least half capacity at the time, knew was false. What is that if not a lie?
I don’t actually know if it was sarin, just that it was some kind of nerve gas. It was the Aum Shinrikyo cult. Not that it matters, they’re just an example.
Looking forward to it. Why not do it now?
I have. There’s no reason to believe he exists.
You added “with proof”. Besides, you do realise the impossibility of proving a negative, don’t you? You do realise that the burden of proof lies on the person introducing the extraordinary claim, don’t you? You do realise that the baseline assumption has to be that a certain entity (in this case God) does not exist until we have evidence indicating that it does, don’t you?
Of course I don’t know. I’ve never claimed to. But you have to explain why you, without a shred of evidence, believe in something incredibly unlikely.
Of course it’s possible to be wrong. If someone had come up with relativity prior to the Michelson-Morley experiments, that person would have been dismissed via Occam’s Razor. It just doesn’t happen all that often, and the great thing is that the ninety thousand people coming up with completely crazy and wrong theories were also dismissed via Occam’s Razor. Generally speaking, it works. If it fails once in a blue moon, that’s no reason to throw it out the window.
What factual, provable statements have I made? How can I back up a negative? The burden of proof is on you.
I haven’t brought up a single name or source once.
Why? What rational reason is there to be evil? If everyone were to understand that the good of the group is the same as the good of the one and were able to view the world rationally, I can’t see why evil would exist. Of course, there’d still be emotions and mental illness and I’m not saying it would be a perfect world. But you don’t see too many secular humanists killing people.
Such as? If they were rational, they’d stop dividing themselves into Israelis and Palestinians and just live together. Problem solved.
These are all baseless opinions.
Correct. It isn’t.
Your opinion. I don’t share it.
Believes in, you mean?
No. There’s no rational reason to stop gay marriage. Yet it happens.
Cite?
Maybe you meet such people because you are one? That does not, emphatically not, mean that such people are in a majority in any way.
Yep.
One data point doesn’t prove anything, a controlled study does. I’m sure I can find someone who claimed he cured his obesity by eating goose grease. That doesn’t make goose grease an obesity cure.
In an amorous relationship, emotions are extremely important and in fact a big basis for having a relationship to start with. In this case I do let my emotions guide me (although not entirely, no matter how happy I feel looking into her eyes I won’t have a longterm relationship with her if she’s a Nazi or something).
Don’t worry.
I am indeed.
That’s not what you said. You got into stuff about respecting your right to believe and the like and telling me how mean and nasty I was, just because I attack something close to your heart. Well, I’m sorry, but you did start this debate about religious beliefs. You have to expect them to be attacked.
No, because it would be much better for everyone.
Irrelevant. Please don’t introduce unnecessary elements into the debate.
Nor do I.
Depends on what you mean by “life”, exactly.
If I’m wrong I’ll go to Hell and show God the finger on the way there for giving me this brain and then punishing me for using it.
If enough people do it, it’ll be enough.
Yes. We agree.
Taking all irrationality, including God, will. I have explained why above.
This isn’t a question of opinion, it’s a logical default. It is incumbant upon you to show why God is necessary. You can’t just assert that you “think” God is necessary. That shows a misunderstanding of necessary pluralities as they pertain to logical discussions. You actually have to demonstrate why the plurality is necessary. Simple assertion is not argument.
Thus far, humans have not discovered a reason why it is necessary to hypothesize “God.” You keep insisting as much yet you haven’t offered any reason why. Arguments from assertion don’t work very well in this forum. You are expected to support your assertions with logical argument if not factual cites. Anything less is just witnessing not debate. If you want to witness, that’s fine and this is the forum for it but you should at least identify that as your intention so that others will not mistakenly assume that you are interested in pursuing a systematic debate.
You’ve said you can’t prove God to anyone, yet you somehow are sure that you “know” God, and these other self-proclaimed Christians do not know, or believe? Would you say that those Christians are liars for saying they believe in God, or that they are just mistaken? How can beliefs of yours, derived mainly from emotions and feelings, lead you to knowledge of others’ emotions and feelings?
I hate to repeat what others have asked, but I think this is important: How is it that you know your belief in God is 100% correct, you “know” God, while others, who profess the same emotion/feeling-based belief as you, are incorrect in saying they believe?
Am not! Am not!
:rolleyes:
BLOWERO
Hey if I only see the good stuff, then why not?
Oh, I see. Yeah, don’t get confused by that. The big bang is the “beginning” of time only in the sense of it being a terminus, NOT in the sense of being an origin. Most cosmologists will tell you the universe doesn’t have a beginning. Since you looked at Sentient’s thread, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
I don’t feel confused by that. In my puny opinion, the BB was just the beginning of “our time”, our little continent in the universe. A catalyst for our physical world. The “big universe” that we are in still doesn’t have clocks. Seems like it would only be necessary in places where there are expiration dates. Hey, I can’t prove that either.
It dissipates into the atmosphere as the body cools. (The atmosphere actually becomes warmer by an infinitessimal degree!)
Well I sort of agree, except I think our energy has a definite destination. So you think you contribute to global warming and I think I’m re-uniting with the “big energy”?
Either that, or use Mr. Winky.
Okay, I’ll try. But Mr. Winky still gives me nightmares.
**I’d ask you what those other “factors” are, and what “feeling the presence of God” entails, but I’ve had this conversation with enough theists that I can predict what will happen: You will most likely either decline to answer, or the answer you give will be inadequate when viewed by any objective standard. I will then point out the indadequacy, and you will become offended and mistakenly assume I am making fun of you.
If I had a nickel for every time this happens: A theist claims to want to understand where atheists are coming from, and why we don’t accept his “personal evidence” of God, but when we explain it, he gets offended.**
(Cheerful tone:)) I’ve pretty much tried to answer everything, even when I know it sounds stupid or “out there”. I have no pride issues on this. Sure wouldn’t be here if I did. If I weren’t certain of God’s existence, I would possibly feel offended or have a problem with being made fun of. Not saying you are, but come on admit it, I crack you up sometimes. I crack me up too. I said from my first answers to questions posed and many times after, I can’t prove God, not by any objective standard. I recognize that the debate that developed from my original questions has never been about proving God. It has mostly been from you(plural again) on “how can you possibly believe in God”? Totally understandable question. From my perspective, logically I can understand why you don’t believe and from the side of me that “feels God’s presence”, I can’t understand how any one can not believe. So you’re not going to get a nickel from me. I’m not going to go into “other factors”. No point, because it is subjective. As far as what “feeling the presence of God” entails, I could sort of try and explain, because it definitely feels physical and emotional, but I think it would be similar to trying to explain what an orgasm feels like to someone who hasn’t had one. Okay, stop right here and realize I was not comparing God to an orgasm, just the difficulty of explaining a physical feeling. Even describing what a broken leg feels like, doesn’t convey itself well. If I went into a verbal description, I’d deserve every bit of hilarious torment you could dish out. I’d love to know how those other poor people described it though. I’ll have to go thread searching again.
Again, if you want to know why I lack belief in God, how else can I explain it to you? Slight coincidences don’t prove anything - that’s the only rational way to look at it. I’m sorry if that offends you, but I think I have a right to disagree with you.
You have every right to disagree with me. Not offended.
Think what you like, but the fact is that people believe all sorts of unsubstantiated things. Gamblers think some sort of mystical force can affect which card they are dealt depending on which seat they occupy at the table; pedestrians think the traffic light will change faster if they push the button over and over when they actually only need to push it once; superstitious people believe that spilling salt will bring them bad luck. Demonstate that stuff with a repeatable, double-blind study and then maybe I’ll believe it. Sorry, but I’m not the one with the bias. Anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it.
I did always wonder why they push that button so much. Thought it was just impatience, not a belief they could affect the light.
The only thing I’m saying about bias/bias is, you can’t prove God with good things that happen and you can’t disprove or deny a God because bad things happen. Neither is by itself rational. You can with those bad things form an opinion that either religion (some) really got God’s personality wrong or there isn’t a God.
I thought you weren’t going to witness.:rolleyes:
“Hey, cheap shot”, she cried shrilly. :rolleyes: I was answering a question, may have slid off point slightly. I have never brought my beliefs up without some sort of question or invitation. I’m not a hi-jacker. I’m not, I’m not.
I know you’re sick of Occam’s Razor, but doesn’t it make more sense to suppose that those are made-up (or at least elaborated) stories, than to suppose that God used to perform miracles, but inexplicably gave it up, coincidentally right at the time when people are starting to question His existence? Besides, you seem to alternately put stock in the Bible and then turn around and say it’s not reliable. Make up your mind.
Story has it(I wasn’t there) that people were denying his existence even when some of those miracles were going on and way before that. I said the Bible was not infallable. I’m trusting a little divine intervention to help me, but hey I’m not infallable either. I am picking what makes the most sense to me. That doesn’t close my mind to everything. There is still a lot to learn. God’s not one of them(for me), but I’m pretty flexible on the rest of it.
And that would be advantageous to God because…?
Seems like it would be advantageous to man, not God. Shouldn’t have went there though. I actually really do believe we’ll get more information.
You seem to be implying that one can’t be open to love unless one believes in God. I assure you that’s not true.
No, didn’t mean that, but love isn’t very rational. Love is about self-esteem and life experiences. If I would have used the “razor” when I met my husband, I would have kicked him to the curb because my last few partner’s had each cheated on me and each had vindictive ex-wives. My hubby had a vindictive ex-wife.
But what does “being open to God” mean? Isn’t that just another way of saying you have to believe in God first? That’s a big part of the reason I don’t buy it - you have to believe in God before God will give you a reason to believe. A little too circular for my taste.
I don’t think you have to believe in God first. Example. Your mind is open to different theories and thoughts on the universe. You(plural you) find it fascinating and exciting. You don’t even mind if you find out something you once believed is wrong. It’s just a high/rush to get more information on something so mysterious. You’re open to all of these new discoveries, some that seem far-fetched, as you’re trying to understand them. Not circular at all. Not believing, just open to new information.
Yeah, sorry about that - I couldn’t resist. It’s sort of a running joke around here that theists invariably resort to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
That’s alright, although I don’t always agree with the Scotsman thing. On the same site: I was laughing my head off because I found the outline, cheat sheet of how an atheist debates a theist. I hope you’re using your own lines. Then I found the one about how a theist debates an atheist.:smack: Wasn’t quite as funny the other way around. I never would have imagined there were “how to” articles on this. Or why they would be necessary, either way. It’s not a contest, just an exchange, right? IWLN
BILL H.
I can’t think of even one Atheist who has killed in the name of Atheism. I can think of a number of Believers who have killed in the name of god. Muhammad, the founder of one of the largest religions immediately springs to mind, but I don’t want this to have a racial slant. The religion isn’t really the killer, it’s the blind faith in any religion that is.
I know the Scotsman fallacy is lurking, but I just don’t think it applies here. Blind faith in a religion or philosophy does not necessarily have to do with God. Many evil people have said God told them to kill or even the devil. They’re nuts, not in contact with God. I can totally agree that people kill in the name of religion, God, pms, pts syndrome, jealousy, love, bad childhood, boredom,etc. This is an excuse to kill. It is a human defect. Hitler claimed to be a Christian and somehow managed to rationalize the killing of Jews. Did that make him a Christian or as some Christians have tried to claim, an atheist(couldn’t believe it when I read that on a website, okay the Scotsman fallacy applies here). But no, neither, it made him an insane man. If I believe horses are my god and go kill the meat packers, how are the horses responsible? Okay now I’m getting ridiculous, I’ll stop.
This may or may not be true. But it avoids the point that many many conflicts in this world involve “god-given” territory. Maybe the Jews and Muslims wouldn’t be fighting without religion, but it’s a certainty that they are fighting with it.
Another excuse to somehow make killing noble, territory. All I’m saying is that if someone identifies themselves as a “believer” , it becomes obvious by their actions of violence that they are not telling the truth. Killed in the name of God is like saying you’re drying with water. Although, normally saying God or the devil made you do it, does get you a committment instead of prison time.:dubious:
**I’m afraid the need for each is the same. If more people believed in John Edward, perhaps we’d have fewer wars. **
I don’t agree. I watched John today for the first and last time. Ugh. Don’t the people on the show realize his whole dialogue is questions and they’re multiple choice? But I don’t dispute someone’s right to believe this if they want to. And I know some of you(plural) see simularities with other “believers”. Not going to debate that(no point). But if we can “come back through”(why would we want to), I’m going to his show. IWLN
But how do you know they are not in touch with God?
After all, blind faith is necessary to believe in God (since there is no evidence of any God).
The God of the Old Testament didn’t hesitate to kill false prophets or entire towns or even children. Is that your God?
If you say that behaviour is evil, despite the person concerned hearing God’s voice in his head, then you are surely saying there are moral absolutes independent of God.
If so, then why do we need priests to tell us how God wants us to behave?
Why don’t believers realise that their Gods are contradictory?
Why don’t believers realise that arguments about God’s will (does He want only male heterosexual priests? can His priests marry? does He allow blood transfusions? did He send AIDS as a punishment? is the Pope His representative?) show that there is no true religion, just a bunch of people arguing with no evidence?
Then we agree. That’s pretty much what we’ve been saying, although I refrain from making any assertions about any realms outside of our universe, since we don’t currently have any evidence for them.
Are you referring to the heat energy stored in our bodies? The only “destination” heat has is to radiate to surrounding matter.
Why are you trying to goad me into belittling you? Does it make you feel like a martyr? I try to respect everyone’s beliefs. Don’t know if I’m always successful, but I try. I don’t shy away from explaining why I believe differently than you, but I don’t see the point at laughing at other people.
As I expected. I’ve read enough of these types of threads to be able to predict some of the responses. You have to realize though, that your claim that there’s more to your belief than feelings/emotions doesn’t carry a lot of weight if you refuse to divulge what the “more” is.
But I wouldn’t consider an orgasm as evidence of any supernatural beings existing, either.
But I’m not TRYING to disprove or deny God. I’m simply saying there’s not enough evidence to convince me that God exists.
Since you looked up “strawman” earlier, you hopefully understand when I tell you that you have created one. I do not believe that bad things prove the non-existence of God. Again, I simply don’t see enough evidence to justify believing. You are imagining a level playing field where IWLN says “Good things prove God”, and Blowero says “Bad things prove not-God”. This is a blatant mischaracterization. I know you don’t like to lose an argument, but you’re just playing a silly child’s game, kind of like this:
Me: “You are engaging in confirmation bias.”
You: “Nuh, uh - YOU are.”
Not really. There weren’t a lot of atheists 2000 years ago. Most people believed in gods; but they didn’t necessarily believe in the same god. And you haven’t answered the question - Isn’t it more likely that those are made-up or elaborated stories? Do you believe all the things Zeus and Apollo did in those stories? Why not?
Exactly; if God wants us to know Him, why would He set up a system specifically designed to allow us not to know Him?
Have I mentioned that you have a habit of saying you didn’t mean to imply something, yet continuing to imply that very thing? This should be on the Top 10 list of theist misconceptions. Thinking logically and rationally does not mean being devoid of emotions. This isn’t a Star Trek episode. Love is an emotion - it is neither rational nor irrational. Same goes for wonder, happiness, joy, empathy, etc. You do not have to believe in God to be able to love. They are 2 completely different things.
Wow, are you ever not getting Occam’s Razor. It says “don’t unneccessarily multiply entities”. It does NOT tell us how to enter into relationships. Geez, I sure hope this is just your weird sense of humor again, and that you aren’t really misunderstanding it this severely.
As has already been said - not so open that your brain falls out.
But you seem to think I am closed-minded. I assure you that is not the case. If we find incontrovertible evidence of God tomorrow, I’ll be the first to celebrate. I used to think that time was immutable, but when I found out about the overwhelming evidence that it is not, I was fascinated and excited, just like you said. But sorry, the evidence for God just isn’t there.
It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It is a logical fallacy. If you say that God-believers don’t kill, and I give examples of God-believers who killed, and you say “Well, they’re not true God-believers”, you are committing an error in reasoning. It’s simply not open to interpretation.
Are you kidding? Christians have entire books about it. They must have think tanks that sit around all day just thinking up disingenous arguments against evolution and cosmology. And the real irony is, even if they were somehow successful in disproving any scientific theories, it STILL wouldn’t prove God.
Because they are not living some of the most important and basic principles of this belief. I could be a self-proclaimed Atheist, but if I went around telling people about my belief in an eternal God and the Bible, it invalidates my claim. You would quickly claim that I wasn’t part of your belief system. I could “say” I believe the ten commandments, which your “typical” Christian would agree on. If I went around murdering, stealing, lying, etc., it would invalidate that claim. I would never call anyone a liar, because I don’t know if it’s a deliberate deceit, if they’re self-serving and have fooled themselves or what their reasoning is. But you must to a great extent represent what you believe, in order to be believable. If you claim to believe in God and then take on the job of deciding who to exclude as unworthy, there’s a conflict. I can’t even judge the ones who do this. I definitely have the opinion that this attitude of judgment has done more harm than any non-believer, saying there is no God, ever could. You are practicing what you “preach”. I have more respect for that. Okay, off the soapbox, I’m sorry. I’m not even near perfect, but I try not to let that ever harm other people. That’s not really about God, that’s just about values. IWLN
But I’m sure they believe they are, as do you. And without any objective way of judging, how do you know you are correct and not them?
GLEE
See answers to Algorithm. God has always been used as an excuse for self-serving behavior, even in the Old Testament. Of course there are moral absolutes. Belief in God didn’t give us morals. This came from human interaction and modification of our values. Moral absolutes would be more cultural than anything. I attend the Catholic church, but don’t need a man(or woman) to tell me how to behave. I went to confession once(morbid curiousity). Told the priest I had already discussed everything with God and I was good to go. He was chuckling when I left. I hope the pope has his heart in the right place, but he only works for God(I hope). God isn’t contradictory. Man is. God doesn’t exclude who can serve him. There is no rational reason to believe God only wanted hetero, celibate priests. Aids is not different than any other disease. It’s a part of our human evolution and existence. Knowledge of science and medicine evolved too. Why wouldn’t necessary blood transfusions be okay. There is no “true” religion. All have faults because all men do. The religions were created by man to fit their belief system. Doesn’t mean God isn’t true. Just means religion is fallible. I think a lot of the current “rules” for being a good believer are based on customs and taboos from thousands of years ago. God may have wanted blind faith in him, but not in religion. IWLN
Because when they say they are a Christian, there are facts that go with it. Just like when you say you are an Atheist. If all of your actions contradict these beliefs, you may still somehow have the belief that you are, but it doesn’t make it true. If I said I was a lesbian, but only desired men and were repelled by women, I would be acting in direct conflict to the “title”. Saying things doesn’t make it so. Living them at least makes it more likely.
So how do we tell those who understand the word of God from those who don’t?
Are there world-wide moral absolutes, or loads of systems depending on culture?
Do you not obey the Pope?
Then why does a large part of the Christian Church say He does?
Then why do some Christians say it is a punishment from God?
Then why do some Christians say it is forbidden?
So all religions are faulty?
Add to this that there is no evidence for any God, and I wonder how you can be so sure God exists, let alone what He wants.
If there is a God, why is He so bad at communicating with us?
This is not an analogous situation at all. Saying, “I am an atheist” means “I deny the existance of a God or gods.” Yes, saying you are an atheist who believes in God is contradictory. You are correct there. However, you can’t claim someone who says “I believe in God” is not really a believer, simply because they don’t conform to your moral standard.
Are you saying that the second a God-believer lies they no longer believe in God?
Do you have to believe in the ten commandments to be a God-believer? Do you have to believe that anyone who disobeys any of the commandments is a non-believer?
If someone says “I believe in God” the only thing they are saying is that they believe in God. They aren’t saying they won’t bomb buildings or kill babies. You are the one saying that these types of actions are contradictory to belief in God. Please explain how you know that those actions imply they are non-believers. Please explain why you think that those types of actions are contradictory to belief in God.
But following these cultural moral absolutes is a prerequisite for belief in God?
I believe I have explained before that I don’t agree that choosing the most likely, but not necessarily correct answer is appropriate. It is a logical tool, I am not denying that. But even without feeling personally certain about God, would probably not apply is to something this important. I would say I don’t know and be willing to wait or look further for the correct answer. Therefore I am debating the use of this tool. This tool is not 100%. That is why I am not willing to consider it’s use. I would not use it to decide if I might have breast cancer either. I feel fine, I’m not in a high risk group, it is unlikely that I have cancer. I would still have a mammogram. I don’t have to prove the necessity of the plurality if I don’t agree the tool is a valid indicator in these instances. These life or death situations should not be left to the most likely assumption. It is similar to a murder trial. If all but one of the jurors thinks the defendant is guilty, that is not good enough. If the other jurors can’t convince the one, they start the whole process over again. Again, I have never held the belief that I could prove or convince you(plural) that there is a God. If someone asks me a question or makes a statement that I consider is incorrect, I’m going to respond. Sometimes an opinion is all we have. Sometimes all I receive back is an opinion. Am I being witnessed to then? IWLN