Warning for what? My response was showing why his Lock Ness test for evidence doesn’t work.
You know what, I’m fed up of you picking on me while completing ignoring your atheist friends who are grossly commiting the offenses you accusing me of doing.
I’m done with this thread for good now so feel free to lock it or whatever.
A Christian just can’t get a fair shake here when the mods are hardcore atheists.
Two stories and a moral:
It happened again a few years later, when I was in the bathroom and I stood up from tying my shoe. And this time, I remembered that the first time it also happened right after I stood up after being bent over. It was a terrible, triumph-of-the-banal moment.
The third time it happened, a few years later, I poked around online (or somewhere, I forget exactly where), and found out that this is a not-too-uncommon visual hallucination when some folks stand up suddenly: as the blood flows from their head, there’s some sort of short-circuit in their optical nerve.
What I thought was magic–what I desperately wanted to be magic–what I thought had no other possible explanation–turned out later to have one. It turned out to have one that I didn’t know was even possible.
Recently, after I performed the trick on a third-grader, he turned in amazement to tell a friend what had happened. “Mr. Dorkness showed me his empty hands,” he said–and showed his friends both sides of his hands to demonstrate–“and pulled a quarter from my ear!”
I’d done the trick on him about fifteen seconds earlier, and already he’d revised his memory to make my trick more amazing, because he wanted to believe in magic.
Moral: When something magical happens, even if you cannot conceive of a possible explanation, there may be one you haven’t thought of. And when you remember that magical event, if you want it to be magical, you may be revising your memory to increase the magic of the occasion.
So when folks offer me evidence from their own experiences that support their belief in God, I remember these two events, and take their evidence accordingly.
Which is why I thought twice about the warning and withdrew it a few minutes ago.
Just for the record: you do not get to decide if or when this thread gets closed. (If you’d started it, I’d take your input under advisement.)
I am an atheist, and I also know tomndebb has explained to you more than once that he is not an atheist. I reject your description that I’m “hardcore” just because I don’t agree with you. That said, if you have any further comments or discussion about moderation, start a thread about it in ATMB. Don’t post about it further in this thread.
Your four examples, while very good, didn’t include “I saw the Loch Ness Monster with my very own eyes.”
Some Christians (I’ve met a few) insist that they have a personal relationship with God (or Jesus) and have held personal conversations.
I do have to say, this is a kind of evidence. It is very bad evidence. It’s useless to me, because God and Jesus maintain an icy silence whenever I ask them questions, and this is true for the vast majority of people I’ve ever asked about it. It’s a kind of evidence that can’t be independently assessed, or even verified. In experimental terms, there is no possible test that would tell me if the claimant is lying. There is no possible “double blind” protocol.
I am an atheist – even a “strong” atheist – for a number of reasons. But I do want to try to be fair-minded enough to say that when my friend (and a very dear friend indeed) insists that she walks hand-in-hand with Jesus, that this is a form of evidence.
In all of this, I think we are running up against the classical problem of definitions. I do include hearsay and gossip as evidence – but I also give them very little weight in ordinary life, and absolutely zero weight in scientific or courtroom affairs.
On a side note, there are some real problems with accepting personal testimony and interpretations… even if we get past the fact that once we accept supernatural beings then we must accept that supernatural beings can use their magic to impersonate each other and trick foolish humans. When it comes right down to it though, I don’t think that even our resident fundamentalists like Geepers actually buy the logic they’re trying to sell, I think they’re only using it in a bid to game the rhetoric and not in any sound epistemological quest.
I suppose I could be proven wrong if Geepers said something like “Islamic revelations are proof that Mohammed really is God’s final prophet, Jesus was wrong, and I should convert.”
Of course, something tells me Geepers wouldn’t say that. Despite the silly level of politeness we’re supposed to show so as not to be nasty atheists.
Jesus made up stories, such as the parable of the talents, or the parable of Lazarus and Dives. The people listening to him then – and those who read those stories now – knew and know that they were presented as fictional.
Some is poetry – Psalms, for instance. And Job is pretty obviously a parable, not a literal historical account. But Job contains some of the greatest poetry in human history, and also contains some of the deepest and wisest insights into human nature.
I’m an atheist, through and through, but would never discard the Bible. A wise man takes wisdom wherever he finds it.
It’s just, as you note, taking the whole thing as a literal account is counter-productive. It would be something like going to Bethany to try to find the fig tree which Jesus caused to wither. What could conceivably be learned from that?
Um… Argh… I am one of those people who responds to threads as I read the post, and so I have put up some responses before I saw this moderator’s ruling.
Could you please excise any of my posts which should not have been posted?
(Is there a formal rule against posting as one reads? Is it formally obligatory – as opposed to merely being a darn good idea – to read the whole thread and only then re-read and comment?)
Apologies.
Well, by way of penance, you can read and report on the “Stupid Republican” thread in the Pit. Give us an analysis of any statistically relevant trends in syntax, stance, or ideation, with the attendant statistics to support. How does 8 am tomorrow sound?
(Note: a “deconstructionist” approach to critical analysis is neither required nor encouraged.)
I don’t think allowing for the concept of God to be malleable is a fallacy. I believe in the collective consciousness and this is the beginning of what I choose to believe; that the entire universe and everything in it and beyond are all connected. If that’s a fallacy then so be it. I’m comfortable with it. I see the concept of Russian dolls or musical scales to apply to my understanding of the multiverse. Of course I cannot prove this, but no one asked for proof. Evidence by definition means a thing or things that are helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement. But then again judgement is a form of opinion is it not. And opinion comes from personal slant or bias, so to call it a fallacy is your opinion. I do not share it.
I’m not going to delete the posts. If there was another thread on the topic, I’d move them. Since there isn’t, please just read carefully and don’t do it again.
No, but it’s appreciated and helps prevent situations like this. I’d suggest practicing with the multi-quote function. You can use that to reply to a bunch of posts at once after you’ve finished reading the thread.
How does that work? You are done participating in Czarcasm’s thread, so it gets locked?
Whenever I shout out “Goddammit” in anger, my dogs slink away. Every dog I’ve owned my entire life has done this, so I’m left assuming that they’re leaving because they’re worried that I’m about to be killed via lightning bolt or something, and they don’t want to be caught in the cross-fire.
Other than that, I got nothing.
Here’s an interview with Michio Kaku. I don’t think we can question his reputation or his credibility. Maybe you can. The fact that more and more scientists I research support this view point suggests evidence that they find it possible for god to exist.
“If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.” – Robert Griffiths, physicist and winner of the Dannie Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics.
says you.
This goes out to every one of you on this post: Says you.
Excellent rebuttal, sir. All I may say in response is “No U!”
Play is to you sir, play is to you.
Unless, of course, you intend closure of the thread to be “evidence for the existence of your deity”!?!
:eek:
This could get interesting. Back on topic, as well!
really this comic book view of god is annoying as hell to us who do not think that the big guy in the sky can heal all ills. The original teachings spoke of miraculous cures as parables. Once this is accepted then Scientists [which I am] and Christians [which I am] can discuss the true message of Christ.
Sorry you are wrong see above.
never claimed that I have absolute answers to anything.
Sorry Geepers just not your flavor of Christianity. I respect that you hold your views I just disagree with them.