I don’t think I’m being an asshole to you. Why are you being one to me?
According to the definition I pointed to earlier, at dictionary.com, the first definition of “evidence” is:
Now, there is lots of evidence here. Depending on how we as people interpret the evidence, it may suggest that there is a God, and it may suggest that there isn’t. Seems to me like it’s open to interpretation, based on how each individual person conceives of it.
No, I haven’t got proof. I haven’t got proof either way, obviously. I don’t think anyone has proof that God exists, or that He doesn’t. What do you think?
::: stepping up to the mic tentively, to throw in another definition and make an ass of herself :::
Hello everyone!
“Hello faithfool”!
I’m here to proclaim that I am… a deist.
::: collective gasp :::
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, I’ve amassed some questions from the thread thus far. I hope no one minds if I put them out on the table for whoever to answer.
[ol]
[li]I LOVE Aerosmith and have started a discussion or four about them. In those, there has invariably people who’ve believed that my guys are past their prime, all their new stuff sounds exactly the same and since they’re virtual dinosaurs, they need to give up playing like young hotties strutting about the stage and trying to pull the lime light from Justin Timberlake. Although I vehemently disagree, I will listen to this line of reasoning and give it serious consideration versus the usual absolute adoration I send their way. However, if another arrives blaring “They just suck!” or “I hate them!” or “You’re so stupid/brainwashed/unsophisticated!” then I typically disregard their opinion and instead wonder why they didn’t start a conversation of their own with the title being “Aerosmith should eat shit and die! The bastards!”[/li]
[li]If someone deserves derision, like ol’ Phred, then I see absolutely no reason to not meet his vitriol with some of one’s own. But if a person is doing their best to not preach, condemn or save you because of what they believe, then I see it as a simple sign of polite society to do the same in return. Extrapolate that out to Theist 1: “I feel that God works in my life.” Atheist 1: “I understand, but from my experience, I’ve never felt the presence of a god.” Both together: “I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.” Unless one or the other is interested in hearing more about your organization and wishes to subscribe to your newsletter. That still seems to be pulling no punches or not compromising a position, but behaving as you’d like to be treated.[/li]
[li]When I became first de-fundamentalized (for lack of a better suited word), I had a tendency to think very narrowly about those that still held to that version of faith. Over the years though, I realize that my ire was really directed at those who professed NO derivation from what they thought. Nope, not gonna do. This way is the ONLY way. There is no other. Ever. Period. And since most folks I know don’t spout that kind of rhetoric, I no longer paint them all with that same broad brush. I’m sure that any who are more accepting of the ‘every path leads to God’ approach are grateful to not be characterized the same as the intolerant. I know I am. I also have the same regard towards anyone who is militant, unmoving and/ unforgiving about any subject. Like feminism (of which I used to be one of those too – I was accused of being a man-basher more than once, for which I’m extremely embarrassed because, although I wouldn’t have bought it at the time, it definitely bordered on being true) or the choice of a Mac over Apple or any other issue under the sun. I try my very best to leave past (and current) prejudices or ideas at home when dealing in the present. It does need to be a case by case basis, every single time. No matter how difficult or tiresome that is. How would you feel if I judged you not by your character, but by someone else’s?[/li]
[li]Unfortunately, there are more to actions than public pursuit, governmental changes of policies or whispered cries against apparent persecution. I’ve seen many in America say they are oppressed as Christians. On the other side of the coin, I know personally those that are marginalized, are of the same conviction. For example, I used to visit a nice spiritual message board. Many there were just normal posters, not out campaigning or demonstrating or even listening to anything but ‘secular’ radio. And yet, even though I presented myself as that same kind of moderate, I was (IMHO) constantly attacked. How? Because of absolutist statements like; *“Those liberals are all commies!”, “The world is going to hell in a hand basket if we let a Democrat in office.” or "TV is now the bastion of all that is evil in the world, because of them. If not, there’d be no violence or so much sex. Just like it was 50 years ago. :eek:) If I ventured into these topics, I was sometimes the only voice of dissent and those who deigned to talk to me about it, looked down, wouldn’t here a different opinion (which, were they just there to preach to the choir?) or respect my respect for them. I really tried, but then I figured it wasn’t up to me to change their minds about something so simple as the concept of mutual, civil regard. They were tuning me out and it was better for my stress levels to just quietly leave.[/li]
[li]Why is everyone so concerned with clearing up ‘delusions’ that they deem other people to have? Why is it important? My ex-bestfriend could look straight at obstacle and view it as something other than torquois (when it was NOT :D) and yet, I could pull a color swatch out for her, properly labeled under that heading, compare the two and the only result was her stubbornly walking away shaking her head. What did it matter if we differed? Now I comprehend that quibbling over that versus a the huge religion debate is not the same, but if it truly what atheists and others claim (complete hogwash to the point of being laughable), then why fight them on it? Unless, they are pursuing damaging honest LIVES, then let them be what they want to. The ones who react in harm, deserve what they get. The ones who do not, deserve peace rather than belittlement and mockery.[/li][/ol]
For what it’s worth, I came to the conclusions I have after long, painful, serious consideration. Maybe they have to. And if that’s not the case, if you ever hope to inspire them to abandon their ‘delusions’ and see more clearly, then adhering to the Golden Rule will undoubtedly wield the best, most-desired in rational and logical sense (from either stance), results.
::: starts to sit down, nervously wiping palms and hoping she did all right :::
“Thank you! For finally shutting up and getting off the stage. You long-winded goofy-lookin’ freak!!”
Sorry. 
I don’t mean to, I’m just not very capable of making my point without going round and round in an idiotic ramble.
P.S. to Poly: Please don’t go. You’ve definitely made an impact on me, take that as you will. I’d hate to see you give up the good fight and leave so many to flounder when your impact is far and wide and always positive. You are a credit to your God. I wish everyone cared that much.
[On preview, four pages have been added since I got this finished. I will go read up on them, then I’m sure I’ll type out another salvo. Sorry again.]
An opinion that the moon is made of camembert is not evidence that the moon is made of camambert. Opinions mean nothing. They are not evidence because they do not make anything more or less likely to be true. They do not have probative value. They do not contain any information.
What do you see in the universe which is “open” to an interpretation of anything other than purely natural processes?
I still want to know what evidence you have. You said you did like it meant something; now it appears that absolutely anything can be evidence of something if I just interpret that it is.
I agree. Nobody even seems to have a definition of what god is. What I’m not agreeing with is putting this argument on equal footing.
Gee, why don’t we posit specific gods and then debate their existence?
I mean, say I were to posit the existence of the Christian God, also in human form as Jesus Christ. I could try to say that there’s evidence there in that there may be evidence from outside sources that such a being as Jesus Christ existed, evidence of real places, other historical references to characters surrounding him, etc.
Does the evidence stand up to scrutiny? Maybe, maybe not. None of it is conclusive enough to say that I have proven the existence of a god.
Now, I know that I personally cannot defend the existence of said deity worth a cent, but perhaps it’s possible.
I had to go back to comment on this, because it proves the whole point of your observation to begin with. From what I have read of your posts, you’ve changed quite dramatically. So much, in fact, that I recently came upon something and thought I had you confused with someone else who held much more of a literalist’s view of the bible. Which, IMHO, was more off putting than helpful. Yet now, I’m very open to anything you’d have to say. Simply because it comes across as more accepting and open-minded.
There are those of us out there who really appreciate that kind of effort. Kudos to you and others who try to bridge these gaps.
Yoiu haven’t got any evidence either.
There is no proof either way that zorks exist or don’t exist.
Pretty much, it’s just that some people may think your claims have no credence. For example, if I say, “The gleeks being glorped is evidence that gruple gog is gank”, a lot of you would think I’m looney. That’s probably because it doesn’t make any sense to any of you.
However, I have a friend named Glack, who hears me say that and says, '“Of course! How could anyone disagree with that?” Well, it makes sense to him.
I presented one interpretation of evidence earlier, and Diogenes disagreed with me. He said that he thought my claim that God was responsible for the universe was wrong because there are other ways the earth might have come to be, that didn’t involve God creating it. The fact is, maybe one of us is right, and maybe neither of us is. We don’t know. It’s all in how we interpret the evidence.
Listen, it’s not my evidence - it’s my interpretation of the evidence. If you and I and everyone else interprets the evidence in the same way, we might say we have proof. However, we obviously don’t.
Likewise, there’s no proof that God exists, or doesn’t. Finally, something we can agree on, right? 
Not necessarily – every person might just have a delusional interpretation of the evidence. Just because everyone agrees on the interpretation of evidence doesn’t make it so. (Who disagreed that the earth was flat 1000 years ago? It’s not flat.)
Other than that, carry on.
That was my point. Many of us will have different interpretations of evidence, and some of them will be delusional (or at least, we think they are). We won’t know if any of us are right about God or not.
It’s a fallacious interpretation of the evidence.
That’s your opinion.
Err, no. We’re spending all this time talking about interpretations of the evidence when it’s the actual evidence that matters. If a piece evidence can be interpreted as supporting the opposite sides of an argument, I’m not sure it’s worth anything.
NO, actually, it isn’t. There are right ways and wrong ways to evaluate evidence. It’s called scientific method. Scientific method requires that natural explanations of observed phenomena must be exhausted before anything “supernatural” can be hypothesized.
Like I said, it is not rational- it is in fact fallacious- to suppose or assert that a supernatural explanation (i.e. an impossible explanation) is ever “more likely” than a natural one.
That’s true. And so, are we back to square one?
::yawn::
Tell you what. You guys figure this whole “God” thing out one way or the other, let the rest of us know, okay?
Until then, stop treating each other like dicks.
So you’re suggesting that no persons, especially scientists, should be theists?