|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 5, 2021 0:04:31 GMT
Now you're moving the goalposts. You are lying yet again, Throwing fire from the sky was never an interaction or a test. So fire from the sky isn't an interaction with the physical world in a way that's testable. So what part of that isn't physical and isn't testable?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 5, 2021 0:10:08 GMT
Now you're moving the goalposts. You are lying yet again, Throwing fire from the sky was never an interaction or a test. How is throwing fire from the sky not an "interaction"? This is essentially a form of communication, god demonstrating his existence, he's "interracting" with humans. This is so baffling. And you actually have the audacity to accuse others of "lying".
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 5, 2021 0:18:17 GMT
1) This is just you obsessing over pedantics in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong. 2) Nobody knows the truth about God's existence. I never said I did. 3) I've repeatedly told you there is no evidence God exists. 4) Me being happier and more successful is not a falsehood. It's a fact. 1) Not to be pedantic but I think you meant "semantics" rather than "pedantics." Whatever the case, you haven't shown anything I'm wrong about. 2) I'm not talking about "knowing the truth" of God's existence. It's like what I'm saying just flies right over your head. 3) Yes, and I've repeatedly said that then makes your belief that he does irrational if you care about truth. 4) I didn't say you being happier was a falsehood. What I said was you're suggesting it's rational to believe in falsehoods if they make you happier. 4) What falsehood do you think I believe in? I don't think you know the definition of the word belief. People believe in things they do not know. They know things they have proof exist. My "belief" in God is not the same thing as me "knowing" God exist. The existence of God is not a falsehood. There is no proof God doesn't exist. So one cannot say with provable evidence that God doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 5, 2021 0:29:26 GMT
So, we both agree, there is no proof. In my opinion, there is no substantial evidence, one way or another. The way I came to believe in God is; 1) I was raised Catholic. 2) I went through periods of being Agnostic and Atheist. 3) I decided to be a believer because I was happier and more successful as a believer. 4) I belong to no specific Christian denomination. That is not proof or evidence. It just a personal experience and decision. I think that is rational. But I don't tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. That's a individual decision. I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 5, 2021 0:35:26 GMT
I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw But being drunk is not healthy. And it often is caused by the abuser trying to dull the pain of mental, psychological and/or emotional problems. Believing in God is not unhealthy. And I have no pain I'm trying to dull. So, that may be a funny post of yours, but it's not completely applicable.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 8:05:45 GMT
A test is something repeatable and peer reviewable.
Schedule a teet of fire throwing from the sky.
The belief in God does not include any such thing.
When God spoke to people somehow in the Bible, he would call their name.
The usual answer to God was “I’m here.”
Clearly a response, not a command to God.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 8:07:55 GMT
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw But being drunk is not healthy. And it often is caused by the abuser trying to dull the pain of mental, psychological and/or emotional problems. Believing in God is not unhealthy. And I have no pain I'm trying to dull. So, that may be a funny post of yours, but it's not completely applicable. The anti-religion religion is purely about thought control. It’s one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen in my life.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 5, 2021 8:21:57 GMT
But being drunk is not healthy. And it often is caused by the abuser trying to dull the pain of mental, psychological and/or emotional problems. Believing in God is not unhealthy. And I have no pain I'm trying to dull. So, that may be a funny post of yours, but it's not completely applicable. The anti-religion religion is purely about thought control. It’s one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen in my life. I don't agree. In my opinion, it's either ignorance and/or rebellion. Some people are too mentally unable to comprehend intangiblilties like spirituality. That is why we keep getting statements like, "There is no empirical evidence." And some Atheist are just angry at religion for various reasons. So they swear never to endorse it. And constantly blame the religions for what some evil acts people use religion as an excuse for. That is the same argument the anti gun crowd uses when they say "guns are evil". And others say "money is the root of all evil". This goes back to the irresponsibility factor. Like Black Lives Matter blaming the police when criminals get in trouble for being criminals. Responsible people can use religion, guns and money responsibly. And when they don't, the responsible blame themselves. Not whatever tool they used irresponsibly. But irresponsible people are never responsible. It's always somebody else's fault. Or something else's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 9:10:18 GMT
The anti-religion religion is purely about thought control. It’s one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen in my life. I don't agree. In my opinion, it's either ignorance and/or rebellion. Some people are too mentally unable to comprehend intangiblilties like spirituality. That is why we keep getting statements like, "There is no empirical evidence." And some Atheist are just angry at religion for various reasons. So they swear never to endorse it. And constantly blame the religions for what some evil acts people use religion as an excuse for. That is the same argument the anti gun crowd uses when they say "guns are evil". And others say "money is the root of all evil". This goes back to the irresponsibility factor. Like Black Lives Matter blaming the police when criminals get in trouble for being criminals. Responsible people can use religion, guns and money responsibly. And when they don't, the responsible blame themselves. Not whatever tool they used irresponsibly. But irresponsible people are never responsible. It's always somebody else's fault. Or something else's fault. Good points but I think there is more malice than ignorance showing up in the thought control attempts.
I've known many people in Israel who grew up in the former Soviet Union. What's going on with the anti-religion religion and attempts at thought control reminds me of their descriptions of living under Communism.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 9:59:29 GMT
I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw Telling people how to think (via insults) is arseholery. It’s understandable over politics, but it is inexcusable with something as personal as religious beliefs. The people who do this are arseholes.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 5, 2021 9:59:34 GMT
I don't agree. In my opinion, it's either ignorance and/or rebellion. Some people are too mentally unable to comprehend intangiblilties like spirituality. That is why we keep getting statements like, "There is no empirical evidence." And some Atheist are just angry at religion for various reasons. So they swear never to endorse it. And constantly blame the religions for what some evil acts people use religion as an excuse for. That is the same argument the anti gun crowd uses when they say "guns are evil". And others say "money is the root of all evil". This goes back to the irresponsibility factor. Like Black Lives Matter blaming the police when criminals get in trouble for being criminals. Responsible people can use religion, guns and money responsibly. And when they don't, the responsible blame themselves. Not whatever tool they used irresponsibly. But irresponsible people are never responsible. It's always somebody else's fault. Or something else's fault. Good points but I think there is more malice than ignorance showing up in the thought control attempts.
I've known many people in Israel who grew up in the former Soviet Union. What's going on with the anti-religion religion and attempts at thought control reminds me of their descriptions of living under Communism. Maybe in the Soviet Union. But I don't see that here.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 11:21:21 GMT
Good points but I think there is more malice than ignorance showing up in the thought control attempts.
I've known many people in Israel who grew up in the former Soviet Union. What's going on with the anti-religion religion and attempts at thought control reminds me of their descriptions of living under Communism. Maybe in the Soviet Union. But I don't see that here. Okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 11:22:33 GMT
In any case, I'm proud of the Jewish people that the issue of "religion vs science" was addressed and resolved 800 years ago.  Maimonides (Judaism's greatest philosopher) was a rabbi and a doctor who loved both his religion and science in general. He stood his ground and set the principles of Judaism to include the idea that there can be no contradiction between Judaism and science. Jews aren't allowed to proselytize to non-Jews, so Jews don't have to prove anything to anyone.
It's been a settled matter of Judaism's belief system for 800 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 5, 2021 11:44:00 GMT
Jews don't have to prove anything to anyone.
And yet here you are, attempting to establish a view and arguing with those who don't agree with you... Which is why we saw earlier the forced attempts of one of your sources attempting to reconcile a literal reading of the Torah with modern science through special pleading. And the warning from the Jewish Journal about those "Rabbis, many of whom are not versed in the sciences and, worse know just enough to say something foolish or dangerous.." But hey, pointing out such things is more of that attempting to control your thinking, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 12:28:15 GMT
My position here is the defense of Christians mostly who are called irrational by arseholes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jan 5, 2021 13:00:20 GMT
This is the youtube guy’s false assumptions, aka prejudice, probably born out his frustration in not understanding the concept of atheism. These maybe ass-smelly axioms are thrown out by frustrated fishers of men casing their nets off Dover Beach.
“We're all born Atheists until someone starts lying to us."
False. No one is born an anything with an “ism” attached to it. Maybe the label “pagan” or “heathen” can be put on newborn babes. They are born with a pure id that gets tempered as the baby’s ego develops. It is at this stage children are inculcated into culture belief systems either through schooling or osmosis.
"Reading the Bible will make you an Atheist."
Probably true. If one reads the Bible without an assist from a commentary, the stuff the theists are taught often don’t match what’s in the biblical narrative mount up. This is most apt to damage or kill the faith of the unprepared Evangelical reader. Therefore, most Right Wing Evangelicals use Scofield or Ryrie Study Bibles, which use the KJV, and helps explain the confusing passages using their brand of fundamentalist theology. Atheists didn’t start this moral panic anyway. The RCC itself forbade the layperson from owning a Bible, especially a vernacular translation...or read it, even. Even the approved Latin Vulgate translation could bring down harsh judgement...not that many people could afford to own a Bible back then. It wasn’t until 1500 or so with the Protestant Reformation and the printing press did this change.
"You can't be reasoned out of something you weren't reasoned into."
This is a true axiom, though not one exclusive to theism.
And here’s that “ism” again. The term atheist is contra to theist, an apologist. The opposite of a believer is the skeptic...that’s a separate topic.
A believer does not require a theology or theory of God. He or she have faith in It, not a rationalization for believing opposed to not believing.
A theist, though, does look for justification for his or her beliefs and become frustrated when the atheist points out the flaws in his logic.
This statement has most recently been applied to QAnon believers.
"Atheism and Atheists are honest/rational/reasonable."
No creditable atheist has said or thought that unless they’re trying to be an asshole. There are plenty of asshole atheists, just like there plenty of theist assholes.
However, what atheists are not are religious hypocrites. Generally the theist is more concerned with getting his “ism” to cancel out the atheist’s “ism” and tends to forget he is supposed to be living a Christian life, not bean counting church membership as proof their own particular religion is the True One.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 13:02:47 GMT
The anti-religion religion is hypocritical on its face.
People who are just atheists don’t tend to try to interfere with believers. They themselves just don’t believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 13:04:39 GMT
Reading the Jewish Bible in Hebrew has been shown to make Jews more religious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 5, 2021 13:21:52 GMT
The anti-religion religion is hypocritical on its face. People who are just atheists don’t tend to try to interfere with believers. They themselves just don’t believe. Arguing in a board called Religion Faith and Spirituality over atheism/religion is not interfering with believers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 5, 2021 13:31:18 GMT
1) Not to be pedantic but I think you meant "semantics" rather than "pedantics." Whatever the case, you haven't shown anything I'm wrong about. 2) I'm not talking about "knowing the truth" of God's existence. It's like what I'm saying just flies right over your head. 3) Yes, and I've repeatedly said that then makes your belief that he does irrational if you care about truth. 4) I didn't say you being happier was a falsehood. What I said was you're suggesting it's rational to believe in falsehoods if they make you happier. 4) What falsehood do you think I believe in? I don't think you know the definition of the word belief. People believe in things they do not know. They know things they have proof exist. My "belief" in God is not the same thing as me "knowing" God exist. The existence of God is not a falsehood. There is no proof God doesn't exist. So one cannot say with provable evidence that God doesn't exist. 4) Maybe "falsehood" is the wrong word, but you're essentially saying it's rational to believe something with no evidence or reason to think it's true other than that it makes you happy. Would you say any of these statements are rational: "Believing I have a billion dollars in my bank account makes me happy. You can't prove I don't, so I'll choose to believe it." "Believing I'm the reincarnated spirit of Jimi Hendrix makes me happy. You can't prove I'm not, so I'll choose to believe it." "Believing in The Flying Spaghetti Monster makes me happy. You can't prove it doesn't exist, so I'll choose to believe it." "Believing in Santa Clause makes me happy. You can't prove he doesn't exist, so I'll choose to believe it." "Believing we're all living in the matrix makes me happy. You can't prove we aren't, so I'll choose to believe it." "Believing Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election makes me happy. You can't prove he didn't, so I'll choose to believe it." God is no different than any of these things. The only difference between belief and knowledge is the confidence level. Knowledge is something you might be 99.99% certain is true, while you can believe anything that reaches a subjective threshold that you think is true. So how confident are you that God exists? 50%? 66%? 75%? 90%? And what evidence/reasoning did you use to get to that level, keeping in mind that "it makes me feel good" is not evidence that God exists?
|
|