|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 19, 2017 21:43:39 GMT
we're discussing that there's nothing convincing about it, not why people believe it. Maybe not convincing for you and me, but for believers. As evidenced on this thread. And if the believers' beliefs make them happy and are convincing to them, there is no reason to do anything against them. Whether it's convincing to believers is irrelevant. Can it be demonstrated to be true? The answer is no, and I don't know why you're going off on tangents about whether people are happy about it or not. It doesn't matter to the question being asked.
Can anybody provide any convincing demonstration that a god exists. Just admit that they haven't already.
Also there is plenty of reason to do something against them, and them being happy has nothing at all to do with it. I give you terrorism as an example. I give you a large portion of believers who don't accept basic scientific facts like evolution because they are happy in their delusion. Etc.
You can stop talking about how happy it makes them, because it 100% is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 19, 2017 22:32:25 GMT
Whether it's convincing to believers is irrelevant. Can it be demonstrated to be true? The answer is no, and I don't know why you're going off on tangents about whether people are happy about it or not. It doesn't matter to the question being asked. And maybe it doesn't matter to the believers if they can't demonstrate it to be true. Some believers have claimed to have personal reasons to believe; experiences or whatever; they can't be demonstrated to a third party, and they don't have to. Not to anyone else. Not that they have to. And this is also irrelevant, as I was talking about believers who leave others alone. As is to believers to demonstrate to you why they believe in God. We are going in circles. You are asking the same question again and again; and apparently refuse to accept answers you don't like. Unless you do, I guess this conversation is over. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 19, 2017 22:44:33 GMT
If you can't demonstrate there is a god, or provide any convincing evidence, the rest of what you're saying simply doesn't matter to the discussion here. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 20, 2017 2:15:23 GMT
You got one thing right. It happens eventually, even for broken clocks. Your refusal to acknowledge evidence is not the same thing as there being no evidence. You have a very serious mental problem that makes your opinion on evidence invalid. So far there remain many people like you in positions of authority and influence. Here's how it will play out. You (plural) will continue to ignore my arguments. You (plural) will likewise be ignored until you realize you cannot ignore my arguments. Do you follow United States' politics? Do you think a change has finally come to our politics? Something weird definitely happened, but what? Can you say? Here's what changed so far, nothing yet. It's the same country it's been since Jimmy Carter was president. It has very serious and continually worsening economic and social problems. When the Republicans are in power they think everything is fine and only Democrats recognize they are not fine. When the Democrats are in power they think everything is fine and only Republicans recognize they are not. Later it will finally become obvious to both parties that everything is not fine. Later it will become obvious that the Republicans are not making America great again, and even the Republicans will see it this time. Excuse me, I need a new irony meter. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 20, 2017 2:22:51 GMT
Arlon, you've presented no evidence, and we both know it's not just a matter of me not accepting it. If you want to troll do it to somebody else. I'll respond if you got something worth discussing. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 20, 2017 2:30:45 GMT
Arlon, you've presented no evidence, and we both know it's not just a matter of me not accepting it. If you want to troll do it to somebody else. I'll respond if you got something worth discussing. PKB |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 20, 2017 5:02:07 GMT
I've never found the idea convincing, and most of the arguments I hear honestly don't really seem to go anywhere, so I'd like to ask why anybody accepts it as true? It doesn't matter if you find the idea convincing.
I'm not sure how anyone explaining their beliefs would convince you but you should just assume that they have sufficient conviction to believe something you can't believe.
Any belief is all a construct and product of the mind. It is not real. We can convince ourselves anything, but at the end of the day it is all mind games. The notion of God being a separate superior entity is only limiting anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 20, 2017 5:04:27 GMT
I am not convinced there is a God, any one who is honest with themselves will admit a level of agnosticism. I do, however, choose to interpret the universe as a construct made by an intelligence. When I'm honest with myself, I haven't the slightest doubt that there is no God, and that the very idea of one is completely absurd. I'd like there to be a God (although with different ethics than what's portrayed in the Bible), but I'd like every woman to be in love with me, and for you all to make me your king, too. I don't believe that any of that stuff will happen just because I want it to.
When one steps out of the ego notion of self, then clarity will prevail. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 20, 2017 5:06:41 GMT
The idea of nonphysical existents period is completely absurd. It's simply a naive reification of mental phenomena. And by that same token, the idea of physical existents is just as completely absurd. Look at our lives and what we do to ourselves and each other. It's all a naïve projection of mental phenomena, be it external or internal. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 20, 2017 11:00:13 GMT
The idea of nonphysical existents period is completely absurd. It's simply a naive reification of mental phenomena. And by that same token, the idea of physical existents is just as completely absurd. Look at our lives and what we do to ourselves and each other. It's all a naïve projection of mental phenomena, be it external or internal. It's certainly not completely absurd to me, it's rather completely obvious to me. And mental phenomena are physical, which is also completely obvious. People who think otherwise are confused at best. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 20, 2017 11:13:25 GMT
It doesn't matter if you find the idea convincing.
I'm not sure how anyone explaining their beliefs would convince you but you should just assume that they have sufficient conviction to believe something you can't believe.
Any belief is all a construct and product of the mind. It is not real. We can convince ourselves anything, but at the end of the day it is all mind games. The notion of God being a separate superior entity is only limiting anyway. This isn't true unless this is just a semantics statement. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 20, 2017 18:35:19 GMT
It doesn't matter if you find the idea convincing.
I'm not sure how anyone explaining their beliefs would convince you but you should just assume that they have sufficient conviction to believe something you can't believe.
Any belief is all a construct and product of the mind. It is not real. We can convince ourselves of anything, but at the end of the day it is all mind games. The notion of God being a separate superior entity is only limiting anyway. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 20, 2017 18:50:10 GMT
Any belief is all a construct and product of the mind. It is not real. We can convince ourselves of anything, but at the end of the day it is all mind games. The notion of God being a separate superior entity is only limiting anyway. Agreed. Sorry to quote myself, but the edit function just wasn't working right. I wanted to add, there is NO convincing evidence of a god, the people who believe there is one, believe it because they want to. For whatever reason they want to: to feel better, to feel that they as individuals matter, because they were indoctrinated as children, to gain control over others, because they fear death... It is used for many purposes. Doesn't mean a god actually exists. What does exist is natural law. We see it play out on a daily basis. There is ample evidence. It is why I don't believe in a god in the sense of an entity that put all this into motion. Natural law suffices. There is no personal connection to any one individual. I question why we as humans have evolved with this need to believe in a personal god. And, in the face of so much evidence of how the world really works from science, why do we cling to that need to believe? |
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Aug 20, 2017 19:59:24 GMT
I question why we as humans have evolved with this need to believe in a personal god. And, in the face of so much evidence of how the world really works from science, why do we cling to that need to believe? Due to cooperation, where groups stood a higher chance to survive than individuals. So the ones who got together to howl at the moon or have mumbo jumbo rituals either were together when facing danger or trusted each other to protect them more than others. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 20, 2017 19:59:51 GMT
It's not that I think the universe needs intelligence, it is that I find that my model of the universe is best explained as if it had intelligence behind it. I realise that is a pretty pedantic distinction but it makes sense to me. And yes I get that an intelligence requires more complexity, to be honest I don't think that is an argument against it, if there is an intelligence of nor is not predicated on the required complexity, it either is or it is not ,I accept that in statistical terms this is less likely, but statistically whatever is behind our universe is behind 100% of the universes that we are aware of. Ok, I guess what I'm asking is, if we know that all we see can form naturally, how does introducing the idea that intelligence is involved, better explain it? It's not that it "better" explains it, it is that I feel that it is a more comfortable interpretation for me. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 20, 2017 20:01:11 GMT
I do not think that the existence of God is a certainty either way, if it was then the numbers of people who believed against that certainty would be tiny, like people who believe in a flat earth. To be fair I am playing the game I play with all people who proclaim the certainty that there is no God, allaying the burden of proof on the claimant. This is also why I draw the line at saying God exists, I realise there is no proof and so in all honesty I cannot make the claim. Again, there is no proof to be had of any empirical claim. So how can we talk about burden of proof when it comes to empirical claims? That's a big red herring, because it's asking for something that can't really be had. Would you ask someone for proof of God if they made the claim that he existed? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 20, 2017 20:36:59 GMT
I question why we as humans have evolved with this need to believe in a personal god. And, in the face of so much evidence of how the world really works from science, why do we cling to that need to believe? Due to cooperation, where groups stood a higher chance to survive than individuals. So the ones who got together to howl at the moon or have mumbo jumbo rituals either were together when facing danger or trusted each other to protect them more than others. Do you think that humans as a species will ever outgrow that need of a 'tribe'? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 20, 2017 23:17:28 GMT
Ok, I guess what I'm asking is, if we know that all we see can form naturally, how does introducing the idea that intelligence is involved, better explain it? It's not that it "better" explains it, it is that I feel that it is a more comfortable interpretation for me. So you're more comfortable with something you have no idea has any truth value? I don't get it.
Why not just be comfortable with saying you don't know anything about it? Why make up an answer that has no truth value?
|
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Aug 20, 2017 23:27:18 GMT
Due to cooperation, where groups stood a higher chance to survive than individuals. So the ones who got together to howl at the moon or have mumbo jumbo rituals either were together when facing danger or trusted each other to protect them more than others. Do you think that humans as a species will ever outgrow that need of a 'tribe'? No. Atheists need to form more support groups. We have a pretty good group in Austin that has meetups often, and do group volunteer work. I've only gone to one so far. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 20, 2017 23:39:30 GMT
It's not that it "better" explains it, it is that I feel that it is a more comfortable interpretation for me. So you're more comfortable with something you have no idea has any truth value? I don't get it.
Why not just be comfortable with saying you don't know anything about it? Why make up an answer that has no truth value?
Yeah this is why it is a long conversation. I am not talking about what is or is not the truth, we simply don't know the truth. At the end of the day the interpretation of the universe that I have (based mostly on judeo-Christian mystery thought) lends itself better to being started by an intelligence, I am not making any kind of truth claim, I am not arrogant enough to assume I know, I know that I do not know. All I am saying is that when I interpret the universe it makes more sense to me to interpret it as based off intelligence. To be clear there is no currently known truth value to this question, at the end of the day everyone is either ignoring the question or making up a truth value (assuming the claim to have a truth), I am very careful to not claim any truth as I am aware that as humans we simply do not know it yet. |
|
