Evidence

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Evidence

What qualifies as sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God? And who (or what) makes this determination?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Non-determinism is

Non-determinism is equivalent to pure randomness. Real processes, whether clearly physical or mental, display a mix of determinism, ie dependent on prior events or thoughts, and random or 'chaotic' effects. Actually, 'random' processes are effectively deterministic processes with sufficient complexity, in terms of the number of interacting entities, to be not predictable in any useful sense. A basic example of this is the movement of the individual molecules in the atmosphere.

This essential unpredictability can also be generated by non-linear feedback, ie chaotic, processes.

Mental processes, such as choices which are not ultimately 'determined' by a combination of all your current mental states, such as urges, desires, mood, memories, sensory input, the results of any reasoning processes, etc, would be the equivalent of a coin flip. This is typically when we we resort to an actual coin-toss, when all our mental 'causes' are finely balanced, with none of the options we are presented with being clearly 'better' than any other. A 'choice' not based on some identifiable prior thought or set of thoughts makes no sense.

Yes, mental processes are in separate category from low-level physical processes, just as life processes are in a different category than particle physics, and not reducible to such. There is a whole hierarchy of different levels of description of reality, not just two, as implied by the term 'dualism'. The categories are clearly linked, but cannot necessarily be mapped into another category. That is why we organise our understanding of reality into these different categories.

At a simple example, the narrative of the story contained within the pages of a printed novel is not reducible to descriptions of the shapes of the print marks on the pages of the book and their sequence, or the wave functions of the particles making up the atoms in the material the book is composed of. At least not without introducing a whole set of concepts  like grammar and and human language and the way they are coded into sequences of letters, which are shapes , NOT actual physical objects, that may be rendered in many different physical media. These concepts are totally meaningless at the level of particle Physics.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Get it straight,

 

Quote:
Get it straight, Paisley.

 

...This is just the thing, though; I mean, while we're on the topic of the 'New Atheists', we may as well see where Paisley's convictions of capitulation towards our glorious master in the sky gets us, if we're at all willing to toss out the scientific traditions of skepticism, empiricism, critical inquiry, etc.

So we have our dear incorporeal father who has forged us as perpetually starving, dehydrating, emotionally transient beings, who offers no protest of any sort to the butchery that goes on in his name, who has apparently told differing stories to multiple prophets in a deliberate effort to wet the tips of bayonets, who has crafted a most elaborate deception to make reality appear knowable when it is not... the laundry list of vindictive transgressions is surely at least twice the length of Yahweh's own beard.

Isn't this so wonderful and so transcendent - so obviously a figure that could not have been sprung from our own brains in order to blend justifications into our prejudices and hatreds?

 

God exists as a fully enfranchised means of relieving people of their own responsibilities and faults, and that, Paisley, is the only reason you continue waltzing around here and trotting out your ridiculous 'arguments' while posturing like an intellectual titan. You shiver at possibility of a world where the pillar of your own Nuremberg defense has finally crumbled in the wake of a new enlightenment; where you no longer have the option of attaching your perspective to that of an all powerful fascist whose will cannot be denied. 

It's telling and appalling that theists in general show such tremendous offense when pressed for evidence of this enigmatic entity they claim to have sworn their own blood oath to.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, have you given us

Paisley, have you given us any links to articles which show how new scientific studies provide further evidence linking brain processes to major aspects of our mental world? Harris puts such articles up on his web-site. That doesn't seem to show him quite 'sharing your viewpoint'.

You only seem to link to articles or videos claiming to show that mental activities are NOT a function of the brain.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Harris explicitly stated that the physicalist notion "that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article faith." (source: pg. 208, "End of Faith" by Sam Harris)

The bottom line here is that Sam Harris (one of the four horsemen of the New Atheist movment) shares my viewpoint on this matter, not yours. Your vain attempt to downplay it will not alter the fact.

But Harris has not denied it as a possibility, he just thinks it has not been adequately demonstrated.

Correction. Sam Harris does not believe that science will ever be able to prove the physicalist assumption that consciousness is produced by the brain. (Keep in mind that this is coming from a guy who is a Ph. D. student in neuroscience at Stanford University.)

Quote:

"That brains produce consciousness is little more than an article faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it."

(source: pg. 208, "End of Faith" by Sam Harris)

BobSpence1 wrote:

He also does not believe in any form of Deity, he puts Theism in the same category as Astrology, and has said several times that we should not need to identify ourselves as 'atheists' any more than we need to have a word to identify ourselves as non-believers in Astrology.  Dennett has said he sees his point, but thinks there is still value in using the term 'atheist'.

Firstly, I have already provided you with a source (that's why you are now parroting the line "we should not need to identify ourselves as atheists" ) where he stated explicitly that he never thought of himself of as an atheist upon writing "The End of Faith." Based on the fact that he graduated from Stanford with a degree in philosophy, I will assume that he knew that the term "atheism" meant "without a belief in God." Therefore, I will logically conclude that he had some kind of God-belief at that time.

Secondly, I will ask you to provide me with a quote from "The End of Faith" where he unequivocally and emphatically denies the reality of God.

Thirdly, he definitely expressed a belief that consciousness was a fundamental aspect of reality while simultaneously praising the virtues of "spirituality/mysticism." This qualifies as a tacit admission to a belief in a pantheistic/panentheistic conception of God. You can downplay it all you want. But that will not change the minds of people like myself who are literate on the subject matter. The idea of a militant atheist extolling the virtues of spirituality and mysticism is laughable. And what is more laughable is the futile attempt of a highlevel moderator (that would be you) on a militant atheist website (i.e. RRS) seeking to defend his position as an atheistic one.

Fourthly, though he may have utter contempt for astrology, he definitely expressed a belief in the reality of psychic phenomena, reincarnation, Sheldrake's morphogenetic resonance (this would support some type of pantheistic and/or Lamarckian evolution), and xenoglossy (e.g. speaking in tongues). Clearly, he was not properly vetted by Richard Dawkins.

Finally, he fully acknowledges the "hard problem of consciousness" (i.e. qualia) which puts him completely at odds with Dennett and his argument in "Consciousness Explained." In fact, he says that both dualism and panpsychism are compatible with contemporary neuroscience (see link below).

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/001324.html

BobSpence1 wrote:

He is very interested in scientifically, ie empirically, investigating consciousness and other aspects of mental activity such as mysticism and meditation.

Agreed. But I have already presented this forum with a video lecture given by B. Alan Wallace (ex-Buddhist monk, Stanford Ph.D. graduate) in which he discussed at length this very prospect (i.e. studying consciousness  both from the  first person (meditation) and third-person perspective (science)). You and other forum members ridiculed it. Below is the YouTube link to his Google Techtalk video. Please refresh your memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhntEOGslbs 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Get it straight, Paisley.

I have it straight. Hopefully, I have straightened you out.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, can you provide any

Paisley, can you provide any reference where Sam Harris actual expresses a belief in any form of Pantheism, or Panentheism? 

Sam Harris wrote:
 Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation. Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.
  Note the underlined. He explicitly rejects the metaphysical, mumbo-jumbo aspects of mysticism, he continues to emphasise its potential to address our anxieties and other persistent negative feelings.Or how about this quote:
Quote:
So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.
And you claim Sam never identifies with Atheists? 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 For me, I think if the

 For me, I think if the majority of the world's top physicists and astrophysicists came to the consensus that a particular mathematical formula definitely proves the existence of god, that I would take their word for it. I suspect, however, that such a formula would, by its very nature, be infinite in length and impossible to ever complete.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
If physicists determined a

If physicists determined a mathematical formula was evidence of a god, they would then need to determine which god they have evidence for.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley,

BobSpence1 wrote:


Paisley, can you provide any reference where Sam Harris actual expresses a belief in any form of Pantheism, or Panentheism?



No. He never employed the terms in the "End of Faith," but he clearly expressed beliefs that would be compatible with a pantheistic/panentheistic worldview - namely, the practice of "spirituality/mysticism" (which presupposes it), the rejection of the idea that consciousness is produced by the brain while simultaneously expressing a belief that consciousness is fundamental, the belief in the validity of psychic phenomena, the belief in Sheldrake's morphic resonance (a view which supports pantheistic and Lamarckian evolution), the openness to dualism (which Dennett said in CE must be avoided at all cost) and panpsychism (the view that the fundamental constituents of the universe are not mindless bits of matter but soul-like monads), and reincarnation. Ignoring these facts does not change what these facts imply. And while you may be completely ignorant on the subject matter of "spirituality and mysticism" (as I suspect many of the readers of his first book were), I am not.

BobSpence1 wrote:


Sam Harris wrote:

 
Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation.


Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.


 
Note the underlined. He explicitly rejects the metaphysical, mumbo-jumbo aspects of mysticism, he continues to emphasise its potential to address our anxieties and other persistent negative feelings.
Or how about this quote:
 

 
He's describing the process of "spiritual enlightenment" (the goal of mysticism). It is only because you are ignorant of mysticism that this goes completely over your head. But let me ask you this: Do you believe the religious practice of meditation and contemplative prayer rewards its practitioners with an emotionally stable and positive state of mind (what the Bible calls the "peace which passeth all understanding" and what Hindus call "sat chit ananda" (lieterally...truth, consciousness, bliss))?
 
BobSpence1 wrote:

 
Sam Harris wrote:

 
So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.
 


And you claim Sam never identifies with Atheists
?
 

 
No. This is not true. What I said is that he never identified himself as an atheist in his first book - "The End of Faith" (the above quote is not from his first book). Also, he stated explicitly that he never considered himself an atheist upon publishing the "End of Faith." Moreover, he went on record and stated that "we should not call ourselves atheists" (I have already cited sources to support these claims.)
 
Does he call himself an atheist now? Yeah. But why the change of heart? To begin with, he says (after his first book is published and enthusiastically embraced by the atheist community) "I never considered myself an atheist" and "we should not call ourselves atheists." Now, he is saying that "we, as atheists," are appearing "less wise even than our craziest religious opponents." Why? Beecause "we, as atheists," are refusing to recognize the importance of mysticism (which is clearly a religious practice). What the heck is going on here?

This is how I see it:

1) Sam Harris was and still is clearly committed to mysticism. (Only the most religious commit themselves to a life of meditation and contemplative prayer. Whether you call it a religious practice or a spiritual practice is moot.)

2) Sam Harris is so committed to spirituality and mysticism that he has written a book in order to promote his idea that religion does not have to be based on dogmatic faith, but it can be empirically based on the practice of spirituality and mysticism.

3) To further his cause, Sam Harris is studying neuroscience. Why? To prove that consciousness is generated by the brain? No. He apparently believes that consciousness is a brute fact of existence and he is seeking to prove this by introducing the first-person perspective (meditation) into the scientific enterprise. (Science, as it is presently constituted, is based primarily or soley on the third-person perspective.) This is exactly the same proposal that B. Alan Wallace (ex-Buddhist monk and presently a director of a consciousness studies institute employing various scientists) is making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Alan_Wallace

http://www.sbinstitute.com/staff.html 

4) Sam Harris did not realize at the time of the publication of "The End of Faith" how well-received his book would be in the atheist community. This posed a dilemma for him. While he is clearly opposed to religion based on dogmatic faith (this is the part of the book that militant atheists devour), he clearly supports what could be appropriately described as religious empiricism (this is the part of the book that militant atheists - like yourself - overlook).

5) What does he do? Does he publicly denounce atheism? No, this would alienate his fans in the atheist community. (Keep in mind that he has vested-interest in appeasing this crowd - they are the ones who are paying his bills and making him a celebrity). Does he publicly denounce mysticism? No, this is his core commitment. So, what does he do? Well, he attempts a political maneuver by engaging in spin-doctoring - "I'm not an atheist...I don't think we should call ourselves atheists...I am an atheist but atheism is not a worldview...I am an atheist because I do not believe in a personal, CREATOR God...I am an atheist but I do believe that consciousness is fundamental and that everything we see is an emanation of consciousness - the same stuff that dreams are made of.....I am an atheist but why can't you atheists just accept the virtues of spirituality and mysticism."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:What qualifies

Paisley wrote:

What qualifies as sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God? And who (or what) makes this determination?

I don't know if anyone has brought this up but you can have sufficient evidence to justify a believe or disbelief in anything. I know that who or what makes this determination was discussed. The self. But I think that one of the things that has always fascinated me about organized religion is the very subtle and at the same time very powerful influences of tradition, culture and not so subtle but equally powerful and more obvious influences like geography in making that determination for us.  


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: Paisley

David Henson wrote:

Paisley wrote:

What qualifies as sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God? And who (or what) makes this determination?

I don't know if anyone has brought this up but you can have sufficient evidence to justify a believe or disbelief in anything. I know that who or what makes this determination was discussed. The self.

Yes, others have argued that evidence is ultimately subjective.

David Henson wrote:

But I think that one of the things that has always fascinated me about organized religion is the very subtle and at the same time very powerful influences of tradition, culture and not so subtle but equally powerful and more obvious influences like geography in making that determination for us.  

I agree that our beliefs are culturally conditioned (at least to some extent). That being said, what is the basis for your religious or spiritual convictions?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I agree that

Paisley wrote:

I agree that our beliefs are culturally conditioned (at least to some extent). That being said, what is the basis for your religious or spiritual convictions?

Why do I believe what I believe? Through study I have no reason to believe otherwise. I started out as a skeptic and became a believer.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Paisley

David Henson wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I agree that our beliefs are culturally conditioned (at least to some extent). That being said, what is the basis for your religious or spiritual convictions?

Why do I believe what I believe? Through study I have no reason to believe otherwise. I started out as a skeptic and became a believer.

Read what he wrote, then read what you wrote.

You might want to try answering his question again. 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Paisley

David Henson wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I agree that our beliefs are culturally conditioned (at least to some extent). That being said, what is the basis for your religious or spiritual convictions?

Why do I believe what I believe? Through study I have no reason to believe otherwise. I started out as a skeptic and became a believer.

Okay. But what specifically did you study? For example, are your convictions based a personal study of the Bible? Or, are your convictions based on spiritual experiences and philosophical reflection?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:David Henson

mellestad wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I agree that our beliefs are culturally conditioned (at least to some extent). That being said, what is the basis for your religious or spiritual convictions?

Why do I believe what I believe? Through study I have no reason to believe otherwise. I started out as a skeptic and became a believer.

Read what he wrote, then read what you wrote.

You might want to try answering his question again. 

Since you took an interest define the term "religious or spiritual convictions." I thought I would set aside the possible sort of vague intellectual or philosophical implications that may have been suggested. I prefer the practical. I'm a believer in the Bible. There is no relevance in any other classification, distraction or confusion as far as what I believe. Break it down? Break it down practical.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:David Henson

Paisley wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I agree that our beliefs are culturally conditioned (at least to some extent). That being said, what is the basis for your religious or spiritual convictions?

Why do I believe what I believe? Through study I have no reason to believe otherwise. I started out as a skeptic and became a believer.

Okay. But what specifically did you study? For example, are your convictions based a personal study of the Bible? Or, are your convictions based on spiritual experiences and philosophical reflection?

 

I studied the Bible intensely and briefly looked into the major religions of the world. As an aside. Spiritual experiences and philosophical reflection? No more than would be expected. What are you looking for specifically?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I agree that our beliefs are culturally conditioned (at least to some extent). That being said, what is the basis for your religious or spiritual convictions?

Why do I believe what I believe? Through study I have no reason to believe otherwise. I started out as a skeptic and became a believer.

Read what he wrote, then read what you wrote.

You might want to try answering his question again. 

Since you took an interest define the term "religious or spiritual convictions." I thought I would set aside the possible sort of vague intellectual or philosophical implications that may have been suggested. I prefer the practical. I'm a believer in the Bible. There is no relevance in any other classification, distraction or confusion as far as what I believe. Break it down? Break it down practical.

Did you just wake up one morning and your brand of religion spontaneously arose in your head?  I don't think I've ever met anyone who did not have some sort of story or journey towards what they currently believe, doubly so for someone like you who was not always religious.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Dave read

mellestad wrote:

Did you just wake up one morning and your brand of religion spontaneously arose in your head?  I don't think I've ever met anyone who did not have some sort of story or journey towards what they currently believe, doubly so for someone like you who was not always religious.

 

Sam Harris' End of Faith. Hommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Did you just

mellestad wrote:

Did you just wake up one morning and your brand of religion spontaneously arose in your head?  I don't think I've ever met anyone who did not have some sort of story or journey towards what they currently believe, doubly so for someone like you who was not always religious.

 

Well, I was a frustrated out of work ambisexual walnut strung out on smack. An orphan atheist in the back alleys of Burbank - bastard child of a millionaire television evangelist when one day while sniffing dandelions I had an hallucination. Then shit really started getting weird. . . what do you want from me, a Lifetime Television script? A 700 Club appearance?

I was raised in an irreligious family. I wanted to debunk the Bible because I hated religion. I discovered the Bible. I believe it. No drama. No need for a crutch or any other bullshit story you have probably heard a thousand times. No different than you and your beliefs.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Sam

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sam Harris' End of Faith

 

I've noticed that y'all talk about Sam Harris more than the average atheist. I posted some articles over at The Reason Project and briefly hung out on their forums. Anyone else?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:mellestad

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Did you just wake up one morning and your brand of religion spontaneously arose in your head?  I don't think I've ever met anyone who did not have some sort of story or journey towards what they currently believe, doubly so for someone like you who was not always religious.

 

Well, I was a frustrated out of work ambisexual walnut strung out on smack. An orphan atheist in the back alleys of Burbank - bastard child of a millionaire television evangelist when one day while sniffing dandelions I had an hallucination. Then shit really started getting weird. . . what do you want from me, a Lifetime Television script? A 700 Club appearance?

I was raised in an irreligious family. I wanted to debunk the Bible because I hated religion. I discovered the Bible. I believe it. No drama. No need for a crutch or any other bullshit story you have probably heard a thousand times. No different than you and your beliefs.  

Yea, I am pretty sure that is what he was looking for.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Naw - not I.

 

I haven't even read the book - I figure if I keep lurking on Pais' threads long enough I'll be treated to the jewels of Harris' assumptions neatly served like lamb on a stick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:David Henson

mellestad wrote:

David Henson wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Did you just wake up one morning and your brand of religion spontaneously arose in your head?  I don't think I've ever met anyone who did not have some sort of story or journey towards what they currently believe, doubly so for someone like you who was not always religious.

 

Well, I was a frustrated out of work ambisexual walnut strung out on smack. An orphan atheist in the back alleys of Burbank - bastard child of a millionaire television evangelist when one day while sniffing dandelions I had an hallucination. Then shit really started getting weird. . . what do you want from me, a Lifetime Television script? A 700 Club appearance?

I was raised in an irreligious family. I wanted to debunk the Bible because I hated religion. I discovered the Bible. I believe it. No drama. No need for a crutch or any other bullshit story you have probably heard a thousand times. No different than you and your beliefs.  

Yea, I am pretty sure that is what he was looking for.

 

See? Not completely useless. Actually I was talking to you there, what he was looking for is religious discourse. He is somewhat subtle about it, I will admit, to his credit. I try and shy away from those sorts of conversations. Keep it real. Keep it as simple as possible. No religion. Theist discussions or actually debate tends to use all sorts of terms which are either straight up bullshit or are very misleading pigeonholing.  I am not hip to all of the jargon and would rather not get bogged down in that sort of intellectual or philosophical or religious back and forth. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just that it isn't my thing.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Hey, I'll start a stink here

Hey, I'll start a stink here too. Religion = a crutch for the crippled mind.

Btw, any evidence can be put forth to prove god, it depends on the individual. Some people are so simple mnded they just believe what they are told. Some are simple enough to never break free from their original programming despite evidence to the contrary. Some people think since other people do, then it must be right. Some people might see a banana and assume it was made by god because well, it is so easy to eat one.

Banana's, simple people and bibles, oh my.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Khriz (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Testable data. In science

Testable data. In science everything must be proven and backed by testable data. If you want your belief to be accepted as a fact you must provide proof


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Hey, I'll

robj101 wrote:

Hey, I'll start a stink here too. Religion = a crutch for the crippled mind.

Btw, any evidence can be put forth to prove god, it depends on the individual. Some people are so simple mnded they just believe what they are told. Some are simple enough to never break free from their original programming despite evidence to the contrary. Some people think since other people do, then it must be right. Some people might see a banana and assume it was made by god because well, it is so easy to eat one.

Banana's, simple people and bibles, oh my.

You know what I think. I used to be an atheist and I thought that we were smarter than the religious nuts, and even long after I started to believe in the Bible I thought that most believers were intellectually inferior to atheists by far. That is, until I started debating them. I don't think that way anymore.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:robj101

David Henson wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Hey, I'll start a stink here too. Religion = a crutch for the crippled mind.

Btw, any evidence can be put forth to prove god, it depends on the individual. Some people are so simple mnded they just believe what they are told. Some are simple enough to never break free from their original programming despite evidence to the contrary. Some people think since other people do, then it must be right. Some people might see a banana and assume it was made by god because well, it is so easy to eat one.

Banana's, simple people and bibles, oh my.

You know what I think. I used to be an atheist and I thought that we were smarter than the religious nuts, and even long after I started to believe in the Bible I thought that most believers were intellectually inferior to atheists by far. That is, until I started debating them. I don't think that way anymore.

I don't think I'm smarter than "all" the religious nuts. I think some of the truly intelligent ones are actually using it for fame and or monetary gain. Want an ez job, become a preacher, I know a couple of them.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Khriz wrote:Testable data.

Khriz wrote:

Testable data. In science everything must be proven and backed by testable data. If you want your belief to be accepted as a fact you must provide proof

Do you believe the concept of God is a scientifically testable hypothesis?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Religious belief is by no means a matter of IQ

David Henson wrote:

You know what I think. I used to be an atheist and I thought that we were smarter than the religious nuts, and even long after I started to believe in the Bible I thought that most believers were intellectually inferior to atheists by far. That is, until I started debating them. I don't think that way anymore.

But it does have to do with a way of thinking. Dave insists bible is true, that what it preaches can be moulded to fit with almost any possibility. That bible dogma is equal to field work - presumably because both are recorded in books. I think the problem you might have Dave, is that most non believers are too gobsmacked to debate you. When you embrace Noah's Ark, giant people creating trouble, a canopy of steam capable of covering all earth with water, a weight of water so great that it, not plate tectonics, is what builds mountain ranges - well, you're right out there on the fringes. How the hell do we debate the premises of impossibility, the factuality of mythology?

And Dave, I don't believe you actually ever were an atheist. I can't help thinking the wild variations of theism are a valid reflection of the subjectivity of the personal beliefs that feed them. Personally I think we should be able to measure and evaluate the natural world and if there is a god, this will show him. If there's not, this testing will show that, too. No matter what theists insist, if there's a god then he used physical methods to build the physical world. A great intelligence in the sky is not an active creative force. God, if he is there, must use physical science, even if you theists have no use for it. There's no point arguing about this with Pais, who's dug all the way through the apparent physicality of matter only to find we are quantum vibrations or some such, despite the fact QT is more than a bit of an unknown.

Meanwhile Dave insists in his pathway machine, that we unbelievers are like chaff and cannot be allowed to stain the perfection of the believers as they cuddle up to their mighty teddy bear in the sky. We will be blown away into destruction while they live on forever in a perpetual golden hour - the one film makers over use so much. Of course, this belief in judgment is based on zero evidence. Dave's destruction of non believers is better than hell, but not by much, and it reeks of condescension.  There's a fundamental truth here that seems to escape you, Dave. It doesn't matter how detailed your knowledge of a confabulation might be. It's still nothing more than a fantasy that you just keep re-shaping to fit the latest evidence researchers find.

As far as I am concerned you are a classic example of the intellectual sunk cost fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
 Dave insists bible is true, that what it preaches can be moulded to fit with almost any possibility. That bible dogma is equal to field work - presumably because both are recorded in books. I think the problem you might have Dave, is that most non believers are too gobsmacked to debate you. When you embrace Noah's Ark, giant people creating trouble, a canopy of steam capable of covering all earth with water, a weight of water so great that it, not plate tectonics, is what builds mountain ranges - well, you're right out there on the fringes. How the hell do we debate the premises of impossibility, the factuality of mythology?

I do think that the Bible is true, but I don't think that it can be moulded to fit with almost any possibility, in fact that is the sort of thing I find often leading to misinterpretation. For example, someone will say that Adam and Eve were allegorical representations of early man rather than what they are. To that all you have to do is study the genealogy. Adam was listed in the family records as were his children. Allegorical people aren't listed in genealogies. People attribute the signs in the heavens of revelation with natural phenomenon when the same types of signs were used in the Hebrew texts in application to political and social upheaval. I think that most believers and unbelievers have something in common. They just don't know the Bible very well.  

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
And Dave, I don't believe you actually ever were an atheist. I can't help thinking the wild variations of theism are a valid reflection of the subjectivity of the personal beliefs that feed them. Personally I think we should be able to measure and evaluate the natural world and if there is a god, this will show him. If there's not, this testing will show that, too. No matter what theists insist, if there's a god then he used physical methods to build the physical world. A great intelligence in the sky is not an active creative force. God, if he is there, must use physical science, even if you theists have no use for it. There's no point arguing about this with Pais, who's dug all the way through the apparent physicality of matter only to find we are quantum vibrations or some such, despite the fact QT is more than a bit of an unknown.

I never thought of myself as an atheist. To me, from the time I was born until I was in my mid 20's there were three types of people. Religious nuts and political nuts. Both foaming at the mouth xenophobes who wanted you to be as nuts as them. Atheists I would have put into the political category. Then there were the people who I grew up with. Neither political or religious. Didn't really believe in God or Country. Simple apolitical irreligious folk. When I say that I was raised an atheist I mean that I didn't believe in God. I didn't get bent out of shape because there were religious nuts around me. I didn't go to church and I only pretended to pledge allegiance because if I didn't the idiots who ran the school I attended would freak out.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
Meanwhile Dave insists in his pathway machine, that we unbelievers are like chaff and cannot be allowed to stain the perfection of the believers as they cuddle up to their mighty teddy bear in the sky. We will be blown away into destruction while they live on forever in a perpetual golden hour - the one film makers over use so much. Of course, this belief in judgment is based on zero evidence. Dave's destruction of non believers is better than hell, but not by much, and it reeks of condescension.  There's a fundamental truth here that seems to escape you, Dave. It doesn't matter how detailed your knowledge of a confabulation might be. It's still nothing more than a fantasy that you just keep re-shaping to fit the latest evidence researchers find.

Nonsense. First of all, do you actually know what Judgment day is, according to the Bible? Judgment day according to the Bible is when the unrighteous are resurrected to be given the opportunity to judge for themselves whether they want to live forever or not. There are millions of people who, unlike you and I, have never been introduced to the Bible and Jehovah God's word. Those people will be given the opportunity to choose God and everlasting life or Satan and everlasting destruction. Just as Adam allowed Satan to deceive him many will allow Satan to deceive them. Most so called believers don't believe at all. John 17:3 which promises everlasting life to those who seek knowledge of God and Christ alludes them. They buy into the traditions, religion and politics of man. That is part of the reason the Bible appealed to me. But sounding like a good idea and actually being one I am capable to distinguish between. Most believers think God will destroy everyone but them, most unbelievers would like to destroy the idea of a God, but they are not willing to carefully seek knowledge of God. They only assume. Jehovah has stated that he wishes everyone could be saved from destruction, and I sincerely wish that myself. Even monsters like Stalin and Hitler. But it can't work that way and everyone makes their choices.

Atheistextremist wrote:
As far as I am concerned you are a classic example of the intellectual sunk cost fallacy.

 

I don't know what you mean by that. I have the intellectual capacity of Winnie The Pooh or plywood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
"Jehovah has stated that he

"Jehovah has stated that he wishes everyone could be saved from destruction"

so much so that he rigged the Garden of Eden test to fail?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"Jehovah has

jcgadfly wrote:

"Jehovah has stated that he wishes everyone could be saved from destruction"

so much so that he rigged the Garden of Eden test to fail?

 

 

No, there was no rigging.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"Jehovah has stated that he wishes everyone could be saved from destruction"

so much so that he rigged the Garden of Eden test to fail?

 

 

No, there was no rigging.

OK - he intended it to fail and set up the conditions to make it work as he intended.

Better?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:David Henson

jcgadfly wrote:

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"Jehovah has stated that he wishes everyone could be saved from destruction"

so much so that he rigged the Garden of Eden test to fail?

 

 

No, there was no rigging.

OK - he intended it to fail and set up the conditions to make it work as he intended.

Better?

No.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"Jehovah has stated that he wishes everyone could be saved from destruction"

so much so that he rigged the Garden of Eden test to fail?

 

 

No, there was no rigging.

OK - he intended it to fail and set up the conditions to make it work as he intended.

Better?

No.

But more truthful than blaming it on his human creation who didn't know good and evil and thus could make no sense of his edict.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:But more

jcgadfly wrote:

But more truthful than blaming it on his human creation who didn't know good and evil and thus could make no sense of his edict.

No. His human creation were told what was good and what was bad by the creator himself. Perhaps you think that it is myth which clouds your judgment.  


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
 "You may freely eat of

 "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

-Bible

 

From the second line one concludes that they didn't know good and evil.  How you gather that they knew it beforehand baffles me.  Also, they didn't die, which means that god lies.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

 "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

-Bible

 

From the second line one concludes that they didn't know good and evil.  How you gather that they knew it beforehand baffles me.  Also, they didn't die, which means that god lies.

To know, from the Hebrew verb yadha, can mean various things. In a basic sense to "know (by being told)," "know (by observing)," "know (by personal acquaintance or experience)," or "be experienced, skillful." They had been told that the tree represented the knowledge of good and evil. They didn't know evil because the had no personal acquaintance or experience with it, but neither did God. At Genesis 4:17 yadha implied sexual intercourse, so it was used in different ways. In the case of the tree of knowledge of what is good and what is evil or bad, the knowledge indicated the choice of judging for themselves like God, what is good and what is evil. They were placing their own judgment on the matter above their creator's.

As far as their dieing, the actual Hebrew is tricky. It literally says "In dieing, you will die." In other words they began to die on that day.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
So in his original plan, he

So in his original plan, he was going to have 2 humans who knew no good nor evil, to simply worship him. Kind of like moving cardboard cutouts, just..worshipping him. How would the worship have been meaningful in any sense under this circumstance?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:So in his

robj101 wrote:

So in his original plan, he was going to have 2 humans who knew no good nor evil, to simply worship him. Kind of like moving cardboard cutouts, just..worship ping him. How would the worship have been meaningful in any sense under this circumstance?

 

Well, first of all, under such a ridiculous claim as that, you would have to ask why he would have created them in the first place and then you have to realize that that is a weak minded human interpretation. If you create something you don't need to satiate your own ego to have something "worship" you. In other words you missed the picture.

Jehovah created first his only begotten first born son. Michael. Through Michael the heavens, the spirit creatures, then the universe, including the earth was created. All of it's inhabitants, including man were created. Now Michael, his favorite portion of creation was man. I can't imagine why, but that is the case. Let US create man in OUR image.

 

His original plan was for man to live forever. But it would be pretty obvious that the creator at that point knew what was good for his creation.

 

The original plan, stupid ass, was to create man and to watch with love and joy as man did what was simply his purpose. To enjoy life forever.

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:robj101

David Henson wrote:

robj101 wrote:

So in his original plan, he was going to have 2 humans who knew no good nor evil, to simply worship him. Kind of like moving cardboard cutouts, just..worship ping him. How would the worship have been meaningful in any sense under this circumstance?

 

Well, first of all, under such a ridiculous claim as that, you would have to ask why he would have created them in the first place and then you have to realize that that is a weak minded human interpretation. If you create something you don't need to satiate your own ego to have something "worship" you. In other words you missed the picture.

Jehovah created first his only begotten first born son. Michael. Through Michael the heavens, the spirit creatures, then the universe, including the earth was created. All of it's inhabitants, including man were created. Now Michael, his favorite portion of creation was man. I can't imagine why, but that is the case. Let US create man in OUR image.

 

His original plan was for man to live forever. But it would be pretty obvious that the creator at that point knew what was good for his creation.

 

The original plan, stupid ass, was to create man and to watch with love and joy as man did what was simply his purpose. To enjoy life forever.

 

 

To live and enjoy life forever..not knowing good or evil just kind of, existing. A snake is a creature today, that knows no good or evil. They look to lead very dull and boring lives. I fail to see a point to it, stupid ass. lol

edit: and btw, yea the bible clearly says he wants worship. Lots of it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:To live and

robj101 wrote:

To live and enjoy life forever..not knowing good or evil just kind of, existing. A snake is a creature today, that knows no good or evil. They look to lead very dull and boring lives. I fail to see a point to it, stupid ass. lol

Well, think about it rob.

Man was created. . . and you have to go by the book here . . . man was created and there wasn't a heafty law placed upon him. Life forever. Procreate. Don't eat the fruit of the tree. What is, then the fruit of the tree. It is a reminder that the man's creator knows what is best. Now, thousands of years later your stupid ass, and mine . . . are sitting in the middle of a living room in the land of intregue . . . lets say Iowa . . . trying to figure out how to put this cheap wal-mart entertainment center together. There. Rob, there is the instruction manual.

Hey! Rob! Stupid ass! Pay no attention to the instruction manual! Molest me no further with this trite. Like blake, hung up on the obscene we make rules for ourselves. And then you. Well you are the unfortunate sombitch who makes sense out of chaos.

But chaos isn't where it is at, really, axman?

 

rob wrote:
edit: and btw, yea the bible clearly says he wants worship. Lots of it.

 

Yeah, brainiac, but why?

 

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:To enjoy

David Henson wrote:
To enjoy life forever.

 

How exactly is it man's fault for a tree that was put there by god?  Shouldn't he share in the fault?  After all, it was he who put it in the garden.  If he didn't want man eating from it, why was it there?  So man could have a choice?  That clearly isn't the case, because god said NOT to eat from it.  Hence our perspective that it was a deceitful situation.  "You are created in my image, but to be more like me you'd have to eat from this tree, that I put here for unknown reasons, but I forbid you from doing just that.  Have fun loving me unconditionally, as I love you."  Total bullshit.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:David

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:
To enjoy life forever.

 

How exactly is it man's fault for a tree that was put there by god?  Shouldn't he share in the fault?  After all, it was he who put it in the garden.  If he didn't want man eating from it, why was it there?  So man could have a choice?  That clearly isn't the case, because god said NOT to eat from it.  Hence our perspective that it was a deceitful situation.  "You are created in my image, but to be more like me you'd have to eat from this tree, that I put here for unknown reasons, but I forbid you from doing just that.  Have fun loving me unconditionally, as I love you."  Total bullshit.

 

Read your own cartoon, dude.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:robj101

David Henson wrote:

robj101 wrote:

To live and enjoy life forever..not knowing good or evil just kind of, existing. A snake is a creature today, that knows no good or evil. They look to lead very dull and boring lives. I fail to see a point to it, stupid ass. lol

Well, think about it rob.

Man was created. . . and you have to go by the book here . . . man was created and there wasn't a heafty law placed upon him. Life forever. Procreate. Don't eat the fruit of the tree. What is, then the fruit of the tree. It is a reminder that the man's creator knows what is best. Now, thousands of years later your stupid ass, and mine . . . are sitting in the middle of a living room in the land of intregue . . . lets say Iowa . . . trying to figure out how to put this cheap wal-mart entertainment center together. There. Rob, there is the instruction manual.

Hey! Rob! Stupid ass! Pay no attention to the instruction manual! Molest me no further with this trite. Like blake, hung up on the obscene we make rules for ourselves. And then you. Well you are the unfortunate sombitch who makes sense out of chaos.

But chaos isn't where it is at, really, axman?

 

rob wrote:
edit: and btw, yea the bible clearly says he wants worship. Lots of it.

 

Yeah, brainiac, but why?

 

 

Grab at straws much?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Read your

David Henson wrote:


Read your own cartoon, dude.

 

Very few bible folk will agree with your view on an imperfect god.  And that still doesn't answer the question as to why the tree was put there.  A traffic light exists to prevent accidents at intersections.  If he really didn't want us to eat from it, put it where we can't get at it, or don't create it at all.  Like I said, if it has anything to do with us having 'choices' then god can't be pissed that he let us make our own decisions knowingly all to well what they could be.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:David

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:


 

Read your own cartoon, dude.

 

Very few bible folk will agree with your view on an imperfect god.  And that still doesn't answer the question as to why the tree was put there.  A traffic light exists to prevent accidents at intersections.  If he really didn't want us to eat from it, put it where we can't get at it, or don't create it at all.  Like I said, if it has anything to do with us having 'choices' then god can't be pissed that he let us make our own decisions knowingly all to well what they could be.

 

You are trying too hard to understand it. You are making myth out of it like myth was stupid you can't grasp.

 

God created man. He said you are just a pup, so you need to listen to me. Satan said - Ehh, maybe? Man listened. Man was wrong. Read your own cartoon again.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: Grab at

robj101 wrote:

 

Grab at straws much?

 

Why does God want man to "worship" him? What does it mean to "worship" him?

 

I mean, you have to get rid of all of that shit you were taught in whatever you were taught it, simply because it doesn't add up. I can fuck with you punks till "hell" freezes over in your mind but that ain't jack shit to me.

 

If you can pick up on this shit of your own accord what do you expect? A lobotomy? Fucking Buddha . . . yer, yer, yer. way off track.

 

Yeah, what . . . I'm on top of the moral and intellectual jive shit?

 

C'mon! Fucking hell! Wise up.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The sunk cost fallacy is


 

Atheistextremist wrote:
As far as I am concerned you are a classic example of the intellectual sunk cost fallacy.

David Henson wrote:
I don't know what you mean by that. I have the intellectual capacity of Winnie The Pooh or plywood.


When you have invested so much money in your Hudson Super Six that even though it's only worth 2500 you throw another 10,000 at a paint job because you spent 3 grand buying it. You can apply sunk cost fallacy to war as well. Let's say 3500 American boys and girls have died in Iraq. Well - they can't have died for nothing so let's hang on fighting for no great reason until another 3500 have been killed and then decide it's no longer worth it. In the case of intellectual investment, there's significant effort in building a well informed and yet entirely subjective air castle. Once that investment is made it's extremely difficult for a person to turn their back on it because it took so long to build and in the case of people, knowledge stored in the brain is a physiological reality that can't be unmade - only redirected. That's why former christians argue so freely about how god's a bastard, even though they say he doesn't exist. The firmware is still in place.

Anyway, I'm not going to say, Dave, that I'm not guilty of the same thing because I think all humans are weakened by the narrow focus of their mind's eye. People have a habit of running their brain through known mazes - maybe it uses less energy than conceptualizing a completely new position. It's interesting reading your replies to note the great distance in conception there is between us. Your entire universe is alien to me.

The point I made about bible being malleable to any circumstance - I guess what I meant was that researchers could find a bunch of 5 million year old skeletons, we could probably crack abiogenesis in the lab and so long as we were unable to see pre-bang, your faith would adjust, your interpretations squidge into a slightly new shape and you would go on believing as before.

Anyway, I think we're probably at the point of the conversation where it's time to open a couple of six packs.

Cheers, mate.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
As far as I am concerned you are a classic example of the intellectual sunk cost fallacy.

David Henson wrote:
I don't know what you mean by that. I have the intellectual capacity of Winnie The Pooh or plywood.


 

When you have invested so much money in your Hudson Super Six that even though it's only worth 2500 you throw another 10,000 at a paint job because you spent 3 grand buying it. You can apply sunk cost fallacy to war as well. Let's say 3500 American boys and girls have died in Iraq. Well - they can't have died for nothing so let's hang on fighting for no great reason until another 3500 have been killed and then decide it's no longer worth it. In the case of intellectual investment, there's significant effort in building a well informed and yet entirely subjective air castle. Once that investment is made it's extremely difficult for a person to turn their back on it because it took so long to build and in the case of people, knowledge stored in the brain is a physiological reality that can't be unmade - only redirected. That's why former christians argue so freely about how god's a bastard, even though they say he doesn't exist. The firmware is still in place.

Anyway, I'm not going to say, Dave, that I'm not guilty of the same thing because I think all humans are weakened by the narrow focus of their mind's eye. People have a habit of running their brain through known mazes - maybe it uses less energy than conceptualizing a completely new position. It's interesting reading your replies to note the great distance in conception there is between us. Your entire universe is alien to me.

The point I made about bible being malleable to any circumstance - I guess what I meant was that researchers could find a bunch of 5 million year old skeletons, we could probably crack abiogenesis in the lab and so long as we were unable to see pre-bang, your faith would adjust, your interpretations squidge into a slightly new shape and you would go on believing as before.

Anyway, I think we're probably at the point of the conversation where it's time to open a couple of six packs.

Cheers, mate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well . . . AE . . . this is the moment I have been saving it up for in your case, because I know how it is. When Jesus said that the sinners would likely enter into paradise before the apostles you think if you asked your brother if that meant you guys that would go over well?

You are hung up on that, dude. You are hung up on that.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: You are

David Henson wrote:

 

You are trying too hard to understand it. You are making myth out of it like myth was stupid you can't grasp.

 

God created man. He said you are just a pup, so you need to listen to me. Satan said - Ehh, maybe? Man listened. Man was wrong. Read your own cartoon again.

 

You keep dodging the question.  Why is the tree there, and why is satan even in contact with man?  God would've known what was to happen if he were omniscient, which makes him not so just and loving.