Question for our Christian visitors

Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Dean Rob
Dean Rob's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
My first post.

Hi, I just joined this forum today and this is my first post. I am really glad I just found this thread because this subject has been bugging me. Totally coincidentally I posted this message on the Bible Facebook page yesterday,

 

Can we smash up the Ten Commandments? Many Christians in the States want the Ten Commandments in law courts. They are already in the schools and churches. They are part of the Mosaic law. But as soon as you mention old laws to some Christians they just start repeating 'new covenant, new covenant'. So what is it? New or old? Should we rip the Ten Commandments up and take them out of schools and churches?

 

I posted the message twice. The first time most of the answers came back and said 'we are under a new covenant' and there were remarks on some of the following posts about 'Jews on the site tonight'. Most of the answers I got from my second post was that the old laws still stand.

When I asked the 'new covenant' guys about whether homosexuality was ok now then they said no because Paul say so. When I said that if Paul's words were so important why do they let their women speak in church I didn't get a reply. I haven't had time to read all of this thread but it seems to me that 'new covenant' only gets used by most Christians to cover up their God's brutality.

 


DigiFix
DigiFix's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2011-07-16
User is offlineOffline
Immoral Orel

When I ask christians if they believe that homosexuals should be put to death, if women should be treated as disrespectully as the bible says they should, if people should be killed for working on the sabbath, or if the world was truely flooded and repopulated by a DRUNK named Noah and his family, They always say that they think some parts of the bible are not right... Well to say that is basically saying you aren't a christian, if you don't believe the bible is the irrefutable word of god... BUT...

 

My question to these Christians is this : If you pick and choose which parts of the bible are true based on your OWN moral belief system... what is the point of calling yourself a Christian, when Christianity preaches many many things that you personally believe to be immoral?

-DigiFix


DigiFix
DigiFix's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2011-07-16
User is offlineOffline
Bible and genitalia

WHy is the bible so obsessed with genitals? There is actually quite a bit of it in the bible. There was even a part where it was talking about genitals being the size of those of donkies... and even went into detail of what came out of the genitals... the semen. Why did they feel these things needed to be in a "holy book" ? Oh and just to prevent trash talking, I was NOT confusing "gentiles" with "genitals"... im talking about genitals now lol

-DigiFix


DigiFix
DigiFix's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2011-07-16
User is offlineOffline
YA, dean... they won't reply

YA, dean... they won't reply when they are stumped LoL. It's all obviously false, but when you start asking about the evil stuff that is condoned by the christian bible, they don't reply, or say it was taken out of context or mistranslated... always an excuse.

-DigiFix


BELOVED
Theist
BELOVED's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2011-07-19
User is offlineOffline
What's grace got to do with it?!

I'm not sure what God's grace has to do with your question. But to answer...I can think of a couple of reasons why Christians woud get upset about the ten commandments being removed from public places:

1: It is a sign that a nation has turned it's back on God. 

Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him. Isaiah 1:4

2. It is a sign of inequality. Living a life apart from God and standing for that belief is promoting the same type of alienation unbeliever's complain about.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Too bad for christians that

Too bad for christians that they don't have a monopoly on morality. And good for the rest of us. No religion has any right to be taken seriously, let alone be backed by a state.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BELOVED wrote:I'm not sure

BELOVED wrote:

I'm not sure what God's grace has to do with your question. But to answer...I can think of a couple of reasons why Christians woud get upset about the ten commandments being removed from public places:

1: It is a sign that a nation has turned it's back on God. 

Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him. Isaiah 1:4

2. It is a sign of inequality. Living a life apart from God and standing for that belief is promoting the same type of alienation unbeliever's complain about.

 

It is a sign that they are against a 'moral' system which ignores rape, torture and slavery, that treats women and servants as property, to be lumped in with farm animals, as things that may be 'coveted', and is against religious freedom.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
BELOVED wrote:I'm not sure

BELOVED wrote:

I'm not sure what God's grace has to do with your question. But to answer...I can think of a couple of reasons why Christians woud get upset about the ten commandments being removed from public places:

1: It is a sign that a nation has turned it's back on God. 

Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him. Isaiah 1:4

2. It is a sign of inequality. Living a life apart from God and standing for that belief is promoting the same type of alienation unbeliever's complain about.

 

Wanting the Ten Commandments statues in public places is a sign of idolatry. Christians seem to want to worship the tablets instead of paying attention to the few useful things written on them.

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Wanting the

jcgadfly wrote:

Wanting the Ten Commandments statues in public places is a sign of idolatry. Christians seem to want to worship the tablets instead of paying attention to the few useful things written on them.

When it comes down to it, it's all political.  As an American citizen sees the Declaration of Independence a foundation of their country, so does a Christian see the 10 commandments a foundation of their following.  The question comes, do we as Americans care more about where the DOI is displayed or what's actually written in it.  I'm willing to bet most Americans would be more concerned about it's display.  Why is that?  Just like Christians, they can find that information just by doing a google search.  

I would agree that idolatry is the difference between caring about its display and following what's written in it, but the issue started when Atheists wanted to remove it... which technically is a violation of free speech regardless of who's property it's displayed on... would they have the same problem with a verse from the Quran?  Likely not, it would be viewed as a freedom of speech.  Some may have issues, but most would let it go because of the political and legal implcations against Muslims if confronted.  

Ultimately, our generation was not the ones who put it there.  Why is it such an issue now?  Why isn't anyone petitioning to scrape off the God reference at the top of the Washington Monument?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Those damned atheists! How

Those damned atheists! How dare they remind good Christians that they are bound by the laws of the land! Socialist bastards!

While I can't speak for all atheists I would consider a passage from the Qu'ran on a monument as offensive as the 10 Commandments or a passage from The God Delusion. See, endorsing one person's speech at the expense of all others on public property is a violation of free speech. You can do what you want in your own yard.

I don't have a problem with Laus Deo because I don't know which god is being praised. The deistic God that Washington believed in? The God of Robertson and Comfort? Tell me which God is being praised and I'll be able to answer the question more precisely.

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I would agree

caposkia wrote:

I would agree that idolatry is the difference between caring about its display and following what's written in it, but the issue started when Atheists wanted to remove it...

That's dishonest.

The issue started when theists tried to undermine the secularism of the United States, and the wall between democracy and theocracy.

caposkia wrote:
... which technically is a violation of free speech regardless of who's property it's displayed on...

That's dishonest as well.

Do you as a citizen not have the right to stand in front of a courthouse all day, every day, with a sign that has the 10 commandments written on it?

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


revskeens (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Ten Commandments

 You are mistaken in the fact that Christ said that he came to fulfill the law not change it.(Mat. 5.18). The purpose of him coming to the earth, being crucified and resurrected on the third day was so that we didn't have to continue to sacrifice animals, which were insufficient anyway, in order to be forgiven of the breaking of these laws along with the numerous other transgressions of the Levitical Law that we commit as mankind. We still have to live under restrictions and guidelines that were set for us by the almighty God of heaven, in order for us to remain a civilized society. Question for the atheists: why do you wish for the ten commandments to be removed from public buildings? What is wrong with citizens being reminded not to kill or steal, and so on? Why is a sound moral code threatening to you?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I would agree that idolatry is the difference between caring about its display and following what's written in it, but the issue started when Atheists wanted to remove it...

That's dishonest.

The issue started when theists tried to undermine the secularism of the United States, and the wall between democracy and theocracy.

dishonest or perspective? 

caposkia wrote:
... which technically is a violation of free speech regardless of who's property it's displayed on...

That's dishonest as well.

Do you as a citizen not have the right to stand in front of a courthouse all day, every day, with a sign that has the 10 commandments written on it?

 

that was my point.  I do have the right to do that and to tell me I can't is a violation of free speech...  It doesn't mean you have to agree.  


Tim Krupp (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Because the law is the

Because the law is the schoolmaster which brings people to Christ. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I would agree that idolatry is the difference between caring about its display and following what's written in it, but the issue started when Atheists wanted to remove it...

That's dishonest.

The issue started when theists tried to undermine the secularism of the United States, and the wall between democracy and theocracy.

caposkia wrote:
... which technically is a violation of free speech regardless of who's property it's displayed on...

That's dishonest as well.

Do you as a citizen not have the right to stand in front of a courthouse all day, every day, with a sign that has the 10 commandments written on it?

 

Bingo. If some fool wants to parade around holding a sign, that's fine and protected. Cementing it into a public building is REPRESSION of free speech. Until christians accept EVERY moral and ethical code known to man to be given equal display, it is a violation of law and decency.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Besides, most of the

Besides, most of the commandments have nothing to do with any law of any kind since the age of enlightenment castrated church efforts to destroy anything not christian. It therefore has no place at all in law, or any building devoted to law.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"What is wrong with citizens

"What is wrong with citizens being reminded not to kill or steal, and so on? Why is a sound moral code threatening to you?"

Killing and stealing are the only commandments that have any relation to the law today. How about you rename it the two commandments and see if that works better? Why is an unsound ethical code which completely depends on the existence of the non existent so important to you when human society worked to create a better one that isn't dependant on invisible friends, and succeeded?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"What is wrong

Vastet wrote:
"What is wrong with citizens being reminded not to kill or steal, and so on? Why is a sound moral code threatening to you?" Killing and stealing are the only commandments that have any relation to the law today. How about you rename it the two commandments and see if that works better? Why is an unsound ethical code which completely depends on the existence of the non existent so important to you when human society worked to create a better one that isn't dependant on invisible friends, and succeeded?

I would agree that a flawed ethical code based upon a non-existent thing is not important--at least I don't see any reason to believe that it is important.

However, unless God exists (and you've offered no good reason to think that he does not), there's no reason to believe that murder and stealing are really wrong.
 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've offered plenty of

I've offered plenty of reasons. You just didn't lurk enough. However, since you're so lazy, I'll give you the best one:
If noone told you there was a god, and then defined god for you, you'd never have believed in one. Knowledge of your god is not a birthright, it's a lesson.

I have never believed in a god. Why? At least in part because I'd never even heard of the idea until I was in grade school. My first experience with any "god" was some old crazy lady in school yelling at me because when she asked me what higher power I believed in I just looked at her, not comprehending her words.

So there you have it. Why believe in a human delusion created to sooth those who are incapable of comprehending their existence, and its inevitable end?

I don't know if there's a god or not, but I do know that it has no bearing on my life. I also know that he/she/it never introduced itself to me.

I need proof. Without proof I can't choose whether or not to have faith.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
As to murder and theft,

As to murder and theft, you're starting a whole new subject. I'm going to wait until I'm sure you're capable of understanding morality before I bother going there. But you're in luck, because I've already gone there. Multiple times. So if you feel like digging through a few hundred posts you'll find it with little trouble.

Protip: keep an eye out for topics on morality and ethics.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I've offered

Vastet wrote:
I've offered plenty of reasons. You just didn't lurk enough. However, since you're so lazy, I'll give you the best one: If noone told you there was a god, and then defined god for you, you'd never have believed in one. Knowledge of your god is not a birthright, it's a lesson.

Firstly, you don't know that this is true.  For all you know, I could have been born with an innate predisposition towards theism the full elucidation of which would be fully realized by adulthood.  

Secondly, this has nothing to do with the issue of morality.  How we come to know certain moral truths has nothing to do with whether there actually are moral truths.

Quote:
Why believe in a human delusion created to sooth those who are incapable of comprehending their existence, and its inevitable end? I don't know if there's a god or not, but I do know that it has no bearing on my life. I also know that he/she/it never introduced itself to me. I need proof. Without proof I can't choose whether or not to have faith.

I have no proof that 1 + 1 = 2, or that other minds exist, or that all bachelors are unmarried males; however, I choose to believe these things anyway.  This is a choice you're making, and you'll realize that it has bearing on your life as soon as you face God on your day of judgment.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: Yes I do know this is

1: Yes I do know this is true. I have studied enough biology to know this is true. Your philosophy doesn't hold a candle to biology. You even prove my point. It doesn't matter how old you are when you start playing with your invisible friend, you had to be told it existed in the first place. The best you can do is suggest you might have invented your own god, but that god would not be the one you believe in now.

2: I already told you that's a different topic. I don't like repeating myself. So this will be the last time I tell you. Find a morality topic. This isn't one. Continuing to post arguments on morality in this topic will automatically mean you lost via intellectual laziness.

3: Funny, I have proof of all these things. It is called using experimentation to compile and compare empirical evidence. In other words, the scientific method.

You, however, choose to believe in a magic man who will make everything better, but will never know how wrong and wasted your life was when you cease to exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:......I

Tom_the_Who wrote:

......

I have no proof that 1 + 1 = 2, or that other minds exist, or that all bachelors are unmarried males; however, I choose to believe these things anyway.  This is a choice you're making, and you'll realize that it has bearing on your life as soon as you face God on your day of judgment.

There you demonstrate your clear misunderstanding of the distinction between deductive and empirical/inductive systems, between definitions and deductions.

"1 + 1 = 2" is a logical implication of the Laws of Logic and the definitions of "1", "+", "=", and "2".

Similarly, bachelors are defined as unmarried, so no proof is required.

Those comments demolish any credibility you may have had to understand the nature of Logic and Reason.

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


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Those

BobSpence1 wrote:

Those comments demolish any credibility you may have had to understand the nature of Logic and Reason.

Do you have proof that things true by definition require no proof?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes, language. The fact that

Yes, language. The fact that we are able to communicate in any meaningful way means that accepted definitions must have been accepted to be true definitions. If this were not the case, no two words would necessarily have any different meaning, and communication would be impossible through that medium.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Those comments demolish any credibility you may have had to understand the nature of Logic and Reason.

Do you have proof that things true by definition require no proof?

Seriously? You don't understand the distinction between a definition and a contingent fact? Between a word defined to be an alternative equivalent of another word, phrase, or expression, and a word referring to some attribute or element of external reality?

You are joking, surely...

 

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


JesusChristisLord
Theist
JesusChristisLord's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-10-07
User is offlineOffline
That definitely is an

That definitely is an overgeneralization.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I've offered

Vastet wrote:
I've offered plenty of reasons. You just didn't lurk enough. However, since you're so lazy, I'll give you the best one: If noone told you there was a god, and then defined god for you, you'd never have believed in one. Knowledge of your god is not a birthright, it's a lesson. I have never believed in a god. Why? At least in part because I'd never even heard of the idea until I was in grade school. My first experience with any "god" was some old crazy lady in school yelling at me because when she asked me what higher power I believed in I just looked at her, not comprehending her words. So there you have it. Why believe in a human delusion created to sooth those who are incapable of comprehending their existence, and its inevitable end? I don't know if there's a god or not, but I do know that it has no bearing on my life. I also know that he/she/it never introduced itself to me. I need proof. Without proof I can't choose whether or not to have faith.

Ok, so let's see, by your explanation above, any child born of parents that handed them off to another pair who played their parents from before their memory till present would not exist in real life because the parents playing the childs real parents never told them about their real parents.    

Sure, you might not know God or a higher power if never told, but does that mean He's not there? 

Better send a hit man out to every couple who sent their kids into adoption at birth who have not been told of their real parents.  That way your explanation can be valid.  


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I've offered plenty of reasons. You just didn't lurk enough. However, since you're so lazy, I'll give you the best one: If noone told you there was a god, and then defined god for you, you'd never have believed in one. Knowledge of your god is not a birthright, it's a lesson. I have never believed in a god. Why? At least in part because I'd never even heard of the idea until I was in grade school. My first experience with any "god" was some old crazy lady in school yelling at me because when she asked me what higher power I believed in I just looked at her, not comprehending her words. So there you have it. Why believe in a human delusion created to sooth those who are incapable of comprehending their existence, and its inevitable end? I don't know if there's a god or not, but I do know that it has no bearing on my life. I also know that he/she/it never introduced itself to me. I need proof. Without proof I can't choose whether or not to have faith.

Ok, so let's see, by your explanation above, any child born of parents that handed them off to another pair who played their parents from before their memory till present would not exist in real life because the parents playing the childs real parents never told them about their real parents.    

Sure, you might not know God or a higher power if never told, but does that mean He's not there? 

Better send a hit man out to every couple who sent their kids into adoption at birth who have not been told of their real parents.  That way your explanation can be valid. 

Did you mean to say that the child would have no reason to believe his real parents existed? That would be the most obvious reading of such a scenario. The child clearly exists, so I can't see how your scenario makes sense otherwise that by a mistake on your part. 

Quite reasonable to require some proof that you were adopted, since most kids aren't.

In the absence of evidence, they have more reason to believe in Santa than God - especially if their parents put gifts under the tree at Xmas.

Perfectly valid not to assume something exists simply because someone tells you so, especially when it doesn't seem to you to fit in with everything else you have come to accept and/or experience.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Did you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Did you mean to say that the child would have no reason to believe his real parents existed? That would be the most obvious reading of such a scenario. The child clearly exists, so I can't see how your scenario makes sense otherwise that by a mistake on your part. 

thank you for clarifying... yea, I kind of wrote that one quickly.  sorry about that

BobSpence1 wrote:

Quite reasonable to require some proof that you were adopted, since most kids aren't.

of course, but in the scenario above, there's really no reason to ask for proof because they still don't know... they think the people taking care of them now are their real parents.  Cant' ask if you don't know.

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the absence of evidence, they have more reason to believe in Santa than God - especially if their parents put gifts under the tree at Xmas.

The reply was directed to someone who commented on the idea that if we didn't know God, then there would be no need to question his existence... that was the general idea anyway, the point I was making is just because someone doesn't know and has to be taught the truth doesn't mean that truth does not exist when they don't know about it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Perfectly valid not to assume something exists simply because someone tells you so, especially when it doesn't seem to you to fit in with everything else you have come to accept and/or experience.

I never said it wasn't.  I was simply saying you can't assume something doesn't exist just because you're not aware of it.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
"I was simply saying you

"I was simply saying you can't assume something doesn't exist just because you're not aware of it."

funny that - it seems that the Christian contention is that "If you aren't aware of something then it must exist (especially when it comes to God)".

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Perfectly valid not to assume something exists simply because someone tells you so, especially when it doesn't seem to you to fit in with everything else you have come to accept and/or experience.

I never said it wasn't.  I was simply saying you can't assume something doesn't exist just because you're not aware of it.  

Of course. I would never try to assert anything different.

But we can estimate the likelihood of many things existing or not, based on how consistent their assumed attributes are with things we already know about with soem confidence.

Ockham's Razor is useful in such cases. Not proof either way, of course, but a useful pointer to what assumptions  are best to go with, if we otherwise have no evidence to decide between alternative propositions.

In the modern context of understanding, the 'God' assumption is something that introduces more problems to be explained than it really addresses. IMHO.

There are literally an infinite number of 'possible' such assumptions of similar probability of being true, once you are prepared to make the kind of assumptions needed to take seriously the idea that beings like 'Gods' actually exist. Many Gods, or whole tribes of Gods, or things even more totally beyond our comprehension than 'God'.

So in the absence of some decent positive evidence, God belief can only be based on personal preferences and/or choices. AKA 'faith', as most serious believers have long acknowledged. Hence all the varieties of religious belief.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sigh. I'd forgotten about

Sigh. I'd forgotten about caposkia. He must live in these massive old threads like a hermit.

"Ok, so let's see, by your explanation above, any child born of parents that handed them off to another pair who played their parents from before their memory till present would not exist in real life because the parents playing the childs real parents never told them about their real parents."

WOW. Fortunately I read ahead a bit and saw the clarification.
Sure, the child would have every reason to believe that the fake parents were the real parents. At least for as long as there was no evidence to the contrary presented. But in the case of an adopted childs real and adopted parents, there is always evidence to support the existence of the real parents. So there is a likelyhood that eventually the child will find it.
If that is to be compared to the god hypothesis, then you have a god that does not conform to....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
..gods that have been

..gods that have been presented. For an all knowing all loving omnipotent god to know its child does not know him/her/it and allow that child to suffer through life and beyond simply for that lack of knowledge is contradictory. Else my entire understanding of love and ethics is inherently flawed, which this god still knew about and could fix with a thought. So no matter what argument I am approached with,the god is always responsible in the end unless I am lying about not knowing a god.
So it all comes down to whether people do or do not know god without the interference of other people. And my experience is that they do not.

"Sure, you might not know God or a higher power if never told, but does that mean He's not there?"

It means that the god who exists, if any, is not the christian god. Nor the jewish one. Nor the moslem one. The god cannot have expectations of its creation without communicating to its creation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"I was simply

jcgadfly wrote:

"I was simply saying you can't assume something doesn't exist just because you're not aware of it."

funny that - it seems that the Christian contention is that "If you aren't aware of something then it must exist (especially when it comes to God)".

if we weren't aware of God, how could we be following Him?  

Likewise, it seems that nonbelievers contention is that "if you aren't aware of something, then it can't exist... (especially when it comes to God)".

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Of course.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course. I would never try to assert anything different.

But we can estimate the likelihood of many things existing or not, based on how consistent their assumed attributes are with things we already know about with soem confidence.

Ockham's Razor is useful in such cases. Not proof either way, of course, but a useful pointer to what assumptions  are best to go with, if we otherwise have no evidence to decide between alternative propositions.

In the modern context of understanding, the 'God' assumption is something that introduces more problems to be explained than it really addresses. IMHO.

This is assuming God can only exist if it can answer more questions than it brings up... that is not justification for whether something exists or not. 

Ockham's Razor is useful to a point, but the basis for it's idea is more of shifting the burden of proof from one side to another vs coming up with a simpler explanation... Also, it has been proven that the simpler explanation is sometimes the less accurate explanation.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are literally an infinite number of 'possible' such assumptions of similar probability of being true, once you are prepared to make the kind of assumptions needed to take seriously the idea that beings like 'Gods' actually exist. Many Gods, or whole tribes of Gods, or things even more totally beyond our comprehension than 'God'.

So in the absence of some decent positive evidence, God belief can only be based on personal preferences and/or choices. AKA 'faith', as most serious believers have long acknowledged. Hence all the varieties of religious belief.

I have explained in the past that just because there is an alternative explanation for something does not mean the original idea isn't the cause, only that there are other ways of coming to the same result... there are many examples of outcomes having many different methods of approach.  

As far as decent positive evidence... there are a lot of credible scientists and professors etc. that accept the existence of God... and I doubt they would without the existence at least in their minds of some "decent positive evidence"... so i should ask what would be decent positive evidence supporting God if it were true that this God really exists?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:..gods that

Vastet wrote:
..gods that have been presented. For an all knowing all loving omnipotent god to know its child does not know him/her/it and allow that child to suffer through life and beyond simply for that lack of knowledge is contradictory. Else my entire understanding of love and ethics is inherently flawed, which this god still knew about and could fix with a thought. So no matter what argument I am approached with,the god is always responsible in the end unless I am lying about not knowing a god. So it all comes down to whether people do or do not know god without the interference of other people. And my experience is that they do not. "Sure, you might not know God or a higher power if never told, but does that mean He's not there?" It means that the god who exists, if any, is not the christian god. Nor the jewish one. Nor the moslem one. The god cannot have expectations of its creation without communicating to its creation.

I see what you're saying... btw, I pop in now and then and have a life outside these threads... When I see an irrationality, I pounce..  just for fun.

yes, there would be evidence of the birth parents and the child would likely find out... but when they find out, does that mean they'd accept the truth?  not necessarily and there are many documented cases where the child refuses to accept the truth in these cases...

Likewise, there is evidences of God and the majority of the world is at least aware of the Judeo/Christian God, many accept Him, many do not despite being aware of Him and each to their own reasoning.  

You go on to explain how you can't understand love if this God truly loves His creation and yet allows X to happen.. X being something negative.  That goes into a whole different topic than the discussion of God existing.   

God could fix any problem, sure, but what kind of life would that be?  Think of it this way, if a parent sheltered their child so much that they were not allowed to have any hurt or pain... they'd likely be deemed abusive due to the fact that they have locked their child in a padded room with no hope of escape.  God wants you to grown and learn, but also allows you to have natural consequences to your choices.  

This of course will go to the whole what of disease and innocent people dying here and there... as to which I'd respond that you understand what will happen in the future as a result of their death.   Also, was it God's fault or someone elses that they got sick or died?  What would have been?  is death really it, the end?  of course Biblically no, physically yes, do they get to come back?  who knows.  To go there we'd both have to make a lot of assumptions and ultimately the conversation will get nowhere becasue neither of us is going to buy the others conspiracy theory.  

so what now?

*edit.

btw... not only are there present claims of God communicating with it's creation, but the Bible details it many many times... and not only that, but this God allegedly came down in the flesh to be with its creation through His son.  despite your lack of understanding or knowledge of God, you can't claim that this God claimed by the Chrsitians did not communicate if in fact this God exists.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:not necessarily and

Quote:
not necessarily and there are many documented cases where the child refuses to accept the truth in these cases...

Intriguing. I've never heard of such. I HAVE heard of adopted children disowning their birth parents, but never refusing to acknowledge the reality.
However, that is largely irrelevant. We aren't talking about willful denial of offered, testable, information, we're talking about a lack of information altogether. All the written works on Earth were written by men, at least as far as I am aware. Any divine experience given to a man who then penned it was still only an experience to that man (to any curious, I'm leaving out woman for brevity, not via sexism). It was not an experience given to every man, just the one who penned the text.
A brief glimpse at the written history of man shows belief in gods by entire cultures throughout time. The sheer number of gods and their described attributes defies the ability to conceive of.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
All of these deities had

All of these deities had followers who fervently believed in them, and all of them started with someone who turned a personal experience into a full blown communicable religion. None of them has any argument against the others, because they all have the same foundation. Religions that died simply suffered from an inability to spread, and finally perished when the core culture which believed in it either failed or was consumed by another.
The prevalent gods today have followers who maximised the ability to communicate their religion, and squeezed all the others out. They won their masses through the communication that their god punishes failure to believe and follow, and rewards success.
A child that refuses to acknowledge its birth parents as being its birth parents isn't necessarily going to be rewarded or punished for that refusal. Belief in a god supposedly is. That is where the analogy fails.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
But that's not the only

But that's not the only place it fails. It can be tested that a child is the child of a couple. The evidence is uncontrovertable.
However, there is no such evidence of a god. All the abrahamic religions claim things about existence which are patently and provably false. The gods attributes are self contradictory and impossible. Believing in them is foolish without real, testable, PROOF. There is no proof of god. There is only proof that people believe in a god. Many gods, in fact. But there is proof that people believe the world is flat, so clearly belief alone is insufficient. But that's all the "evidence" theists have.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not even concerned with

I'm not even concerned with disasters or disease here, because they aren't relevant, which would surprise many atheists to hear. What is relevant is knowledge of god, which does not exist. If it did exist, then all the ways to die wouldn't matter, because we'd be born with the knowledge of god, and would be personally responsible for our beliefs and actions. BUT WE AREN'T born with the knowledge of a god. Worse, when we finally become old enough to be told about and understand god, we are confronted with multiple gods!
So YES, I can claim he failed to communicate. I can claim it 10+ billion times over and counting.
The bible was written by men. As were the quran and korah. Where is the message from god?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:not

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
not necessarily and there are many documented cases where the child refuses to accept the truth in these cases...
Intriguing. I've never heard of such. I HAVE heard of adopted children disowning their birth parents, but never refusing to acknowledge the reality. However, that is largely irrelevant. We aren't talking about willful denial of offered, testable, information, we're talking about a lack of information altogether. All the written works on Earth were written by men, at least as far as I am aware. Any divine experience given to a man who then penned it was still only an experience to that man (to any curious, I'm leaving out woman for brevity, not via sexism). It was not an experience given to every man, just the one who penned the text. A brief glimpse at the written history of man shows belief in gods by entire cultures throughout time. The sheer number of gods and their described attributes defies the ability to conceive of.

Ah, but why gods?  There is a simple explanation, but why not just make up a superman character instead?  Why must they be gods?  What is the source of the god belief and what makes it so appealing, especially when the Christian God isn't suggesting positive reinforcement, in fact, quite the opposite for your Earthly life.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not even

Vastet wrote:
I'm not even concerned with disasters or disease here, because they aren't relevant, which would surprise many atheists to hear. What is relevant is knowledge of god, which does not exist. If it did exist, then all the ways to die wouldn't matter, because we'd be born with the knowledge of god, and would be personally responsible for our beliefs and actions. BUT WE AREN'T born with the knowledge of a god. Worse, when we finally become old enough to be told about and understand god, we are confronted with multiple gods! So YES, I can claim he failed to communicate. I can claim it 10+ billion times over and counting. The bible was written by men. As were the quran and korah. Where is the message from god?

Lot's of words.  You claim the only support for gods from followers is belief.  yet if you have nothing to base belief on, you have nothing to believe in, so in fact, belief has nothing even to do with why we believe, only that we accept what we believe.  

To put it simply, belief of course is not support of God and therefore isn't my defense, belief is only what I claim, from there I must have reasoning or just call it denial or fantasy.  

When you are old enough to be told about God you are confronted with multiple gods!  Why is that?  is it that God failed to communicate, or that we are so concerned about our own ajendas that we forgot to listen?  This is the perfect example really, because I was there... the bombardment of knowing god in so many different lights or knowing of so many different gods is exactly what made me question everything to begin with... Most people at this point would pick a side and say either this God is real or there is no god... but I didn't just question religious perspectives, I questioned everything... what makes people think they know what they claim to know?  and so my investigation began.  What I've been finding out, is both believers and non-believers really have no clue why they think they know what they do, only that they know it and no one else can convince them otherwise without smacking them up side the head with a clear cut, indisputable reason.  unfortunately, such reasoning is subjective and therefore cannot ever be universal with such a topic as this mainly because you cannot grab God and put him in a box, then get a non-believer to open the box and get his face clawed off by the once believed to be non-existent God. (or vise versa for the believer)  Instead, the process takes time and research along with self investigation and commitment to discovering the Truth, whatever that truth may be... and instead of this one indisputable reason smacking someone upside the head, over time the realization comes.  Subjectively, both sides can claim this process as well.

To bring back the child who has been introduced to their real parents and is in denial.. you can do all the DNA tests you want, but if the child refuses to look at the proof, they will never see what you know...  Then there could be a million excuses including incompetent doctors or faulty testing equipment that might cause the test results to be wrong and that will keep the child convinced.  The point is, nothing is going to convince that child that those people exist as his/her parents except for what that child will allow to be convincing.  A favorite quote is;  "the truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it".   If your goal is to prove to me that you're right, and my goal is to prove to you that I'm right, then we're never going to see each others perspective and will never have rational counters to each others reasoning.  In other words, no progress and no point to discussing.  

I try to keep as open a mind as possible in all of this.  I'm willing to accept any piece of information that comes my way that might rationalize why my following is false.  So far the best support for that is that there's no evidence of this God... which is disputable because many intelligent people including scientists, geologists, historians, etc. believe in this God and many claim to have come to the belief through their work... They would then say there is plenty of proof... (here we go with the subjectivity of evidence).  That is never going to convince me I'm wrong.  


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To be rational, you need

To be rational, you need objective evidence from external reality why your idea of God is just imagination, not just evidence why it is false.

The reasons why people tend to see a 'higher power' of some sort is inherent in our instincts to seek explanations for what we see and experience.

The particular version of this 'power' they conceive is very much influenced by the ideas and stories they have heard and been told while growing up.

Which is why there are so many versions of this 'power' believed in around the world.

It really is closely akin to the tendency of some children to have an 'imaginary friend', just like I saw my younger sister do when she was a young child.

In broad terms, this is not a mystery, in no way requiring that there be any more than a particular tendency wired into a brain, highly plausibly explained by the tendency to see a conscious 'agent' behind events we don't understand. That in turn is logically consistent with the evolutionarily useful instinct to see the possibility of a predator stalking you, in every unusual movement or sound in the undergrowth. It is better to assume there might be one there and run away, than ignore it and possibly get eaten.

It's not really complicated, cap.

You really do need some evidence that fairly unambiguously supports your particular idea, not just the "d'uh" fact that there are things we don't have clear explanations for yet.

Many of the older beliefs were arguably more rational the Abrahamic monotheisms. Such as the ancient Chinese preoccupation with Demons and other Evil Spirits, that had to be 'warded off' or appeased, since it is far more rational to assume the supernatural realm is dominated by malicious entities, given all the bad things we have to cope with in the world.

 

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Cap,Am I correct in

 Cap,

Am I correct in summarizing your position as "Each side has proof but the opponents don't want to believe it"?

That you believe in God because you found evidence that you agree with/makes you feel good/want to believe?

Does your belief govern the evidence you accept or does the evidence govern your belief?

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:To be

BobSpence1 wrote:

To be rational, you need objective evidence from external reality why your idea of God is just imagination, not just evidence why it is false.

exactly, both sides claim to have objective evidence, but most of the time, the evidence is not objective to the point and they must put in their own twist or assumptions to make it fit their reality.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The reasons why people tend to see a 'higher power' of some sort is inherent in our instincts to seek explanations for what we see and experience.

And that is one reasoning I've heard over and over... the problem is I didn't see a 'higher power' to seek any explanation or explain anything.  That would make this subjective.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

The particular version of this 'power' they conceive is very much influenced by the ideas and stories they have heard and been told while growing up.

This one again I have heard many times.  It does not explain why I believe today.  I grew up catholic and reject their POV.  My dad became a Jehovah's Witness when i was young and he taught me their perspective.  I also reject their POV.  One could say a baseline of understanding came from stories I heard growing up, but logically then if those stories were based on fiction, I would have found the truth by the means of study I have taken.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which is why there are so many versions of this 'power' believed in around the world.

yet even though there are many perspectives around the world, the majority still accept the one power.  In my experience, none of the religions that accept the one power when discussing with educated people, deny that the other religions follow the same God, only that they are misunderstanding something or have been led astray by something or someone.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It really is closely akin to the tendency of some children to have an 'imaginary friend', just like I saw my younger sister do when she was a young child.

In broad terms, this is not a mystery, in no way requiring that there be any more than a particular tendency wired into a brain, highly plausibly explained by the tendency to see a conscious 'agent' behind events we don't understand. That in turn is logically consistent with the evolutionarily useful instinct to see the possibility of a predator stalking you, in every unusual movement or sound in the undergrowth. It is better to assume there might be one there and run away, than ignore it and possibly get eaten.

It's not really complicated, cap.

if it was really that easy, there wouldn't be such a debate on the topic.  Imaginary friends only go so far, when objectives are brought into the picture, the imaginary fade out, yet still those people believe.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You really do need some evidence that fairly unambiguously supports your particular idea, not just the "d'uh" fact that there are things we don't have clear explanations for yet.

I know, and as you also know I've tried many different avenues myself, only because I never get a strait answer from the one question I keep asking everyone who tells me this.  I will ask it to you... what is it that you would be looking for?  

some people feel they've answered this by saying they want lab studies or case studies.  I have followed up with those responses by asking what angle or what I am studying in the lab... things fell apart from there.  It's irrational to assume I can take a sample of God DNA and look at it.  I know you don't take that angle, but it's something someone proposed to me once when confronted.  A case study is fine, we just need to discuss the details and process of the study so that we can be sure the results first of all are results and second of all meet the criteria you would need to consider further the subject at hand and/or conclusively confirm this topic to be bogus.

I like the Quantum rout myself.  Downward causation vs. upward causation.

Many of the older beliefs were arguably more rational the Abrahamic monotheisms. Such as the ancient Chinese preoccupation with Demons and other Evil Spirits, that had to be 'warded off' or appeased, since it is far more rational to assume the supernatural realm is dominated by malicious entities, given all the bad things we have to cope with in the world.

 

well, it is. not so much dominated, but they're there... they live here.  all those movies and shows that use the good vs evil battle in spiritual warefare are basing it off Scriptures mostly.  1/3 of all the angels were kicked out of heaven.  What do you think a demon really is?  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Cap,Am I

jcgadfly wrote:

 Cap,

Am I correct in summarizing your position as "Each side has proof but the opponents don't want to believe it"?

That you believe in God because you found evidence that you agree with/makes you feel good/want to believe?

I'd better summarize it by saying each side doesn't really know why they believe, but each side has good presentations of rational thought that the other side doesn't want to hear.  If each side had proof, both sides would be right and that's not possible.  

there are a select few on each side that can actually present good rational thought for their perspective, and even only a few of those will listen to the other side.

jcgadfly wrote:

Does your belief govern the evidence you accept or does the evidence govern your belief?

I think you know the answer to this, but I'll humor you.  the evidence govern's my belief.   If it was the other way around jcgadfly, you and I both know I wouldn't have lasted 2 seconds on this site.  thinking of my summary above, I would say though that on both sides, beliefs govern evidence.  I've seen it a lot on here.  lately it looks like you're falling into that category, but one time I know, the evidence moreso governed your belief.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Cap,

Am I correct in summarizing your position as "Each side has proof but the opponents don't want to believe it"?

That you believe in God because you found evidence that you agree with/makes you feel good/want to believe?

I'd better summarize it by saying each side doesn't really know why they believe, but each side has good presentations of rational thought that the other side doesn't want to hear.  If each side had proof, both sides would be right and that's not possible.  

there are a select few on each side that can actually present good rational thought for their perspective, and even only a few of those will listen to the other side.

jcgadfly wrote:

Does your belief govern the evidence you accept or does the evidence govern your belief?

I think you know the answer to this, but I'll humor you.  the evidence govern's my belief.   If it was the other way around jcgadfly, you and I both know I wouldn't have lasted 2 seconds on this site.  thinking of my summary above, I would say though that on both sides, beliefs govern evidence.  I've seen it a lot on here.  lately it looks like you're falling into that category, but one time I know, the evidence moreso governed your belief.  

The evidence governs your belief but you have no evidence that you are willing to reveal unless we have your expertise in metaphysics? Sounds like I do know the answer to that and it's not the one you claim it is.

Kind of like the way your miracle claim got smoked...

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap,based on the figures ,

Cap,

based on the figures , about half the world does NOT follow the Abrahamic God. IOW, there is NOT a clear majority following the one 'God'. And of course many of those who do would probably disagree with you that Allah is the same as Yahweh.

And of course all such belief is subjective, since there is no evidence that could prove, or even unambiguously point to the existence or nature of  any such being.

The reason why most people don't accept this simple fact is that people are not predominantly rational in their thought processes, and because of those inherent urges to 'see' indications of a 'higher power' in many things. Or that we prefer interesting stories over boring or inconvenient truths.

It IS easy to show and accept this IF you are well-informed on current science, not just the physical sciences, but the social sciences, and the rapidly advancing sciences of our own minds, our psychology, the way our societies interact, etc., AND you have managed to really purge the childhood irrationalities from your thinking, which may not be easy itself.

It is not necessarily inevitable or logical that you 'would have found the truth' by the particular studies you have done. It depends what those studies were, and what deeper preconceptions you still had. From your postings here, you still have false assumptions about the nature of science, as well as ignorance about the current state of our knowledge in many fields, and a poor understanding of what constitutes a proper, logical, study of a topic. 

We have told you what would constitute evidence. It is not our fault that you can't find any that satisfies our criteria, since it probably doesn't exist. Or that it is not possible to get evidence for the existence of a God being, especially if it is one that apparently has decided to make the world look like what science would expect to see if there was no God.

Really I keep asking you simply why you believe, not so much about evidence, just what are your personal reasons?

There is massive evidence, as I have said, in history, and the nature of this world, and in the Old Testament, that if there is a God responsible for, or governing, the world in any significant degree, then He is evil. Have you any evidence to counter that, and a few isolated 'miracles' in no way contradict that, they in fact reinforce the idea that He really doesn't care. Or do you not necessarily believe in a 'good' God?

A few scientists see a form of reverse ( not so much 'downward' ) causation in some interpretations of the observer 'paradox' in Quantum Theory, but there are experiments that have clearly shown that 'Quantum Collapse of the Wave Function' does NOT depend on a conscious observer, just a strong interaction with the rest of reality.

Demons are among the older ideas, like the idea of 'spirits' inhabiting various aspects of nature, that came before any tendency for those ideas to coalesce into the idea of more dominant or unified 'Great Spirit' and then into a single God (who somehow is still three parts ?? ).

What are they? Ultimately just figments of human imagination, just like your God, and the angels.

The bottom line is that no concept of God is any longer useful as an explanation for anything - instead it is a hypothesis that lacks an explanation for itself. It is no explanation at all to 'explain' any mystery by a bigger one.

 

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2493
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The evidence

jcgadfly wrote:

The evidence governs your belief but you have no evidence that you are willing to reveal unless we have your expertise in metaphysics? Sounds like I do know the answer to that and it's not the one you claim it is.

Kind of like the way your miracle claim got smoked...

 

You of all people huh... You should know better than most that I would tear any topic apart till the bitter end... where it stops you decide.  If i was as elusive as you claim I am, most people on here wouldn't be giving me the time of day.  

So you're telling me that most people on your end do know why they believe what they do?  Be it that i"m starting to think you're not one who knows why they believe what they do, it's going to be hard for me to take your word on that.

BTW, I can't wait to hear your explanation on how my "miracle claim" got smoked.  I have the Nobel Prize waiting for you when you're done.