One thing I really want
Offline One thing I really want everyone to know, understand, and accept (atheists and theists) - not one person on this planet can prove God exists. No possible proof can be offered to another individual to believe. God makes himself known to every person on an individual basis. Until you are called, you will remain in a state of disbelief, which is OK too because just as those in the time of Jesus that did not believe, there are those who were meant to believe and others who aren't. Once we all accept this, understanding that I cannot convert you, and you cannot de-convert me, we'll all live much more happy, co-existing lives (and yes this is biblically supported). It's from this point that I know, I realize, that nightline thing was a complete mistake. I personally have had run-ins with WOTM-types and I don't agree with their approach.
Now as soon as we move on from that point, I'd be curious as to what kind of discussions we'd actually have. From the RRS perspective, what would you discuss with a theist if you abandon the "prove God" - the gnome challenge - question?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
No one can provide any absolute proof of God's non-existance... only because everyone needs a different amount or type of evidence to be convinced of something. And if we couldn't prove in some way that God does/doesn't exist, the only reasonable thing to do would to be agnostic.
It sounds to me like you're saying "We really can't know either way, but I believe anyways, even though I could be wrong."
But still, through the use of logic you can see that God's existance is impossible (I'm referring to the Christian-Judaeic God) and that in itself is proof enough for most.
And sorry if I didn't explain that too well. I tend to have trouble putting things on screen without talking too much, and I start to confuse myself, etc.
"It is unbecoming of a young man to utter maxims."--Aristotle
But what is reasonable? I think that reverts back to the "label everything" problem - I am called Christian because I follow the teachings and example of Jesus. That is simply a label however - if you want to know me all you've gotta do is ask which goes for every person on or off this forum. Something I see very little of...both on and off this forum.
Please don't assume. All I've been saying since being on this forum is I believe because I have been given the proof from God. I received this directly and through that is why I believe. I can't show you my proof but I have my reasons why I believe. Because of how I received my proof, I do not doubt....so there is no "could be wrong".
Now please go back to what I said in my previous post. Logic is not the point nor has it been.
The problem with online only I guess...
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
That fact that you cannot prove god’s non-existence is inconsequential and nugatory because you cannot prove the non-existence of anything.
Because the "proof" that came to me was undeniable. My proof is not proof to show you to believe but was for me and me alone. I know that will bring titles to my name, most of which are not nice, but that's OK. I believe because this thing came to me and showed me who he is.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
"But what is reasonable?"
Being agnostic to God's existance is reasonable when we can't prove his existance or non existance. To borrow something from Russel; we couldn't be sure or unsure if a teapot is revolving around the planet, but it's highly unlikely. It wouldn't make sense.
"Please don't assume. All I've been saying since..."
I would love to hear about the proof you've recieved.
"Now please go back to what I said in my previous post. Logic is not the point nor has it been."
I'm making logic the point. But whatever, logic is for idiots anyways.
"It is unbecoming of a young man to utter maxims."--Aristotle
Word razorphreak. You say that god can't actually be proven, except through personal delusion; woops, I mean personal experience. Surely, you don't live in a box, and you're smart enough to realize that every single religious person in the world feels the same way. Allah is proven to the muslim through personal experience, and so on.
Perhaps delusion is all the proof that is needed?
Hmmm. I love the good 'ol predestination line. Jesus has chosen some of us for heaven, and the better looking of us for hell. Jealous bastard.
Of course theists have the burden of proof. If God makes it so that there could be no physical evidence and only direct personal experience, then there is no reason to even be evangelical at all. Why would you be on this site at all? Theists should be completely content with waiting for God to reveal himself to each person in time. As far as personal experience is concerned, it would be nice to hear some testimony. While some may be rude and call you nuts, I would never judge your sanity. Lots of people hear and see things that aren't really there. Your may simply be a "feeling" that you have. Maybe an intense feeling of guilt that you don't want to own up to, or an in ability to put something that happened in the passed behind you. I wouldn't pretend to guess any further, but we all have unique psychological ways of explaining our experiences. My best friend (an atheist) really was hearing and seeing demons and angels. He was diagnosed and prescribed meds, until he found religion. He was more inclined to accept a supernatural explaination for his visions, but other than literal demons following him around, he seems normal. These are the extreme cases. Sometimes it's just ghost noises, bad dreams. The point is, you should be sceptical of your own senses, not to mention other people's personal experiences.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
That really sucks for your friend man. Is he still a theist?
Yeah. I run into him around town every once in a while. It's one of those situations where I think the religion is maybe helping him (in a diluted reality sort of way). I mean, it's either drugs or god in his case. Religion a way in which he is making sense of what his brain is creating in front of him. I believe he has learned to ignore the visions for the most art. He describes seeing demons dressed and impersonating angels as well. It's very difficult for me to talk to him, but it's comforting when I can just see that he's doing well. Funny thing is, he used to be a slacker-type. His christianity has helped him quit smoking, hold down a job, ect. That's how I mean that the religion has helped him. I just miss him. He is a completely different person. These personal experiences just give me perspective on how the brain can missfire so easily. I know I've personally (actually) heard my name called when there is noone there. I know how amazing it can be to (finally) see the errors that you may have made in life choices, and how profound they can change your world views. I think in some cases people are actually hallucinating, and in others, people are just attributing a very intense emotional change to a divine intervention. I don't think it's possible at all to influence the emotions of either of these types of people, but the purpose of these forums is to debunk the myths of religion and to defend science.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
I could throw the Sam Harris card down and ask, why then would you align yourself with such people but I am guessing that you have no choice. Just as I cannot change the color of my skin (Free Thinker said this), neither can I change my disbelief so I would imagine the same holds true for you.
Everything. I am not clear on what you mean by "the RRS perspective" but every subject is open to discussion as far as I am concerned. I would hesitate to single you out but my curious mind has many questions. Have you studied other religions and to what extent? You say you were called - are others called in the same manner to be muslim, jewish, etc. or is this a non-denominational calling? Can you describe your god (not physically, of course)? Has your belief fundamentally changed who you are? From your perspective and understanding, would you be willing to open a discussion about the bible? Why do so many people want to convert each other? What changes would you work toward to improve humankind and world relations? Outside of these personal questions, I have about a dozen more concerning science, politics, and education. (You may call me a pest at any time - others do.)
You see, there are many things to discuss. Pick one, pick them all - doesn't matter to me as long as the discussion is productive.
I personally have had run-ins with WOTM-types and I don't agree with their approach.
What's a WOTM?
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
Way of the Master I think. But I could be wrong.
And razorphreak. I think I understand some of the feeling behind your post (correct me if i'm wrong). It does get frustrating to feel like you are fighting with someone you care about when this subject comes up. Ninja and I get into discussions on my beliefs and I downright feel attacked at times. Of course, he is not attacking me and I really shouldn't feel that way, but it happens. It is a frustrating feeling to always have the discussion be about right v. wrong... but that's why I tend to stay out of a lot of topics on this site. If I don't feel like arguing with someone about my beliefs, then I don't respond. The science forums are really quite interesting. I could say I've learned a lot from them, but I'm really not that smart... Anyhow, I prefer to discuss things with Atheists that we agree on, like the Hubbell telescope and the problems with the moral majority. But that's just me. It's all about where you go.
Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.
See how can I actually discuss with you rationally when you start with comments like that? Are you actually interested in understanding why I believe or are you looking for yet another theist to bash and call "delusional"?? Every person can and I believe does have "visits" by spirits - you know the thing that science can't prove but when you have several hundred million telling you it happens, you can't just deny it straight. Given that spirits CAN exist, just like with people can it not be concluded that some are good and some are, well, not? What you call delusions because you have not received the same calling does not make it any less real.
You are so wrong with that statement on so many levels...but since that isn't what this thread is on, I'll refer you to check out other threads on that subject.
How about to correct the misuse of biblical references? You are probably still under the impression that people going on YouTube and making a video about the holy spirit is actually a blaspheme don't you?
I didn't come here to preach, just to stand up for my beliefs and correct others where they've got the wrong impression. Don't confuse the two...
I didn't come to "witness" so if someone else does...
Since I've already been called nuts I prefer to just stick with correcting poor biblical references.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Oh razor, you take my sarcasm too far. I was a theist and born again christian for 20 years. I know why you believe. Young earth creationism was my thing, I even attended some seminars with Eric Hovind (Kent's son) and really got into their material. Even seriously considered giving the presentations to an audience such as they do.
I guess that shows how little I used to know about science, but none of us are perfect.
I'd love to have a rational discussion, although I don't know how rational we can get when discussing god. If you know Richard Dawkins, he'd say you don't have evidence. And that's really what it comes down to. You believe in god; it's based on tradition, faith, and hope.
razor: "Every person can and I believe does have "visits" by spirits - you know the thing that science can't prove but when you have several hundred million telling you it happens, you can't just deny it straight. Given that spirits CAN exist, just like with people can it not be concluded that some are good and some are, well, not? What you call delusions because you have not received the same calling does not make it any less real."
If science can't prove it then why are we talking about it here? Let's stick to the good stuff. It may be noteworthy to point out that hundreds of millions of people sincerely believe in Allah. This doesn't lend a shred of credence to Islam in your mind, probably.
Without sounding rude, I do not think you or anyone else can say conclusively that you know why someone believes. There are many points on which we can all agree and evidence of god is not needed to discuss them. Sorry, but the point of this thread is not to discuss evidence.
Sure, I don't mean to take the thread of topic. Razor's first post did in fact state that he didn't think there was real evidence for god. What he talked about was personal experience and god revealing himself to select individuals as "evidence".
It's the conecpt that I want to go after. I know there is no evidence, but I would really like to know how he can give his personal feelings so much weight. There are a lot of religious people in the world, and they all rely on personal revelation. My question is why is he correct, and others, such as Muslims, incorrect? Why do his feelings carry more weight than others that are sincerely convinced of different faiths?
I direct this question to you, Razor.
Even through their faults, many of which can be corrected with very little effort, they are accepters of the message. I cannot deny that they know God; it's just how they listen to God that might need to be adjusted. As a Christian, I understand that all people, believer or not, are what they are because of God's purpose for them. I cannot make any judgments upon their salvation or damnation as to do so would make a me "pee-wit".
What I mean by the RRS perspective is...OK, we bring up a topic with say who is Satan. I explain in accordance with my beliefs and you turn around and say two things to me: first I'm wrong because it's my interpretation leading to the second point of the bible being a work of fiction and has no proof. How is that a discussion? If I'm asked what my beliefs are but then, even though you don't share them, decide to take the opportunity to bash my beliefs, forgoing the discussion, how likely am I to remain patient or more so, open minded?
I stopped it here sine the other line of questioning seemed a bit different.
Yes I've studied other religions. I've understood that being a Christian you must also know what others believe so you can relate. I cannot say what someone else's calling is; I can only describe my own. I can say it has changed my life and I would be more than willing to discuss the bible...
I don't know the answer to the first question. People sometimes think they can do it without God's help. The rest...we'll talk about those more a bit later I think...
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Jonny I think you are missing the point of the original post. I think Razor was directly asking if we step away from the proving god argument, what other types of discusions would we have.
Also I think he was asking(if I have this right), if theists understood their beliefs are personal and not to be enforced on anyone, would there be a need for the RRS? If religion stayed out of goverment, would the arguments against god be needed?
As would I but then if it deals with proof for you, I'm afraid we are at an impass. I believe not because of hope or tradition but faith and faith alone. The fact that Dawkins and his followers refuse to listen because of proof shows a serious closed minded approach to actually understanding why someone believes. It sounds like rejecting the answer before asking the question.
And? I'm not talking about Islam, I'm talking about theism. Whatever someone else believes, because it is beyond the scope of what science is, does that automatically disqualify it from being a topic of disucssion?
I did not say that. I said there is no proof that can be offered to believe. I didn't say there was no real evidence. My evidence is not proof FOR YOU. Please don't twist my words. If you don't know what I mean by them, ASK.
If your family was killed by a drunk driver, would you feel differently about drinking and driving yourself? What about when you see it happen to others?
Personal experiences are HUGE in determining who you are as a person and because I've had a personal experience with God, there is a very big reason why it has so much weight in my life.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Wow I don't think I could have said that any better...
Though one other point...if we truly achieve separation of church and state, would you want freedom of religion gone? I ask that because of some of the material on this site, such as the "end of faith" book. I've never read it but from the Amazon description, it sure seems to be calling to abolish religion all together, not allow it to exist as a personal preference (which in itself brings up another thought - if my faith makes me who I am, obviously I will live my life in accordance to it. If I am not trying to convert you, would you look at me with a judgment of delusional or, as I saw in a movie once, "be my friend?"
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Hi Razor - You're absolutely right; no one can prove the existence of god.
Are you asking what we could discuss if we remove the 'proof of god' issue? If so, I think there are a myriad of topics that still need to be covered. Religion is still so pervasive and effects so many people.
I think it would be nice if other theists realized that there belief is personal. If they did, there would probably be no need for a group such as this.
If religion became personal, that would mean it wouldn't effect our laws. Religious views wouldn't be able to dictate who has what right to marry, for example.
Of course, we are speaking ideally. But I definitely see your point.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Well, it's kind of hard to abandon the "prove god" challenge because ultimately, that's what any discussion on the subject comes down to.
I have no problem with you or your ilk believing what you believe as long as it stays within the confines of your home, church, mosque, or pumpkin patch. But when those beliefs start making their way into public and foreign policy, when those beliefs interfere with scientific progress and education, when those beliefs are the driving force behind planes crashing into buildings...in other words, when those beliefs stop being passive and become aggressive, that is when I take issue with your beliefs.
When the religious decide that their imaginary friend doesn't just judge and punish individuals, but communities and nations, then insist that those communities and nations enact laws to pacify said imaginary friend, proof of this supernatural lawgiver becomes imperative. The onus of providing this proof falls to those asserting the existence of said lawgiver, not to those who make no such assertions.
So, Razor, I suppose any further discussions are predicated on where you stand on the issue of passive vs. assertive religious beliefs.
-HCG
Though one other point...if we truly achieve separation of church and state, would you want freedom of religion gone?
No. I think that people have every right to worship, as long as that worship does not affect any other person adversely.
If god takes life he's an indian giver