Choosing a faith

Find me where someone here argued that the absence of evidence for a deity means none exist and I will help you argue against his position.I doubt you'll be able to find someone here making that argument, but let's say that you do. Why are you taking the invalid position of one or two people (I'd be surprised if it were more than that because I think I would have noticed) and accusing all of us of holding it? At a minimum you're guilty of overgeneralizing, and at worst you're making things up.I think most here would argue that the absence of evidence for deities means we can safely ignore them. Maybe they exist, maybe not, but it isn't something worth concerning oneself with. Believe whatever you like. Just don't claim you have evidence for your beliefs when you don't. I think I see where your confusion is coming from now. Sure we reject "the idea of an outside intelligence" (you still haven't addressed the problem of the infinite regression - are you ignoring this issue, or are you unsure what I'm talking about), and that's because there's no evidence for it, but that doesn't mean we think absence of evidence has disproven the possibility. "Disproven" is forever, and it's a mathematical concept anyway, not a scientific one. When speaking informally we all tend to throw around terms like "prove" and "disprove," but when speaking formally those terms must be discarded. They have no place in science because science is tentative, meaning views can change in light of new evidence or improved insight.Concerning your cosmic intelligence, in a scientific sense when speaking formally we would say that the evidence does not support that idea. When speaking scientifically we would never say that the lack of evidence disproves it. That would not be a tentative expression and so would not be scientific.And it's because "disproven" is forever that we can rarely if ever say that scientific evidence disproves something, because it is almost always possible that new evidence or improved insight could change our minds.My very first post in this thread, Message 3, repeatedly mentioned evidence and your failure to include it, and I have stressed evidence ever since. Everything I've said in this post I've said before, probably several times at least. How you still don't get it after nearly 1800 messages beggars belief. I just did a search in this thread, and can you guess which participant uses forms of the word "reject" more than any other participant? If you guessed yourself then give yourself a cigar. There's no one in this thread running around saying, "I reject the idea of a deity." When other people here used the word "reject" they were usually saying that they reject your views.Someone interested in learning what is true of the real world would hold evidence preeminent. There is no way of knowing that we're aware of that doesn't involve evidence. If you're not a materialist then prove it by burning down your house and jumping off a bridge. I don't know if you truly, after all these messages, still don't understand, or if you're just being contrary and are purposefully misstating what we keep telling you. What we actually believe, as opposed to what you just accused us of believing, is that evidence is how we understand the world, and taking a scientific approach to gathering and assessing evidence is the best way of understanding the world. If you have other ways of learning about the world then you have yet to describe them.But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is what we truly believe, your concerted efforts at accusing us of believing something irrational notwithstanding. You'd have to ask the research psychologists that question, but it seems unlikely to me that we're at a point where that could be studied scientifically. We're fine with you believing that. But if you start claiming you have evidence for it then you're going to receive some pushback. Why do you think it clearly requires a mind?But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that it *does* require a mind. Wouldn't something as complex as a mind capable of designing and creating all of life require a mind to create it? Where did that mind come from? Wouldn't it, too, require a mind to create it? And so forth ad infinitum? This is the infinite regression I keep coming back to that you keep failing to address. I think that if you try to describe for us why you believe mutation and natural selection inadequate that you'll reveal a profound depth of ignorance. Science holds that the processes we observe operating in the world today have been operating throughout time to produce the diversity of species we see today. Actually when I was still working I used to encounter such minds all the time. You continue to misinterpret simple statements. All I've done is state how there is an absence of evidence for a cosmic intelligence. You're again accusing us of saying that the lack evidence is evidence of something. It isn't.One thing we can say about the lack of evidence is that if we have no evidence but are drawing conclusions anyway then we don't actually have any basis for what we're concluding. And drawing conclusions without evidence is something you've built into a lifestyle.--Percy

You're just bullshitting now. You retreated into misdirection and religious mumbo jumbo when asked a direct question. If an atheist without God can be a better person than you, maybe you could also be a better person without God. Maybe from the outside the bad done in the name of religion would be more apparent. Wouldn't doing less bad mean that you're a better person? One doesn't have to believe in God or be a Christian to work with Christian charities. One can attend church services and functions without being a believer. Of course, it does feel a lot better when people reflect back to you what you already believe. Maybe it's the social/charity aspect of religion that attracts you, and the rest is just a rationalization that when explained to those outside religion makes little sense.--Percy

Orighinal sin is bullshit. Swimming in it is what makes you cough. Surprise, surprise. Original sin is another term you don't understand.1. I do not have my own "original sin". Original sin was (supposedly) Adam and Eve's sin. Everybody (supposedly inherited the same sin from them.
2. Adam and Eve did not throw Jesus away.
3. YOU are the one who throws Jesus away. I have much more respect for the historical Jesus (such as He is) than you do. 1. All evidence is secular.
2. Evidence-based thinking IS the superior model.You're packing so much stupid into one sentence that it's hard for even me to shoot fast enough.

That's an empty claim.

Its only empty because *you* have emptied your head of belief. Thankfully, your heart still heeds the call, so I don't worry about you as much as you do me.

That's an extremely stupid statement, even for you.It's an empty claim because IT is empty. WHAT "call on humanity"? HOW does a "call on humanity" produce a consensus in humanity? My heart doesn't heed any call. The idea that there IS a "call' is empty.My BRAIN has been trained to feel empathy. YOU are trying desperately to untrain your brain.You brain is full of bullshit. It flows down your arms and through your fingers onto your keyboard. I don't worry about you. You're hopelessly lost. I only post to you in the hope that nobody will follow you into enthusiastic goathood.

Lets see what yyou just said this morning, shall we? So we have "Mr.Dictionary from Saskatchewan" over here! Original sin simply means that you were born with a pre-installed desire to be your own "god." It also means that you see things as right in your own eyes and mock any human attempts to describe and or define a God who knows better than you (or any human) how your life will play out and how it is your responsibility to think about who or what you follow. You have your own stubbornness and ego. The apple does not fall far from the tree. You brazenly say things like "Jesus doesnt exist, or Jesus isnt alive today, or Jesus was a human amalgamation...a character invented by we evolved monkeys. You ask stupid questions like "How do you(meaning I) know which God is the real one.. I could go on...however: Big deal. You have respect for a book written, edited, and redacted by humans. Your claims of respect are empty by your own beliefs. Adam and Eve never had Jesus tto begin with, since they ate from the wrong tree. They had nothing to throw away. Their original sin was allowing themselves to be wise in their own eyes. It was meant to happen as a story and lesson for all of us. No wonder you threw the Holy Baby, bathwater, and kitten kaboodle out the window. You picked knowledge(evidence) over life(Jesus)

Well, that isn't what Genesis says. It was GOD who said, "They have become like one of us." Eve's intention was just to provide a nice piece of fruit for her man.And even if we were born with the sin of liking fruit, it isn't 'my" sin, as you claimed. It's EVERYBODY's sin. GOD said so. I mock YOUR foolish attempts at describing and defining a God that YOU made up. Make up your mind. Am I trying to avoid responsibility or am i trying to usurp responsibility? I also have my own shoes. And i have my own email account. And i have my own cellphone.But I DO NOT have my own original sin, as I said. That's no more "brazen" than saying 1 + 1 = 2. See, as i have mentioned before, you're a creationist with a very thin coat of paint. What's stupid about that question? But you never do. You run away from every question as if nobody had ever replied to you. And the point of what I said is... YOU don't. You clain to believe in Jesus - but not the Jesus in a book written, edited, and redacted by humans. You only believe in a Jesus made up by the Almighty Phat. What hubris! Nonsense. My respect has nothing to do with belief. YOUR contempt is in SPITE of your professed beliefs. I keep telling you that but you keep insisting that Jesus was around from the beginning. make up your mind. GOD's eyes. That's "kit AND kaboodle".And YOU are the one who throws Jesus out the window. I maintain that I AM alive, so choosing evidence has not been a problem.

I disagree. Sure for many that is probably true, and it is no doubt true that for those who reject Christianity that is what they think it's all about.Paul writes this in Ephesians 1. [quote] 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.[/qs]Notice that he writes that it is for all things. I do agree that our lives here in this life will impact the life to come but it is about the renewal of the entire creation.I think that this is what Luther was trying to get away from by getting away from works and making it about God's grace. A graceful deity doesn't damn someone because they believed in the wrong doctrines. Again. it all boils down to having people with hearts and minds, that without thought of personal gain, desire to do the loving thing, and follow through on it to the best of their ability.

Why is there a difference? You're making up the rules as you go along.AbE Sorry, I missed this earlier. There is no physics involved. If you do something kind to someone who is impacted by that, and as a direct result is kind to someone else, is there any physics involved?

Cosmology examines the material and so far it seems that every time they find something new that it raises as many questions than answers at least in the case of QM.Maybe someday physicists will discover God's dimension. Who knows.

Ya, the way to debate is to have a vomiting emoji as great debating point. In the past I wound up doing political debates and I know enough to know that the debating to know that response was pathetic and hardly what you would expect from the owner and moderator of this forum. The put downs that Phat survives here over the years have been in horrendously poor taste, and often cruel, but he puts up with it. I agree that most here aren't like that but it is really disappointing to see it in Percy.

You guys have all sorts of theories of how empathy and altruism exist. Where is the physics in that.

Because you are just a participant I suppose means that you do have to follow the norms that a moderator would. I'd suggest that that post says more about you than it does about my views.I don't deny that the church has had numerous failings. It is made up of humans after all. There is certainly no perfect church, and many Christians have much to answer for, however there has been an enormous amount of good done by Christians as well. I have answered everything that I have been asked. I got that mocking response from you after being asked by Tangle what the point of being Christian was. So I answered the question as a statement of belief and that was your response. What kind of response would you expect to get from a Christian. I only have the Bible, the views of others, Christian or not, my observations of the world and personal experience. You say you're a theist. This is from Webster's.

quote:

---

belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

---

What is the evidence that has caused you to be a theist. How did your god create life. How is your god intervening now and did your god intervene in the evolutionary process? What is the nature of your god and what is his hope or purpose for our lives.

quote:

---

You guys have all sorts of theories of how empathy and altruism exist. Where is the physics in that.

---

Well that’s at least a double evasion, completely ignoring the point I made and dodging the point AZPaul was making, too. Which just further demonstrates your lack of interest in the truth.The physics is, of course, there but it’s really no surprise that physics is involved in the actual help physical beings give each other. It just isn’t a useful thing to mention (see Douglas Hofstadter on “greedy reductionism” in Gödel, Escher, Bach for one part of the problem).