|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: =Percy]Absolutely not. I bet everyone here would respond with the exact same words because it's been said so many, many times: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ya, but you don't do it. You give the argument that you can find no evidence of a deity so therefore one doesn't exist. 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.
However I do believe that God touches human hearts and minds and guides people to comfort or maybe even to heal people who are suffering with cancer or with other issues. Believe whatever you like. Just don't claim you have evidence for your beliefs when you don't.
Percy writes: You mean like the atheists on this forum who reject the idea of an outside intelligence but would change their views if they could be see solid scientific evidence of such a deity. So for you something is true until proven otherwise. Shouldn't it be the other way around, that something is true only when proven, or more scientifically, is only considered true to a degree commensurate with the evidence? 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.
Percy writes: I am very interested in the truth. I have essentially come to base my life on it. Incidentally that is just as true for anyone who rejects a deity. You are lying to yourself. You are using a method that will only yield the conclusions that you want, not the conclusions that are true. You aren't interested in the truth, only in confirming that which you already believe without evidence. 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.
Percy writes: And that is what it seems that materialists do. Of course we have. You're using the methods of the flim-flam men, and we're using the scientific method. By your own admission your God has no real world effect, while science's impact on the world, whether for good or ill, is immeasurable. If you're not a materialist then prove it by burning down your house and jumping off a bridge.
If it can't be measured scientifically, it can't exist. 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.
If I feel led to help someone who needs it are you going to be able to measure that scientifically. 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.
I am not saying that God has no real world effect. I am saying that He works through the hearts and minds of humans and I would argue for in some degree in animal life as well. 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.
Percy writes: I'm simply saying that all of the complex processes that were required for life to evolve the way it has clearly requires a mind. You're making the same claim again in yet a different way. Where is your evidence that complexity (which isn't subjective but is difficult to quantify, although using entropy as a stand-in for complexity might work) and beauty (definitely subjective) require the supernatural? 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.
The idea that it could by chance happen at every level of the myriad of processes, requires a leap of faith beyond anything I can muster. 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.
Of course there will always be those with sufficient hubris that they are unable to fathom a mind that much greater than their own. Actually when I was still working I used to encounter such minds all the time.
Percy writes: There you go again using lack of evidence as evidence. What about time prior to 13.7 billion years? But lack of evidence is not the case today. We have copious evidence going back 13.7 billion years. There's no sign of a cosmic intelligence anywhere. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Percy writes: Is putting words in people's mouths dishonest? You said "love sacrificially" without elaboration, but even you can't deny that it sounds pretty dramatic. You can't post-facto claim that "love sacrificially" only means helping people, plus that's absurd anyway. Who out there even among the most deluded devout thinks "I'm loving sacrificially" when they give the street beggar a ten? It isn't dramatic and it isn't hard. It is simply about giving of our own time, money or even pride in order to benefit some else. Yes you example would fall into that category. You're just bullshitting now. You retreated into misdirection and religious mumbo jumbo when asked a direct question.
He asked the question of why bother with God if we can all do the loving thing anyway. I simply answered the question he asked. Another answer would be because I know myself and my Christian faith has led me to be a more decent person than I was before which does not make me more decent than my atheistic neighbour. Also i have found that I can do things, such as working for refugees that l that I can't do on my own outside of church. 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?
Also i have found that I can do things, such as working for refugees that l that I can't do on my own outside of church. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Orighinal sin is bullshit. Swimming in it is what makes you cough.
*cough* original sin *cough*.. Phat writes:
Surprise, surprise. Original sin is another term you don't understand. Your original sin is throwing Jesus away ... 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. Phat writes:
1. All evidence is secular. ... and declaring secular evidence based thinking as a superior model.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.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
That's an empty claim. The consensus is formed because of the call on all humanity.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022 We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That's an extremely stupid statement, even for you. Its only empty because *you* have emptied your head of belief. It's an empty claim because IT is empty. WHAT "call on humanity"? HOW does a "call on humanity" produce a consensus in humanity?
Phat writes:
My heart doesn't heed any call. The idea that there IS a "call' is empty. Thankfully, your heart still heeds the call... 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.
Phat writes:
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. I don't worry about you as much as you do me.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: Lets see what yyou just said this morning, shall we?
You're packing so much stupid into one sentence that it's hard for even me to shoot fast enough. ringo writes: 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.
Original sin is another term you don't understand. I do not have my own "original sin". 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:
ringo writes: Big deal. You have respect for a book written, edited, and redacted by humans. Your claims of respect are empty by your own beliefs.
I have much more respect for the historical Jesus (such as He is) than you do. Adam and Eve did not throw Jesus away. Adam and Eve never had Jesus tto begin with, since they ate from the wrong tree. They had nothing to throw away.
Original sin was (supposedly) Adam and Eve's sin. 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.
1. All evidence is secular. No wonder you threw the Holy Baby, bathwater, and kitten kaboodle out the window. You picked knowledge(evidence) over life(Jesus)The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022 We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
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. Original sin simply means that you were born with a pre-installed desire to be your own "god." 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.
Phat writes:
GOD said so.
It also means that you see things as right in your own eyes... Phat writes:
I mock YOUR foolish attempts at describing and defining a God that YOU made up.
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... Phat writes:
Make up your mind. Am I trying to avoid responsibility or am i trying to usurp responsibility?
... and how it is your responsibility to think about who or what you follow. Phat writes:
I also have my own shoes. And i have my own email account. And i have my own cellphone. ringo writes: You have your own stubbornness and ego. I do not have my own "original sin". But I DO NOT have my own original sin, as I said.
Phat writes:
That's no more "brazen" than saying 1 + 1 = 2.
You brazenly say things like "Jesus doesnt exist, or Jesus isnt alive today, or Jesus was a human amalgamation... Phat writes:
See, as i have mentioned before, you're a creationist with a very thin coat of paint.
...a character invented by we evolved monkeys. Phat writes:
What's stupid about that question?
You ask stupid questions like "How do you(meaning I) know which God is the real one.. Phat writes:
But you never do. You run away from every question as if nobody had ever replied to you.
I could go on... Phat writes:
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!
ringo writes:
Big deal. You have respect for a book written, edited, and redacted by humans. I have much more respect for the historical Jesus (such as He is) than you do. Phat writes:
Nonsense. My respect has nothing to do with belief. YOUR contempt is in SPITE of your professed beliefs.
Your claims of respect are empty by your own beliefs. Phat writes:
I keep telling you that but you keep insisting that Jesus was around from the beginning. make up your mind.
ringo writes:
Adam and Eve never had Jesus tto begin with Adam and Eve did not throw Jesus away. Phat writes:
GOD's eyes.
Their original sin was allowing themselves to be wise in their own eyes. Phat writes:
That's "kit AND kaboodle". No wonder you threw the Holy Baby, bathwater, and kitten kaboodle out the window. And YOU are the one who throws Jesus out the window.
Phat writes:
I maintain that I AM alive, so choosing evidence has not been a problem. You picked knowledge(evidence) over life(Jesus) Edited by ringo, . Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Personally I think we have enough to deal with in this world that we don't need to worry about the next.AZPaul3 writes: Then the resurrection means nothing. That's not christian. The entire motivation behind christian is to qualify for god's grace in paradise. Without that facade you might as well ditch the catechism and acknowledge being a humanist without the religious overtones. 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.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: Why is there a difference? You're making up the rules as you go along. Percy and I do not disagree. The circumstances of the comparison being made is key. If we're talking other life on other worlds that is qualitatively different from religious speculations. The needs of evidence depend on the subject. AbE Sorry, I missed this earlier.
AZPaul3 writes: 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? How did this god help? Specifics. The devil is in the details. Let's get down into the physics of how this help is given.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: It is an area where we have no facts, no evidence of anything in any way. That's what ignorance means. It DOES NOT mean we are unable to look and try to find answers. That is what cosmology is all about. Remember, we're still new at this. We got a lot of study yet to do. Further yet, there is no area of existence in this universe that science cannot look into and analyse. At one time we thought we were unable to know what the sun was or how it worked. We overcame that ignorance. We may yet overcome this one. And in relation to our deep areas of ignorance we can say nothing. No cosmic branes or energy flows. No gods or external intelligence. We can say nothing. Neither can you. 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.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Once again insult and put down masquerading as an argument.nwr writes: I don't think that's fair. As I see it, Percy has been giving honest responses to the points that you raise. And I had thought that was what you wanted. Yes, some of the responses have not been to your liking. Welcome to the world of debating. And, by the way, this has given you some good practice at responding to tough debating points. 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.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: You guys have all sorts of theories of how empathy and altruism exist. Where is the physics in that. Because of evolution. You have no excuse for ignoring the repeated corrections on this point. If you actually cared about the truth you would have at least done a basic investigation of the idea. Indeed you would have done so before misrepresenting the selfish gene as a version of “original sin” (and pointlessly so). But then again that’s just another example of your insistence on trampling on the truth to support your beliefs. So stop lying to yourself. Admit that your extreme bias is a problem that undermines your claims to rationality. Start really caring about the truth. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: 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 think you must be operating under the misimpression that you should be immune from gagging reactions to your saccharine, syrupy and dishonestly whitewashed description of your church. And in this thread I'm just a participant, just like everyone else. 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.
Percy writes:
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.
I'm a theist, just not a Christian. Or a Jew or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist. Think what you're actually asking here. You're asking that people who disagree with you somehow be constrained in how they express their rejections of your views. Your whole post is making this mistake. You're not responding to anything anyone said. Your objecting to the way your views were criticized. Deal with the criticism, not the style. Right now you're just seeking ways to avoid dealing with the criticism. Percy writes: You say you're a theist. This is from Webster's. I'm a theist, just not a Christian. Or a Jew or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist.quote: 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.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024