Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1876 of 3694 (905476)
01-27-2023 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1851 by Percy
01-24-2023 12:21 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
You can't even be consistent for two consecutive sentences. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or if it comes naturally, but you are being incredibly aggravating by repeatedly arguing that an intelligence must have created life but never addressing the infinite regression that I keep asking you about. This will be the fourth time I'm asking. What about the infinite regression? And not to distract you, but here's another question: Do you even care if your answers make sense, because you don't seem to?
I give you answers and you don't agree with them so you claim I don't answer the question. We live in a world where we only experience time in 1 direction. Physicists seem to be quite happy to theoretically suggest more dimensions of time. Apparently mathematically time should be symmetrical and flow forward or in reverse. (Don't press me on that. I just read in in a Brian Greene book.)
I'm simply saying, without evidence, that God's dimension or universe experiences time differently than does are dimension or universe. Yes, it is belief without evidence. It isn't evidence of course, but as we both know there are many physicists that accept a belief along these lines, so I'm not just out here on my own, nor am I rejecting science.
And again, materialism requires a virtually list of processes all driven by chance right back to the Big Bang.
Percy writes:
Based on what evidence?
This is concerning my belief that our lives have an ultimate purpose. As I said, I believe. My only evidence is the Bible and my own subjective feelings which of course you reject. What evidence do you have for nihilistic beliefs?
Percy writes:
You are making the same mistake being made by groups all across the continent, judging people of the past by the standards of today. You can't judge what is moral by whether it is a social norm because social norms change, and even people living in the same place in the same time period don't agree on what is a social norm anyway. What you think moral today could be judged immoral by people in the future, or even by people today in a different social and/or cultural and/or geographical group.

Morality is hopelessly relative.
My belief that morality, from a Christian perspective, isn't about what we do. It is about if we accept in our hearts and minds that it is ok to use others for our benefit at their expense. That is what makes it immoral. A moral act is when we benefit others at our own expense.
Percy writes:
If you're familiar with the bell-shaped curve, the quality of treatment of slaves would have followed a bell-shaped curve. Of course some slave owners treated them well. By mathematical necessity that must be true. But treating slaves well doesn't transform slavery into a net good, so why did you say that? Do even you know?
You love to take things out of context. It would be possible for a slave owner to treat the slaves morally as a member of the household. However the practice of slavery itself is highly immoral.
GDR writes:
Also I'd add that if I am correct, and the resurrection of Jesus was historical, then that makes the whole idea clearer.
Percy writes:
You really think one follows from the other? This actually seems like a rational chain of logic to you? Wow!

The truth is that if life has a purpose then the flying spaghetti monster exists.
Do you even read before you post. I said "IF I am correct". I was making the presupposition that the resurrection was historical.
The of course you have to add the requisite mocking comment.
Percy writes:
A lot of your answers begin with "I believe this" or "I believe that." You can stop with those kinds of answers because we already have a pretty good idea of what you believe. What you don't do is provide any substantive arguments in support of what you believe.
I have many times said what it is I believe and given the reasons which of course you and most others around here reject.
If I were to say that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, then I'd like to know what you would have me say other than believe. I suppose instead of believe it could use think,. contend or some other word. In the context of this discussion, when we both know that I can't claim absolute knowledge for my beliefs what is the point of the discussion. I also agree that there is no hard evidence for my contentions.
Percy writes:
You said that the original point of this thread is that the nature of the god we worship matters. This has already been disproven pretty thoroughly once it was pointed out that a higher percentage of god fearing Christians commit crimes than atheists, and that atheists are at least as capable of good works as Christians.
You as you often do make these claims without evidence and then criticize others for doing the same thing. Where is the proof for that statement?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1851 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 12:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1881 by Percy, posted 01-28-2023 11:18 AM GDR has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1877 of 3694 (905479)
01-27-2023 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1866 by GDR
01-26-2023 1:41 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
We've looked... for thousands of years... and not found God.

That is evidence that He doesn't exist. Because we've looked.
There is no evidenced reason to consider God as a requirement for anything.
I would agree that in the places you have looked there is no evidence.
We haven't only looked in a few places.
We have looked in all the places we can.
How about the places you can't look?
The discussion has chanced upon a subtlety that is worth clarifying. Scientists try to keep in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I want to be clear that Stile isn't making that mistake.
Let me use the example of hide-and-seek to clarify. Your friend hides and you begin looking for him. You looked in the closet and he wasn't there. Based upon the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" stricture you might be tempted to say that you have no evidence he's in the closet, which is true, and that therefore you have no evidence that he's not in the closet, which is not true because you looked in the closet. He wasn't there, and that is evidence that he's not in the closet. You absolutely have evidence of absence from the closet.
You then thoroughly search the rest of the house (every nook, cranny and crawlspace) and he's not there. That's evidence of absence from the house. He must be hiding somewhere outside. And so forth.
Why do you think God is hiding in places we can't look? What about all the people who have claimed to see or experience God or Jesus? Are they lying?
The entire history of human experience of the divine has been one of retreat. God used to be behind everything. Rain, drought, lightning, earthquakes, floods, storms, life, love, death, an endless list, it was all controlled by gods or God, and He was everywhere.
What does God control now, and where is he? The answers seem to be that he controls only that which science hasn't explained yet, and that he's somewhere where science hasn't looked yet or can't look. And he seems to be remarkably averse to scientific equipment.
About whether people who claim experiences of God or Jesus are lying, I wouldn't say. But you asked the question, so let me turn the question back on you and ask whether you believe someone who claims experiences of the sun god or Zeus or Jehovah or Allah or nirvana or Krishna is lying? Or is it perhaps just the nature of religious practice that causes people to have what we would normally call a religious experience?
You can't measure and examine people's consciousness for empathy or love of neighbour.
Without looking this up, it seems a pretty safe bet that the psychology field has ways of measuring empathy and love. Just now looked it up anyway. Check out The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire - PMC, for just one example. Or check out Measuring the Capacity to Love: Development of the CTL-Inventory, for another example.
Does it never occur to you to check whether something you're about to say in ignorance is true?
You can observe what people do, but you can only observe and then believe what it is that motivates people to do what they do.
But let's say that you're right, that one cannot with confidence judge empathy and love. If scientists cannot gauge it objectively, and if people of the Lord can only have faith in the answer, then doesn't that tell us pretty clearly that no one has any evidence?
And where did you come up with (paraphrasing), "The existence of empathy and love is evidence of God." There are two problems with this. You've just claimed it isn't possible to objectively judge empathy and love, that you can only "believe" it (adding one more to your "I believe" claims). And where is the chain of logic showing that the existence of empathy and love implies that God exists?
Stile writes:
Sounds to me like you found Love. And we know Love exists and that people are capable of these and more great acts of Love - all naturally.
What makes you think you found God?
The original point of this thread was that regardless of whatever name we might give to a deity isn't what matters. What matters is the nature of the deity we worship. The deity that I believe is modelled on a god of love whose nature I discern by understanding Jesus. I contend that there is a good reason to believe that but there is nothing physical to examine or test.
You are once again reduced to "I believe." Could you please cut it out with the "I believes." Saying "I believe" carries no weight if that's all you've got. You're preaching, not discussing.
Stile writes:
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."
Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
I can't know absolutely that what I believe to be true concerning the Christian faith to be the truth but the same holds for everyone else here.
No, the same does not hold for both us and you. It only holds for you. What you're doing is making claims without evidence. All we're doing is telling you your claims are worthless without evidence. We're making no claims of our own other than to say you have no evidence. You've conceded that you have no evidence a number of times, but you continue your search for a way of claiming to have evidence that we can't show wrong. Give it up.
If I didn't believe that Jesus' resurrection was historically true I would reject Christianity.
Just because no evidence survived of some event of history does not mean it didn't happen. It just means no evidence survived. It also means we can never know about it.
When you say you "believe that Jesus' resurrection was historically true" I think what you actually mean is that you still believe there is evidence for it. Still pinning your hopes on Tacitus, Suetonius, et. al., I assume.
If I didn't believe that there was a deity that cared about life on Earth then I would reject theism.
No one's saying you shouldn't believe this. No one's saying that this belief is wrong. But if you begin to again repeat your claims of evidence for a caring deity ("hey, empathy and love, there's your evidence") then we'll quickly point out the flaws in your thinking. However, if you're only saying, "I believe in God," then fine, you believe in God. Nobody's got a problem with that. The only thing we have a problem with is when you claim you have evidence of God, and not just of God generally but specifically of the God of Christianity
Things can be true even though we can't absolutely know that they are true.
Because of tentativity there is nothing in science that we know absolutely, so when you say that things can be true without absolutely knowing that they're true, realize that there is nothing that we absolutely know. Consider it an ideal that can never be achieved.
Evidence never tells us that something is absolutely true. It only tells us what is likely true about the real world. And, of course, unsupported belief tells us nothing.
If God is part of the real world, we have no evidence of that. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it does put him in the realm of all other things that have no evidence, like unicorns, elves, fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster.
Atheism is unverifiable.
We know that there is no God (i.e., atheism) in the same way that we know there are no unicorns, elves, fairies, or flying spaghetti monster: absence of any supporting evidence. Adding to the doubts of His reality is the wealth of contradictory claims (i.e., the great number of different religions), which is what always happens when something has no evidence.
You talk about the evolution of morality and then claim that this is evidence that there is no external deity.
Is that really how you translate what we've been telling you in your mind? How can you still have it so wrong?
Evidence of natural origins for anything, such as morality, is not evidence against God. It is evidence of a natural origin that contradicts your claims of divine origins that lack all evidence. You're completely misconstruing what Stile is saying.
Let me try another tack. Say there's someone who is absolutely convinced that unicorns exist, or at least that unicorns once existed. He searches for evidence for decades but never finds any. How should this failure to find any evidence affect his belief in unicorns?
Now consider someone who is absolutely convinced that God exists. He searches for evidence for decades but never finds any. How should this failure to find any evidence affect his belief in God?
Shouldn't the failure to find evidence affect his assessment of the probability that his hypothesis is correct, whether it's about the existence of unicorns or God?
What you have outlined is the same type of evidence as I use when I say that I have the Bible as written evidence and the rise of Christian belief as evidence.
First, no it isn't the same type of evidence. There isn't a single scientific study of the evidence for the existence of the divine, because there's no evidence to study.
Second, every religion that has ever existed has had a period of increasing belief. Christianity is not unique in this respect. That there was a period of "rise of Christian belief" is not evidence of the truth of Christianity, any more than the rise of belief in Judaism was evidence of the truth of Judaism, or the rise of belief in Islam was evidence of the truth of Islam, or the rise in belief of ghosts (occurred in the 19th century) was evidence of the existence of ghosts, or the rise of belief in UFOs (occurred in the 20th century) was evidence of the existence of UFOs.
To state it succinctly, a period of increasing belief in something is not evidence of the truth of that something.
A word about the nature of evidence. Think of evidence as a verifiable fact, then enumerate in your mind the verifiable facts for God and Jesus. This should be a relatively quick task as there are none.
OK, lets's say that morality evolved in the way your paper describes. Isn't it reasonable to ask why it evolved at all. It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest.
As I said earlier, morality is hopelessly relative. Even murder, which everyone agrees is wrong, is relative. Murder is wrong, unless you live in a jurisdiction with capital punishment, in which case it's okay. Murder is wrong, unless you're a combatant in war, in which case it's okay. Murder is wrong, unless you're getting rid of an inferior race like Jews in Europe or Bosnians in Bosnia or Tutsis in Rwanda, then it's okay.
If even the wrongness of something as heinous as murder is relative, then how could anyone argue that any moral quality isn't relative?
But getting back on point, morality most certainly fits within an evolutionary framework. To stick with your introduction of the popular vernacular of "survival of the fittest," morality evolved because it made populations more fit in the struggle for survival. It conferred a survival advantage upon human populations.
It doesn't account for why or even how the first seed of thought that became morality occurred.
Morality isn't defined as a thought. It's a behavior, just like animals marking their territory is a behavior. They're both inherent behaviors. Instinctual.
It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour.
I think you'll find wide agreement that human behavior is infinitely varied, but what is this "vast range of human morality" you refer to? If you only mean that what is moral varies across time and geography then I absolutely agree. What is moral in one time and place in not moral another. That's because morality is hopelessly relative.
In so many ways atheism raises questions that can't be answered,...
You mean questions like, "If atheists are wrong about God, why do they appear to live more moral lives than Christians?" Questions like that?
....and much more so than basic theism.
I have only one question for theism: Where's the evidence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1866 by GDR, posted 01-26-2023 1:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1894 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 7:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1878 of 3694 (905486)
01-28-2023 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1874 by ringo
01-27-2023 11:57 AM


The Bottom Line
Phat writes:
Gravity is an impersonal force. It makes no impression upon human behavior. Jesus, by contrast, is (according to scripture) The living truth.
ringo writes:
Jesus is impersonal to most. He only makes an impression on a small minority.
And this is scriptural.
Matthew 22:14 writes:
For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthew 22:1-46 teaches several great truths in context. Shall we discuss them?
ringo writes:
I, for one, constantly counsel you NOT to throw the book away.
And even now, as I am studying the nuances of the philosophy of critical thinking, I won't ever throw the book away nor limit the impact of the words themselves. It DOES remain to be seen how my online course will affect my thinking in this area.
ringo writes:
Thinking you have the final answer is a trap.
I have always believed that if you don't stand for something you will more readily fall for anything.
Phat writes:
I only claim to know one thing. He knows everything.
ringo writes:
Of course you couldn't possibly know that.
But unlike you and your conclusions as an ex-Christian, I believe it strongly.
I watched a good documentary from Frontline: Putin and the Presidents which did a good job of convincing me what has really been going on the past 35 years in East/West relations and how Biden has all along understood Putin better than any previous US President. Hence the war we are indirectly involved with.
This may not be World War III but it is an important war for the West to win. Global Democracy hangs in the balance.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1874 by ringo, posted 01-27-2023 11:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1879 by dwise1, posted 01-28-2023 10:32 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1880 by ringo, posted 01-28-2023 10:55 AM Phat has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1879 of 3694 (905487)
01-28-2023 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1878 by Phat
01-28-2023 9:44 AM


Re: The Bottom Line
I have always believed that if you don't stand for something you will more readily fall for anything.
And if you don't question anything, then you will fall for everything. Regardless of how blatantly and obviously false it is. Especially the con-man pitches.
 
To question is the answer.
Test everything. Hold onto that which is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1878 by Phat, posted 01-28-2023 9:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1880 of 3694 (905489)
01-28-2023 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1878 by Phat
01-28-2023 9:44 AM


Re: The Bottom Line
Phat writes:
ringo writes:
Jesus is impersonal to most. He only makes an impression on a small minority.
And this is scriptural.
Matthew 22:14 writes:

For many are called, but few are chosen.
EVERY religion makes the same claim.
Phat writes:
Matthew 22:1-46 teaches several great truths in context. Shall we discuss them?
Discuss ANYTHING. I've been breaking my back for years trying to get you to discuss ANYTHING.
Phat writes:
And even now, as I am studying the nuances of the philosophy of critical thinking, I won't ever throw the book away nor limit the impact of the words themselves.
You HAVE thrown the book away. You say you don't "limit" yourself to the book. You flat-out DENY much of what Jesus said in the book.
Phat writes:
It DOES remain to be seen how my online course will affect my thinking in this area.
I think most of us expect that nothing will dent that block of stone that you call a mind.
Phat writes:
I have always believed that if you don't stand for something you will more readily fall for anything.
And I have always told you that that's a stupid thing to say.
YOU are the one who falls for anything that YouTube says.
Phat writes:
But unlike you and your conclusions as an ex-Christian, I believe it strongly.
Your fruits don't show it. You have no faith in God's ability to take care of you. You insist on relying on your own massive ego.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1878 by Phat, posted 01-28-2023 9:44 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1887 by Phat, posted 01-28-2023 3:18 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1881 of 3694 (905491)
01-28-2023 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1876 by GDR
01-27-2023 5:40 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
You can't even be consistent for two consecutive sentences. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or if it comes naturally, but you are being incredibly aggravating by repeatedly arguing that an intelligence must have created life but never addressing the infinite regression that I keep asking you about. This will be the fourth time I'm asking. What about the infinite regression? And not to distract you, but here's another question: Do you even care if your answers make sense, because you don't seem to?
I give you answers and you don't agree with them so you claim I don't answer the question.
Actually, you don't give answers. What you do is provide statements of belief in response to requests for evidence or requests to support your claims of evidence. Most recently you're claiming that love, morality and empathy are evidence of the divine because there is no natural explanation for them, a claim made in ignorance, and when informed of the evidence for natural origins instead of addressing them you issued another statement of belief.
In essence you're saying, "I'm ignoring the evidence and believing this anyway," which is fine, we insist on your freedom to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose without criticism. But then within a couple messages you're back to claiming evidence, and we're back to saying, "What evidence?" You've just put the discussion right back where it started, and around and around we go.
You provide an example of how you don't answer questions right here. I asked about the infinite regression, and you reply on an entirely different topic:
We live in a world where we only experience time in 1 direction. Physicists seem to be quite happy to theoretically suggest more dimensions of time. Apparently mathematically time should be symmetrical and flow forward or in reverse. (Don't press me on that. I just read in in a Brian Greene book.)
I'm simply saying, without evidence, that God's dimension or universe experiences time differently than does are dimension or universe. Yes, it is belief without evidence. It isn't evidence of course, but as we both know there are many physicists that accept a belief along these lines, so I'm not just out here on my own, nor am I rejecting science.
Where in this "answer" do you address the question about the infinite regression? I'll ask again, for the fifth time. If an intelligence such as ourselves can only be created by an intelligence, what created that first intelligence? If you're correct that an intelligence can only be created by another intelligence, then mustn't it have been created by some other intelligence? And mustn't that intelligence also have been created by another intelligence? And so on ad infinitum? That's the infinite regression, and you still haven't addressed it.
And you claim that many physicists accept that God is in a different dimension or universe. That's highly unlikely. More than half of physicists are atheists.
It is only the mathematics of physics that has no arrow of time. Entropy provides the arrow. I'm sure Greene mentions it.
And again, materialism requires a virtually list of processes all driven by chance right back to the Big Bang.
You might be reading Brian Greene, but you sure aren't understanding him. Here's a Brian Greene quote from a Time interview:
quote:
My feeling is that the reductionist, materialist, physicalist approach to the world is the right one. There isn't anything else; these grand mysteries will evaporate over time.
Rather than feeling, ‘Damn, there’s no universal morality,’ ‘Damn, there’s no universal consciousness,' how wondrous is it that I am able to have this conscious experience and it’s nothing more than stuff? That stuff can produce Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, that stuff can produce the Mona Lisa, that stuff can produce Romeo and Juliet? Holy smokes, that’s wondrous.
  —Brian Greene
Percy writes:
Based on what evidence?
This is concerning my belief that our lives have an ultimate purpose. As I said, I believe.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of what you've doing over and over again. I asked you for evidence, and you replied with a statement of belief. You do this as a means of deflection because you know we're fine with whatever you want to believe religiously, and that if you respond with a statement of belief that we'll let the issue drop.
But then later, a couple messages from now, you'll state that empathy, morality and love are evidence of the divine, or maybe you'll introduce something else you think is evidence, but in any case you'll continue this oscillation between "it's just a belief" in one message followed by "I have evidence for what I believe" in another.
My only evidence is the Bible and my own subjective feelings which of course you reject.
And now you're back to 'The Bible is evidence'. We've been over this, I'm not going to rehash it.
And, of course, subjective feelings are useless as evidence.
What evidence do you have for nihilistic beliefs?
I think that if you look up nihilism you'll find that my beliefs are not nihilistic.
Percy writes:
You are making the same mistake being made by groups all across the continent, judging people of the past by the standards of today. You can't judge what is moral by whether it is a social norm because social norms change, and even people living in the same place in the same time period don't agree on what is a social norm anyway. What you think moral today could be judged immoral by people in the future, or even by people today in a different social and/or cultural and/or geographical group.

Morality is hopelessly relative.
My belief...
There you go again, a statement of belief when evidence is what's required. You go on to say:
...that morality, from a Christian perspective, isn't about what we do. It is about if we accept in our hearts and minds that it is ok to use others for our benefit at their expense. That is what makes it immoral. A moral act is when we benefit others at our own expense.
I provided a counterexample to this already. You're response was hopelessly muddled. It's the 1850s. At great sacrifice to yourself you provide a slave to your daughter's family. How is that moral?
Here's your attempted answer:
It would be possible for a slave owner to treat the slaves morally as a member of the household.
Let's say that you treat your slaves sumptuously and extravagantly. You still own them. They're only in your household because they're your property. How does treating them incredibly well become moral while holding them as property?
Let's go to a similar example. You kidnap someone. You keep them in your house, you feed them very well, provide them regular exercise, give them their own room, access to TV channels and streaming, provide them books, audio books, art on the walls and an Amazon account where they can order whatever they want. How does all this wonderful treatment become something moral while holding them as a kidnapping victim?
However the practice of slavery itself is highly immoral.
Today it is. Many yesterdays ago it wasn't. It was a legitimate and respected pathway to a better life. The Bible was used by the religious all across the South to justify slavery. Morality is hopelessly relative across time and geography.
GDR writes:
Also I'd add that if I am correct, and the resurrection of Jesus was historical, then that makes the whole idea clearer.
Percy writes:
You really think one follows from the other? This actually seems like a rational chain of logic to you? Wow!

The truth is that if life has a purpose then the flying spaghetti monster exists.
Do you even read before you post.
Yes, I do, and that was an appropriate response to your pile of "I believe" responses in the face of requests for evidence. Which has been called to your attention a number of times. And which you're obviously ignoring.
I said "IF I am correct". I was making the presupposition that the resurrection was historical.
The of course you have to add the requisite mocking comment.
As Jefferson said (paraphrasing), ridicule is the appropriate response to incoherent propositions. But I wasn't attempting ridicule. I was hoping to get you to finally see that your claims about God and Jesus are evidence free (which you don't accept) in the same way that claims about the flying spaghetti monster are evidence free (which you do accept).
If you were not from Canada but from another part of the world where Islam rules you would still be arguing just as determinedly as you are now, but for Islam. You're arguing for Christianity in this manner not because Christianity is actually true but simply because arguing for your religious beliefs is in your nature and Christianity happens to be the dominant religion where you live and perhaps you were even raised in it and so it is the religion that holds sway within your mind.
Percy writes:
A lot of your answers begin with "I believe this" or "I believe that." You can stop with those kinds of answers because we already have a pretty good idea of what you believe. What you don't do is provide any substantive arguments in support of what you believe.
I have many times said what it is I believe and given the reasons which of course you and most others around here reject.
Your reasons lack all evidence.
If I were to say that I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, then I'd like to know what you would have me say other than believe.
This hits upon the key point. We'd be delighted if you only stated what you believe, but you do more than that. You continually add that you have evidence for your beliefs. When challenged you back off and say it's only a statement of what you believe, but within a very short time you're back to claiming evidence for your beliefs, like your "morality/empathy/love must have a divine origin" claim, or your, "life could only have come from a cosmic intelligence" claim.
I suppose instead of believe it could use think, contend or some other word.
It isn't your word choice that is the problem. The problem is your continual bait and switch, oscillating between "this is only a belief" and "there is evidence for this belief."
In the context of this discussion, when we both know that I can't claim absolute knowledge for my beliefs what is the point of the discussion.
Nobody anywhere can claim absolute knowledge of anything.
I also agree that there is no hard evidence for my contentions.
There's no soft evidence, either, and there's a lot of evidence against. Undoubtedly somewhere in the world someone is advancing the exact same kind of arguments you are, but for Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or Mormonism. The religion changes but the arguments stay the same.
Percy writes:
You said that the original point of this thread is that the nature of the god we worship matters. This has already been disproven pretty thoroughly once it was pointed out that a higher percentage of god fearing Christians commit crimes than atheists, and that atheists are at least as capable of good works as Christians.
You as you often do make these claims without evidence and then criticize others for doing the same thing. Where is the proof for that statement?
I thought it was common knowledge, but let me Google it for you.
If you check out Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists? | FiveThirtyEight you'll see that atheists are .1% of the prison population but .7% of the general population. They are 7 times less likely to be incarcerated relative to their proportion of the population. Protestants are about 1.6 times less likely, Catholics just as likely.
Here's another article making the same point for Federal prisons: In 2021, atheists made up only 0.1% of the federal prison population. "More significantly, it means our presence in U.S. federal prisons is significantly lower than what we find in the general population." He estimates the number of atheists in the general population as 4%, but this seems high. According to a ARIS 2008 poll, 2% are atheist and 10% are agnostic, and while that poll's a bit dated now and both populations have increased, it seems unlikely that the percentage of atheists could have doubled in just 15 years.

--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1876 by GDR, posted 01-27-2023 5:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1904 by GDR, posted 01-30-2023 4:01 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1882 of 3694 (905494)
01-28-2023 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1852 by Percy
01-24-2023 1:06 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
In a mild coincidence, I just came across a perfect example of doing evil in the name of good in the Washington Post article World’s largest body of human geneticists apologizes for eugenics role. The article was subtitled, "The American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG) examined its past and the racism of some geneticists."
Sure. bad things happen from people with good intentions and vice versa. My point is that God wants us to love our neighbours as ourselves.. That won't always go well but I think you'll agree that we are far more likely to have a positive outcome when we start with a caring for others attitude.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1852 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 1:06 PM Percy has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1883 of 3694 (905495)
01-28-2023 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1853 by Stile
01-24-2023 2:41 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."

Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
That is not the case. The basis of my belief is simply theism. Your basic belief is atheism. Percy doesn't seem to like the word but it is belief. I can look at the following points to draw the theistic conclusion that I have come to.
1/ I have the fact that life and particularly sentient life exists
2/ I have the fact that we can distinguish good from evil
3/ I have life experience with the experience of love and hate, joy and sadness,
ugliness and beauty etc.
4/ I perceive beauty in this world
I guess I could go on, but from that I have concluded a couple of things. Regardless of whatever processes got us to this point, the idea that we are simply the result of endless mindless processes emanating from mindless particles is simplistic and ridiculous.
As I believe that life is the result of this intelligence I am open to the idea that something that we consider miraculous like the resurrection is quite possible. If an intelligence can bring about life as we know it then resurrection is a walk in the park.
I have read numerous books, both pro and con, pertaining to the historicity of the resurrection. I find that the Gospels in their historic setting, along with the rise of the Christian church compelling (although I see Jesus as a Jewish reformer with no intent to start a new religion). I have concluded, without absolute knowledge, that the resurrection was an historical event. If there was evidence, beyond the belief that it couldn't possibly happen and then going from there, I would change my beliefs and revert back to basic theism and not call myself Christian.
My highest priority is the truth but knowing that I could very well be wrong.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1853 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 2:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1886 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2023 3:13 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1902 by Stile, posted 01-30-2023 10:00 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1884 of 3694 (905496)
01-28-2023 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1871 by PaulK
01-27-2023 1:11 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
PaulK writes:
GDR was doing it right there.
..and just how did I do that. Your method of debating is calling someone ignorant, snug etc. That doesn't really make much of a point.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1871 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2023 1:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1888 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2023 3:22 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1885 of 3694 (905497)
01-28-2023 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1873 by Stile
01-27-2023 9:01 AM


Re: The Unstoppable Movement of Knowledge
GDR writes:
You can't measure and examine people's consciousness for empathy or love of neighbour.
Stile writes:
Don't need to. You can measure and examine their actions.
GDR writes:
]You can observe what people do, but you can only observe and then believe what it is that motivates people to do what they do.
Stile writes:
What? Why?
Why can't you just ask the people what motivates them?
​Most will say "because I love them..."
Some will say "because God says I should" and if you ask them if God is love... they usually say yes as well.
Let's say a wealthy philanthropist finances a new wing of a hospital and then names it after himself. What was his motivation. Was it care for others, or was it to build a monument to himself? Sure you could say it was both but would he have done it it anonymously? We simply don't know. So it isn't just as simple as asking about someone's motivation.
For that matter, someone might do it anonymously with the basic idea that tis will get him in good with God. We just don't know.
So you can't just go back and see that empathy has increased over time and state definitively by looking at actions and the conclude that the progression over time is or isn't divinely initiated, and even possibly subliminally influenced.
I think that I have pretty much covered the rest of your post in my last post to you. I'll wait to see your response from that.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1873 by Stile, posted 01-27-2023 9:01 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1901 by Stile, posted 01-30-2023 9:41 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1886 of 3694 (905498)
01-28-2023 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1883 by GDR
01-28-2023 2:43 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
please, please, please, atheism is NOT a belief.
What is it with you guys, can't you take anything in? We've been saying this for 20 years. ffs.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 2:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1889 by Phat, posted 01-28-2023 3:24 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 1891 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 5:13 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 1905 by GDR, posted 01-30-2023 7:25 PM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1887 of 3694 (905499)
01-28-2023 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1880 by ringo
01-28-2023 10:55 AM


Re: The Bottom Line
ringo writes:
EVERY religion makes the same claim.
So? EVERY contestant on To Tell The Truth made the same claim. You have mentioned a few "contestants" before. Lets take Quatzechotal. Did he ever make the same claims as Jesus or His Father? Did Allah? Did the spaghetti monster? (IIRC, his noodliness didn't ever even speak! )
dwise1 writes:
And if you don't question anything, then you will fall for everything. Regardless of how blatantly and obviously false it is. Especially the con-man pitches.
To question is the answer.
Test everything. Hold onto that which is true.
Good advice. In context, I'm assuming that when you refer to the con men, you are not attacking scripture but are pointing to the apologists--the same group of goobers that ringo makes fun of!
ringo writes:
Discuss ANYTHING. I've been breaking my back for years trying to get you to discuss ANYTHING.
Its not as if you defend any of the "other" gods in your pantheon of hypocrisy. So I'll start...(in the interest of preserving your poor back! )
Matt 22:1-6 NKJV writes:
The Parable of the Wedding Feast
And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding, and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."' 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.
Is it possible that the Father in question was GOD Himself and that the son was getting ready to marry the holy bride? Or is that too much of a stretch for you word-for-word literalists out there?
The next question-- Who was invited to the wedding? Evidently, ingrates who could care less who was marrying whom! In fact, they "made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. ". You will accuse me of reading into the text things that are not literally said, but I see these as people who make light of GOD, Jesus, and Holy Communion. They could care less about Jesus. (Am I sounding like another "apologist"? )
ringo writes:
You HAVE thrown the book away. You say you don't "limit" yourself to the book. You flat-out DENY much of what Jesus said in the book.
Im not denying anything that Jesus says in the parable. Unlike you, I see the Word as living and active. I see the Son as in eternal Communion with "whosoever believes". Whosoever takes the idea of a wedding seriously. Not some goober who listens to mythicism, throws the apologetics out the window, and sees the lessons of characters "limited to the book" as lesson enough.
To be fair, my class on philosophy and critical thinking reminds me of how some {ex-christian) critical thinkers approach such a text. No true Christian whom I know ever "makes light of it and goes their own way". In fact, YOU are the one who suggest that I read the book, though you scold me for daring to interpret it.
ringo writes:
I think most of us expect that nothing will dent that block of stone that you call a mind.
I once read that a wise man built his house upon a rock. A block of stone as it were. A rock of revelation. A rock of stability. The foolish guy built his house on sand. Shifting sand. A belief held one day and discarded(blown away) the next. An ex-Christian.
ringo writes:
Your fruits don't show it. You have no faith in God's ability to take care of you. You insist on relying on your own massive ego.
Hmmm. Well, all I can say is guilty as charged. I worry too much because I am getting old and my money is dwindling away. Can God save me from trouble? Yes. WILL He? I certainly can't manipulate Him. I can't make promises to Him. And I can't tell Him anything He doesn't already know. I could use my newfound critical thinking to throw Him away, limit Him to a character in a book, and do what I want. (But) I can't do that either if I am to remain true to myself.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1880 by ringo, posted 01-28-2023 10:55 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1903 by ringo, posted 01-30-2023 11:34 AM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1888 of 3694 (905500)
01-28-2023 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1884 by GDR
01-28-2023 2:52 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
..and just how did I do that
You know you could look up my reply to you and actually see it.
We could start with the fact that you are making false objections to an idea you have been misrepresenting for over a decade, and never bothered to understand.
quote:
Your method of debating is calling someone ignorant, snug etc.
And that is a lie, I guess you’re still angry that I noticed that you aren’t really concerned with the truth at all.
quote:
That doesn't really make much of a point.
And what point does your lying make?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1884 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 2:52 PM GDR has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1889 of 3694 (905501)
01-28-2023 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1886 by Tangle
01-28-2023 3:13 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
If atheism isn't a belief, it sure has become a business. Aaron Ra can dye his goatee red, discuss what he *knows* all day long, and earn a decent living off of it. And yet few people criticize him for doing the same basic thing that media Christians do.
Why is that?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1886 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2023 3:13 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1890 by Tangle, posted 01-28-2023 3:51 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 1890 of 3694 (905503)
01-28-2023 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1889 by Phat
01-28-2023 3:24 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
And that's called changing the subject.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1889 by Phat, posted 01-28-2023 3:24 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024