Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 706 of 3694 (898678)
09-27-2022 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by Phat
09-27-2022 3:27 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
It means that even though one "leaves" Christianity, they have the Spirit and carry "it" into the secular humanist camp. They spread the message without need of mentioning "the messenger".
You have the gall to suggest that I am subverting the secular humanist "camp" with a Christian message?

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Phat, posted 09-27-2022 3:27 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by AZPaul3, posted 09-27-2022 11:44 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 707 of 3694 (898679)
09-27-2022 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 701 by Phat
09-27-2022 3:25 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
I'm not sure what ringo believes, but he never straight-up says he is an atheist.
I don't self-identify as an atheist. Too many people, including you, assume that an atheist is against God, hates God, doesn't want to be under God's authority, etc.
I self-identify as agnostic - but according to the broad definition of "atheist", I don't believe in any gods.
And for the record, YOUR God is one of the least likely to be real. It is quite obviously made up and thoroughly inconsistent.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by Phat, posted 09-27-2022 3:25 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Phat, posted 09-28-2022 12:52 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 708 of 3694 (898685)
09-27-2022 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by ringo
09-27-2022 9:46 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
You have the gall to suggest that I am subverting the secular humanist "camp" with a Christian message?
At 20,000 posts that is a hell of a lot of subverting.
Congratulation, ringo!

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by ringo, posted 09-27-2022 9:46 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Phat, posted 09-28-2022 12:19 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

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


Message 709 of 3694 (898711)
09-28-2022 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 673 by Tangle
09-26-2022 2:12 PM


Cosmic Lottery My Arse
One point of contention between my faith and your science is an argument that you and I have discussed before. Probability and Chance as opposed to ....what would I call it? Oh yeah....God. Probability to me means a definite calculation (such as the programmed odds on a lottery ticket) whereas chance means an unknown number that is assumed to be finite rather than infinite. God is assumed to be infinite yet definite. If you know what I mean.
Tangle writes:
Just as a point of fact. An atheist sees a newborn baby and sees a newborn baby. That's it.
I get you. A theist should also see a newborn baby and that's it. Except that GDR is suggesting that it's human nature to assign more value to your own baby than it is to a random baby. Same thing with your wife. She should always be the prettiest girl in the room whether she is 20 or 80. Beauty should never be a probability or calculation. (1-10) "Shes" A Perfect 10!. What a believer means is that the value number is always infinite. Science always seeks to quantify everything. How can one quantify infinity?

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Tangle, posted 09-26-2022 2:12 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 710 of 3694 (898713)
09-28-2022 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by AZPaul3
09-27-2022 11:44 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
ringo writes:
You have the gall to suggest that I am subverting the secular humanist "camp" with a Christian message?
Subverting is not the right word. I'm thinking more of a stealth operative.
Dictonary.com writes:
subvert · to overthrow (something established or existing). · to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of. · to undermine the principles of; corrupt.
In this case, a mole would not seek to overthrow humanism so much as add to it. Only human moles can do this. AI need not apply.

Edited by Phat, : fixed broken link


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by AZPaul3, posted 09-27-2022 11:44 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

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


Message 711 of 3694 (898718)
09-28-2022 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by ringo
09-27-2022 9:53 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
ringo writes:
I self-identify as agnostic - but according to the broad definition of "atheist", I don't believe in any gods.
Well I don't either...none of the small g ones....which in my mind are fakes or wannabes. I suppose you would put my God in that category.
But don't you believe that there is One, rather than relatively many? Or do you think that the universe needs no designer? I think you once postulated that "In The Beginning....chemicals. I would assert that a chemist would precede the chemicals.
And a chemist needs a brain.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by ringo, posted 09-27-2022 9:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by ringo, posted 09-28-2022 3:23 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 713 by dwise1, posted 09-28-2022 3:47 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 712 of 3694 (898727)
09-28-2022 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Phat
09-28-2022 12:52 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
...none of the small g ones....which in my mind are fakes or wannabes. I suppose you would put my God in that category.
Your puny, made-up god is at the top of the list.
Phat writes:
But don't you believe that there is One, rather than relatively many?
Certainly not. I have said more than once that there's more likely to be many than one.
Phat writes:
Or do you think that the universe needs no designer?
Of course it doesn't. Have you ever read any of my posts?
Phat writes:
I think you once postulated that "In The Beginning....chemicals. I would assert that a chemist would precede the chemicals.
Did you write that with a straight face? I'm not even going to tell you what's stupid about it. Figure it out for yourself and then tell me what's stupid about it.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Phat, posted 09-28-2022 12:52 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 713 of 3694 (898730)
09-28-2022 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Phat
09-28-2022 12:52 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Well I don't either...none of the small g ones....which in my mind are fakes or wannabes. I suppose you would put my God in that category.
One of the benefits/problems with being old is that I remember decades of TV commercials.
About 30 years ago MacDonald's came out with chicken nuggets (though in the Midwest it was a chicken sandwich unofficially called the "McCluck") made from reformed chicken chunks. In response, Hardee's came out with its chicken fillet sandwich. The Hardee's commercial had two people talking about the products: "Their product is made from chicken parts." "Which parts?" "I dunno. Parts is parts." One day on duty in the warehouse pulling parts, I commented "Parts is parts!" scaring my shipmates. You have to admit it's kind of catchy.
That's what gods are like. Gods is gods. They're really all the same. Gods is gods.
So what is it about your god that is supposed to make it so special? Just because it happens to be yours? What about that guy's god? Or that guy's god? Their gods are just as special in their own minds, no differently than with your god.
Kind of like another form of religion: sports teams. Which I also do not believe in, though far more strongly.
I think you once postulated that "In The Beginning....chemicals. I would assert that a chemist would precede the chemicals.
No, rather the exact opposite. First come the chemicals, which will react completely on their own without any outside help. All the chemist can do is figure out which chemicals to use and to recreate the conditions for the reactions that he wants.
I had a friend who had a PhD Chemistry. He said that a chemist cannot create any reaction that would not exist in nature. All he could do was to set up the conditions for that reaction. [i]You cannot make chemicals do anything that they would not naturally do themselves.
 
ABE:
Darn! I just read ringo's Message 713. That was supposed to have been left for you to solve, but I had to go and blurt out the answer.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Phat, posted 09-28-2022 12:52 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by ringo, posted 09-28-2022 4:04 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 714 of 3694 (898732)
09-28-2022 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by dwise1
09-28-2022 3:47 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
dwise1 writes:
Gods is gods.

So what is it about your god that is supposed to make it so special? Just because it happens to be yours?
It's the same with children. Your own are special.
People used to tell my mother, "Your children are so well-behaved." (And as I recall, we were.)
Mom would mutter, "You should see them at home."

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by dwise1, posted 09-28-2022 3:47 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 715 of 3694 (898736)
09-28-2022 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 704 by Percy
09-27-2022 9:08 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes:
You're forcing me to repeat things I said in the posts you're not addressing. I again suggest you take your time and be thorough. I think everyone would prefer that you take your time instead of rushing things or cutting corners.
It doesn't seem to be a problem now, but what was happening was that I would take the time to answer a post and in the meantime there would be three more.
Percy writes:
That's not an accurate characterization of what you've been doing, and you're ignoring the many words I've written explaining this to you. Here's yet another way of describing what you're doing:

You claim you have evidence for some aspect of your Christian beliefs.
We explain why you do not have evidence.
You concede you have no evidence.
You claim you have evidence for some aspect of your Christian beliefs.
We explain why you do not have evidence.
You concede you have no evidence.
Discussion drifts onto some other aspect of your Christian beliefs and you return to step 1.
OK I'll try again.
There is zero scientific evidence for anything beyond the physical.
The Bible is evidence. It is obviously written to be believed although not always literally. You argue that it isn't reliable and give reasons. However, it still remains that it in fact exists. It might contain truths or it might be a total lie, but it is evidence to be considered.
Beyond that we apply our own rational form our own conclusions. If we decide that there is some level of accuracy we follow a path of faith which should be to live a life to one degree or another in coherence with Christ's message.
I've said all of that before but it never seems to be the answer you want to hear.
Percy writes:
What I believe is completely irrelevant. I'm not a believer or a seeker like you. But since you've brought it up, have I already mentioned in this thread my belief that no religion on Earth has anything remotely right regarding a supernatural being?
OK, so you reject all world religions. What then do you contend is the nature of this supernatural being and what should it mean to our lives.
GDR writes:
Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist.
Percy writes:
Because replication is imperfect and changes are carried forward to the next generation when they result in production of offspring (or of more numerous offspring) being more likely. Again, nothing to do with religion.
Of course it has nothing to do with any religion. It is simply the question of what is the root cause of the evolutionarily process. It might be atheistic, deistic or theistic. My conclusion without any scientific evidence is that it is theistic. I don't even know what your conclusion would be.
Percy writes:
We're no more rejecting the idea of an "external intelligence" (whatever that is) than we are of the idea of unicorns or oobleck. We're pointing out that you have no evidence that it's real.
I have no scientific evidence.
We can however come to our conclusions based on life experience and observation but that can lead to atheism or theism and anything in between.
As an example of that we have just had a major hurricane in both the Canadian Maritimes as well as Florida. If we come to the conclusion that a loving God wouldn't allow that to happen we will likely hold to an atheistic belief. On the other hand if we marvel at home people come out in love to selflessly help those in distress we might tend to a theistic position.
I had written this:
GDR writes:
We have all the evidence needed to confirm the evolutionary process. Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist. If you reject the idea of an external intelligence then it obviously is there because of nothing but natural processes. If however, you accept the notion of an external intelligence then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause.
You then pull this out of that:
Percy writes:
...then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause.
How about using enough of the quote so that it doesn't distort what I was actually saying.
Percy writes:
Why should we accept "the notion of an external intelligence," when it has just as much evidence as the notion of unicorns or oobleck. This is usually the point where you again claim that you do too have evidence. Please, don't close that loop again. You do not have evidence. You haven't observed a single thing.
There is no scientific evidence. We can all marvel at new life, the fact that we can see beauty if a flower, that we can experience joy or so, that we can experience empathy etc. We then can simply form our own conclusions, non-scientifically.
Percy writes:
Your "subjective conclusions" have no evidence.
Sure, no scientific evidence at all.
GDR writes:
Frankly I hear what some Christian preachers have to say and see myself with having more in common with many atheists.
Percy writes:
I don't think anyone here would agree with this self-assessment. Nothing you've ever said at EvC has ever been remotely like what an atheist might say.
When Christian preachers start rationalizing the stories of genocide and public stoning in the Bible then I have more common with Chris Hitchens that I do with such a preacher.
Percy writes:
No, we're not asking questions. We're telling you you have no evidence. And you agree. And then you change your mind and claim you have evidence again.
You keep saying that. This is not in a science forum. Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence. Observational conclusions are not based on evidence.
The Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Buddah, the Book of Mormon etc physically exist. Why aren't they considered evidence. Nobody contests the belief that Plato, Socrates and others existed because of what we have written about them and they predate Jesus by 400 years.
Percy writes:
You can't claim that any words a writer sets to paper are evidence because then you have to do that for everything, not just all the world's religions but even all the world's myths and fantasies.
So what. The first thing you have to do is consider the author's intent. If you're reading a book by Agatha Christie then you know that it's not be taken literally. If you read Lewis' Narnia series you know that it's not meant to be understood as something that really happened but at the same time know that is also meant as metaphor. If you read Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People" then it is clear that he intends it as a factual account. In the case of the Bible it is all 3. Of course though, that something that is written to be understood as an actual account of an occurrence isn't necessarily true or even close to true.
Percy writes:
But you've driven some stakes in the ground, like that Jesus was real and there's evidence for it. There isn't.
..and you know that how. Numerous people have written about Jesus over the years and you simply reject what they all wrote.
Percy writes:
Again, there is no difference in nature between everyday evidence and scientific evidence. It's all just observations. Science is just more detailed, instrumented, structured and controlled in gathering its evidence, sort of like the difference between "It got hot" and "It reached a temperature of 147.3°C."
Sadly here's the lead story from CNN today. "Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida'. Is that evidence on it's own that Ian hit Florida?

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 704 by Percy, posted 09-27-2022 9:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2022 12:38 AM GDR has replied
 Message 717 by Tangle, posted 09-29-2022 4:26 AM GDR has replied
 Message 720 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2022 10:47 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 729 by Percy, posted 09-29-2022 2:46 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 716 of 3694 (898738)
09-29-2022 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by GDR
09-28-2022 6:28 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
The Bible is evidence. It is obviously written to be believed although not always literally. You argue that it isn't reliable and give reasons. However, it still remains that it in fact exists. It might contain truths or it might be a total lie, but it is evidence to be considered.
It is also true that you find it absolutely necessary to prop up the reliability of the Bible without regard to the truth. Even the order in which the Gospels were written causes you to make obviously false claims. How many of Streeter’s arguments “go away” if you assume that Matthew was the first? None of them. Zero out of five. Yet you claimed that all of them would “go away” even after seeing those arguments.
Would someone who cared about the truth do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by GDR, posted 09-28-2022 6:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 852 by GDR, posted 10-04-2022 9:04 PM PaulK has replied

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


(3)
Message 717 of 3694 (898739)
09-29-2022 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by GDR
09-28-2022 6:28 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
The Bible is evidence.
The bible is only evidence that some people wrote some stories.
Unknown men wrote those stories, not even the widest eyed believer claims that a god wrote those stories.
Many of the stories in those books are fantastical but are not regarded as metaphor - they are foundational to the belief. But the Jews that were there at the time did not believe those stories, nor did those that later became Muslims. It seems that the majority at the time of the events were not persuaded by them.
There are several other books that other religions believe to be true that you do not. You believe the Christian book - or at least those parts of it that you personally feel comfortable with - is true only because it was the book that your parents and culture believes. Had you been born in another place, you would not believe it.
We know that the stories were not created until many years after the main character's death by unknown people who did not witness any of them. We also know that they were edited, redacted and collated centuries later by the most powerful empire in the world for political reasons then promoted by another political organisation that grew to be even more powerful and also equally corrupt - the Catholic church.
We know that the stories in the books are inconsistent, some are contradictory and its predictions of important future events failed to happen.
The evidence that a book exists is not evidence that the stories written in them actually happened. It's the weakest of all evidence.
To become credible evidence of actual events the stories need corroborating evidence and given that the most important stories for the believer are so fantastical they need a lot of it. But there is no evidence at all.
Sadly here's the lead story from CNN today. "Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida'. Is that evidence on it's own that Ian hit Florida?
Here's that fake equivalence again. The bible stories are as factual as news stories huh?
I suspect you don't need us to point you to the many ways you could personally and very quickly corroborate the storm story as being factually correct but it does point out the difference between a story and a fact. Facts can be independently verified, mere stories can not be.
I have no scientific evidence.

We can however come to our conclusions based on life experience and observation
In principle, the qualifier, “scientific” in that statement is redundant. Evidence is simply evidence and all evidence is observational. What makes it real evidence is that it is independent of the observer. It must be verifiable by others, particularly others that are skeptical of it. What you call “life experience and observation” only become evidence if others can replicate it. What you have is a belief which does not require evidence. What you call evidence is almost entirely confirmation bias.

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 715 by GDR, posted 09-28-2022 6:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by Phat, posted 09-29-2022 7:45 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 724 by GDR, posted 09-29-2022 1:03 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 718 of 3694 (898740)
09-29-2022 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by Tangle
09-29-2022 4:26 AM


Tales Told Around Campfires
Tangle writes:
The bible is only evidence that some people wrote some stories.
Fair enough. We know that the book(s) were not simply dropped from the sky, falling into the lap of King James or Pope Innocent(until proven Guilty) .
Tangle, ex Catholic writes:
Many of the stories in those books are fantastical but are not regarded as metaphors - they are foundational to the belief.
The early Catholics were by and large inspired by pictures etched on the walls of Cathedrals.(The Stations Of The Cross, for example) Most folks couldn't read. I guess we could thus discuss oral tradition and as jar deftly put it, Tales told 'round a campfire. At this point, the Source (the author or authors of the scroll)becomes as important as Content (what the scroll says.) If the prophet Isaiah was himself a story on a scroll, I would ask whether Isaiah was allowed at some point in time to write the scroll himself, or whether he was simply a character in a scroll written by some random guy. (Bronze Age Ex-Goatherder who learned to make scrolls, perhaps? )
I need to do a bit more research before completing this train of thought.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Tangle, posted 09-29-2022 4:26 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by Tangle, posted 09-29-2022 8:42 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 722 by ringo, posted 09-29-2022 11:40 AM Phat has replied

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


Message 719 of 3694 (898741)
09-29-2022 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 718 by Phat
09-29-2022 7:45 AM


Re: Tales Told Around Campfires
Phat writes:
Fair enough. We know that the book(s) were not simply dropped from the sky
Had they done so and had they been typed in multiple languages - both old and new - On an indestructible A4 media that we still can't comprehend, there would be a reason to believe that the messages it contained was not simply man made.

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 718 by Phat, posted 09-29-2022 7:45 AM Phat has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 720 of 3694 (898743)
09-29-2022 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 715 by GDR
09-28-2022 6:28 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence. Observational conclusions are not based on evidence.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence.
There is only one type of evidence. Observational; what you try to insultingly call 'scientific' to distinguish between actual evidence and your emotional desires.
Observational (scientific) evidence is the stuff that conveys its reality consistently to all observers and informs all conclusions. Observational evidence is the only evidence this universe provides for anything.
Any conclusions can only be based on the observational evidence. Conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of observational evidence and logical analysis.
You can't do that with your religious fantasies. You can never portray the thoughts in your head in any more than arbitrary terms. Your personal thoughts are not evidence of reality. Nor are 100 million similar thoughts. Each adherent has different conceptions of the same deity. There is no consistency and must be rejected as evidence.
There is no scientific evidence. We can all marvel at new life, the fact that we can see beauty if a flower, that we can experience joy or so, that we can experience empathy etc. We then can simply form our own conclusions, non-scientifically.
No one ever said you can't experience emotional joy or awe at the beauty of life. You can conclude any emotional thing you so desire. That is great observational scientific evidence that you are a human and you are alive. But when you insist that feeling emanates from some universal sky daddy you have reached conclusions that are not evident and cannot be supported. This is fantasy.
The Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Buddah, the Book of Mormon etc physically exist. Why aren't they considered evidence.
Those books are evidence. They are evidence of the disjointed fantastical emotional musings of the human species. They are evidence that deities and their powers are home grown human fantasies.
And as has been said already, just because the book is real does not mean the stories in it are real.
As far as evidence is concerned the provenance of your bible is suspect at best. It's history is fraught with inconsistent copies of the same text and known copyist insertions and changes. It is evidence of human meddling with the text in later copies. None with any efficacy. Might as well be a sloppy copy of Jumanji for all the reality it contains.
Evidence is a much stronger term than you care to accept. Emotion is too weak, variable, inconsistent and cannot not count as evidence.
{ABE}
You should know by now that your bible is too inconsistent to be evidence of anything. And your strong emotional reaction to the beauty of life is your emotional response and is not consistent observer to observer. Not everyone appreciates kittens. Thus your personal emotions are not evidence of reality.
So, in place of these, what evidence do you propose gives any credence to your thoughts on this cosmic entity? You cannot believe without reason. What reason?

Edited by AZPaul3, : edit


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by GDR, posted 09-28-2022 6:28 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2022 11:33 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024