LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt seems that theists are OK with just making their own rules, see:
Most US Christians define own theology
Hopefully soon the human race will grow up and be done with their imaginary friends.
January 15th, 2009, 05:57 PM
It seems that theists are OK with just making their own rules, see:
Most US Christians define own theology
Hopefully soon the human race will grow up and be done with their imaginary friends.
January 15th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Why do you say "hopefully?" What benefit do you think will accrue when everyone believes as you do?Originally Posted by c186282
January 15th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Why are you hoping for this?
Something I found in that article:
Looks like everyone's got a free ticket to eternal life.Forty-two percent of religious Americans also say atheists are able to find eternal life.
January 15th, 2009, 07:28 PM
Aren't Christians evangelizing everyone believe as they do? What benefit will be accrued, then? Witch burnings, perhaps?
At least the author of the OP isn't threatening and eternity of hellfire.
January 15th, 2009, 08:01 PM
Good question.
What scares me the most about religion is it often allows for "my way is the only way" type of thoughts. This leads to activities like preventing the distribution of condoms is sub-Sahara Africa, the picketing at the funereal of gays, the fact that I can't buy beer on Sunday (not a big deal I can plan ahead), the idea that you can be rewarded in heaven if you blow yourself up and take out the "others".
I realize after reading the first sentence of the previous paragraph you may think, so how is "c186282" any different? I do not expect people to think as I do. I love new ideas and different ways to think about things. I'm a big fan of the diversity of thought. But I also expect evidence and proof before I buy into new ideas.
Why shouldn't an "aid" group distribute condoms in sub-Sahara Africa? (I realize some do but I'm referring to the catholic church that like to think it is providing aid.) It is because they think their book and imaginary friend tells them it is wrong.
Why do theists in Kansas picket at the funereal of a gay? Because their book told them that god hates gays. (and maybe because evolution did not happen there.)
Why can't I buy beer on Sunday? Because in their creation story their imaginary friend rested on Sunday. (I wander which calendar god was using back then?)
Finally what else but religion could possibly convince someone that it is a good idea to fly a plane full of people into a building?
I know that all theists are not susceptible to this just because they believe in a god or gods. Example, my best friend is solidly theist. Philosophically we agree on almost everything except for the last step where I say I do not know and he says he does.
So to answer the question: Once unsubstantiated believes are removed from our collective minds, I expect that we as a race can solve our problems with more fact based methods. This in no way means that we will all agree on how to solve problems but I'm sure we would be less likely to fly planes into building and invade arbitrary country's.
"Atheism is a religion, like not collecting stamps is a hobby"
January 16th, 2009, 10:57 AM
I've placed these two statements side by side because I want you to think about something in a different way. Might it be that some individuals, whether through genetic predisposition, or aspects of their upbringing, are inclined to believe 'my way is the only way'? Might these individuals be attracted to certain kinds, or expressions of religion? If this is true, should we not be more concerned about such fixed attitudes than about the belief systems they have usurped for their own ends?
I may be in a minority, but I regret the loss of a day that was different from the rest of the week. When it was alright to take things easy. Where the pace of life was deliberately slowed. Forget imaginary friends and holy books, just consider basic psychology and human behaviour. Resting on the seventh day, as an integral part of society, was probably a damn fine idea and I for one regret its passing.
January 16th, 2009, 05:29 PM
Yes I have thought about this. There is a good book on this subject: Why We Believe What We Believe
I certainly agree that religion is not the only delusional concept that can infect our minds, look at the regimes of cults of personality like North Korea, Turkmenistan under Niyazov. (He has died and has been replaced by Berdimuhammedow who at first seemed more open) Many of these people sincerely think that they have it the best in the world. The revered leader is almost looked upon as a god.
Yes I think it is very important that we understand why we as a species can be so gullible. (and we are seriously gullible: Scientology, Heaven's Gate, Joseph Smith, and bible )
I most certainly agree with the need of rest. I'm not sure that we have to institute a day of rest. Because if we did we would have to have exceptions for many of the core services like fire, police, and hospitals etc. I would like to see people able to take off any two days during the week. This way all things could remain open and all the good campsites would not be taken every "weekend". (Where "weekend" represents the two days I take off.)
Along the same idea I most definitely do not believe the father knocked up a virgin who remained a virgin to give birth to himself with the plan of ensuring that he could get himself tortured to death to save the world he made a few thousand years ago, but I still enjoy getting together with family and giving my kids presents. (Yes I have fooled my kids into thinking there is a Santa Claus. I see this as an opportunity for them to think for themselves and not always believe things they have been told even from me. I see Santa as the vaccine of the mind.)
January 17th, 2009, 08:27 AM
Hmmm as an atheist you believe their is no God. Where is the "evidence and proof" for this idea?
You can laugh and say that religious ideas aren't based on fact, but neither is your atheism.
You are quite right to suggest that if religion was abolished alot of problems would disappear. But religion is not the only thing which causes problems. Recently the largest loss of human life was not due to religion.
WW2 Germany and Russia for example. I am not saying here that the atrocities that took place were due to atheism. But they were NOT due to religion.
Compare the magnitude of WW2 to the magnitude of the problems between the west and the middle east, and I don't think abolishing religion would make the world that much of a better place.
Ofcourse your whole argument is flawed because you are making out that all religions are the same which is not true. I don't think the Amish in America are a threat to humanity do you?
January 17th, 2009, 10:32 AM
How about this? Over the past 30-40 centuries, billions of people have been praying to their god which has yielded the same results as random events.
A single person found alive amongst the ruins of the Trade Center claimed Jesus saved her.
A tsunami wiped out more than a quarter of million people a few years ago right after Jesus's birthday. "Happy birthday son, Love Dad!"
Ah contraire. Hitler was a christian who wanted all Jews dead. Communism is an ideology that simply replaces god with men.WW2 Germany and Russia for example. I am not saying here that the atrocities that took place were due to atheism. But they were NOT due to religion.
Isn't the flaw encapsulated in your statement? How can there be one god if all religions are different?Ofcourse your whole argument is flawed because you are making out that all religions are the same which is not true.
January 17th, 2009, 11:00 AM
He doesent state what he believes in, if anything. What he "hopefully"wishes for is to remove religion if im right?Why do you say "hopefully?" What benefit do you think will accrue when everyone believes as you do?
A noble goal, to remove lies and deceit of a useless and destructive tradition among most cultures in the world. Anything built on lies is bad, nomatter what.
Adolf hitler once said "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed"
Its unfortunate that this quote was made by an evil ruthless dictator as Hitler, but it doesent make it less true.
January 17th, 2009, 12:11 PM
Hitler was NOT a christian. He wasn't even religious, he was an atheist. Many people who were close to him have said as much.
The answer to your question is simple. If their is only one God, but each religion worships a different God, then all of them are wrong but one.Isn't the flaw encapsulated in your statement? How can there be one god if all religions are different?
January 17th, 2009, 01:32 PM
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ~~ Mein Kampf
And of course, that begs the question, 'which religion is correct?' To that question can only come one answer, 'the proof of the cake is in the pudding.' So far, the evidence for any one religion being even remotely correct hasn't come to fruition.
The answer to your question is simple. If their is only one God, but each religion worships a different God, then all of them are wrong but one.
If a one true god does in fact decide to reveal himself, it will be to all mankind, and he will have a message that will be irrefutably and unequivocally known by everyone, instinctively.
And to that, there will be no bloodshed.
January 17th, 2009, 01:52 PM
Hitler wanted rid of all religion as he believed that ultimate loyalty should be to him and to Germany. He did however start a brand of pagan worship to the sun, in order to attract people away from Christianity and other mainstream religions and towards an organization over which he had absolute control."Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ~~ Mein Kampf
I do not know exactly why Hitler wrote the above in Mein Kampf, but I assume it was to placate the Catholic Church. Hitler was afraid of their power and it was for this reason that he made a deal to allow Catholicism to continue being practiced in Germany in return for the Vatican turning a blind eye to the atrocities he was committing.
January 17th, 2009, 02:05 PM
You're free to disagree with Hitler and his motives, although you may have trouble supporting your argument."Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.
Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him. "
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...nofhitler.html
Yeah... Q you're right... theres like absolutely no chance that hitler was using religion AS AN EXCUSE, to do the things he did.
January 17th, 2009, 04:13 PM
How do you tell the difference between a false statement and a true statement?
If I were to tell you that I'm an angel in hell, how would you know if I was telling the truth or not? (We recently got internet service, It was a bitch getting a T-1 cable through the mantle.) After all you know that a bunch of us were thrown out when we were trying to make a power sharing deal with god. You also know that in our job description it clearly says that we should lead souls away from god. And now with our new internet connection and our increased revenue from our porn sites it is easier than ever.
"sox" do you believe this? Much of what I claim to be true comes from your book. I image that you do not believe that I'm a fallen angel in hell. Can I go so far as saying that you are "atheistic" to the idea of angel's in hell on the internet. What would I have to do to convince you that it is true? Do you need some proof? Why can't you just take in on faith? If I were to bring you down here just for the day and show you around would that make you believe? (One of our most impressive features is our air conditioning unit for our servers.) Once you got back do you think your friends would believe you? (Don't worry I just some primate sitting at my computer listening to music on the surface of the earth.)
Now really when an outlandish claim is made you must ask for evidence or proof. If not you would find yourself falling for anything. What if I were to ask you for proof that I'm not a fallen angel in hell? By your logic you would believe that I am until you proofed that I'm not.
I would like to write more but my wife just called and told me that I have to go. Even fallen angels have obligations.
You missed the point of my post.
You are right to say that when an outlandish claim is made you must ask for evidence or proof.
But this is the same for any claim. Just because one claim is outlandish and the other is not does not make the other claim any more truthful. And it would be wrong to assert that the other claim must be right simply because the outlandish claim is so strange.
That's what I am saying.
Hitler W/E. He was a politician.
C186282 I'm surprised you have kids and want weekends abolished. You have grown to appreciate the arbitrary though?
How about renaming Saturn's day and Sol's day with something equally universal but more relevant? Like Shop day and Lazy day?
So are you saying both claims are outlandish:
1) god exists
2) god does not exist
I want my two days of rest. But I would like to choose when they are. Picking my weekend to correspond to when the kids are in school has some advantages.
Most occupations depend on the concurrent schedules of others. Or at least that enhances yours and theirs.I want my two days of rest. But I would like to choose when they are. Picking my weekend to correspond to when the kids are in school has some advantages.
As for the demanding kids. I think it's a modern problem crept up on us. Children don't get out like they used to. They're increasingly dependent. Also, less families include uncles and grandmothers and so forth who traditionally shouldered some childcare. So the old religious recipes are, like, calling for two eggs and six apples but these units have changed so much over the centuries, it don't bake like it should.
I am not. I believe the former. But I am aware that I believe this based on my own thoughts and experience. Their is no hard proof or evidence I could show you. The evidence I have wouldn't be enough for you and I accept that. Likewise you couldn't present evidence that would be enough for me.So are you saying both claims are outlandish:
1) god exists
2) god does not exist
We here lies a road block.I am not. I believe the former. But I am aware that I believe this based on my own thoughts and experience. Their is no hard proof or evidence I could show you. The evidence I have wouldn't be enough for you and I accept that. Likewise you couldn't present evidence that would be enough for me.
I'm going to guess that you are a smart, well thought out person that dose not fall pray to outlandish claims like, the loch ness monster, the Blue Men of the Minch or angels in hell on the internet. To believe any of these I imagine you would need real scientific proof.
But for some reason god is different. You have, as you say, your own thoughts and experiences that help you believe. You also know, the evidence that you have to believe would not stand up as real scientific evidence. Also for you not to believe in a god you require proof to dis-prove what you can't prove.
Bottom line is that you treat the analytical concept of god different than other concepts. I do not. I treat the concept of god the same way treat the concept of the loch ness monster.
Do you agree with this?
If so can you clearly tell me why the idea of god deserves less proof?
Yes I agree with you.
Your final question is a good one.
I suppose I could return the same question: why does the idea of atheism require less proof?
I don't think it's a case that a belief in God requires less proof. It's just that belief is subjective, so subjective evidence plays a part, a big part in my case. If you want to persuade people, you definately need objective proof or evidence though.
As I have said, there is no way to prove that theism is correct, but there is also no way to prove that atheism is correct.
So someone who believes in God due to their own experience, while wishing they could prove their beliefs to be true with objective evidence, simply doesn't have that material available to them.
On the other hand, someone who is an atheist, while wishing they could prove God does not exist, also doesnt have the material available to them.
I might agree with you there, however what you asserted about atheism had no basis in fact.Yeah... Q you're right... theres like absolutely no chance that hitler was using religion AS AN EXCUSE, to do the things he did.
Of course, you still have to deal with the fact that Hitler exacted an attempted genocide of a particular religious group, and not all religious groups.
Yet, the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of gods would nullify the first and support the latter.
And since those so-called "experiences" are indistinguishable from the imaginative or deluded, we can safely shelf the former as such.
January 19th, 2009, 05:13 AM
Aren't Christians evangelizing everyone believe as they do? What benefit will be accrued, then? Witch burnings, perhaps?
At least the author of the OP isn't threatening and eternity of hellfire.
ahahahahahha funny foool
yes, what i have been through my life is imginatvely yea!......,if so then i am imaginary person who can talk.. -.-, i understand that you may have come to be in a well of environment but i did not and when i had no one , to help me and family, this;you imaginative God was there for me and may be this why I AM A CHRSTIANYet, the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of gods would nullify the first and support the latter.
And since those so-called "experiences" are indistinguishable from the imaginative or deluded, we can safely shelf the former as such.
I disagree completely with your first statement. For two reasons. One because I think you are incorrect and that there is more than a mans spiritual experiences to go on. Two it would not support the latter at all even if their was no evidence because they would still have to prove their opinion.Yet, the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of gods would nullify the first and support the latter.
And since those so-called "experiences" are indistinguishable from the imaginative or deluded, we can safely shelf the former as such.
As for your second statement, can you show that these experiences are purely dilusional? I will tell you that I know God listens to me. Show me how this is indistinguishable from delusion.
You can speculate all you want, but until you can PROVE that these experiences are purely delusional in ALL cases then you cant "safely shelf" experience as delusion.
true , in your veiw i could be just dilisional and be expresising thing that are not true, my answer was to Q' s question. and when i mean experiance;imean what i go through life, through this were i grow faith ......, am not here to preach to u or anybody in this sub-forum what am trying to do is answer questions that are in my view stupid question that prelong to discussion insulting "CH". am not here to prove anything to you guys nor preach am here to ask question in my christian view.
Occam's razor: one less entity to have to deal with.
As atheists have pointed out for ages: if the deity actually makes a difference to this universe, show us the evidence.
Of course, any "evidence" that does not require the deity hypothesis is not part of the argument.
The deity I believe in makes a difference to my life. Since I am part of the universe I live in, I could argue that my deity is making a difference to the universe. As said above though, it would be impossible to support this claim with any hard evidence.Occam's razor: one less entity to have to deal with.
As atheists have pointed out for ages: if the deity actually makes a difference to this universe, show us the evidence.
Of course, any "evidence" that does not require the deity hypothesis is not part of the argument.
But again, that doesn't mean because it can't be proven that the other argument is stronger. I've yet to meet an atheist who can provide evidence that God does not exist. The most they can come up with is that evolution contradicts Genesis. That is religion specific though and does not address the general question of whether "A" God exists.
sorry, double post.
That's merely a religious belief based on what others have told you, it has no basis in fact whatsoever.
The "Religious Experiment" has been underway for centuries, with billions of people involved putting into action daily their rituals and beliefs with not a single, solitary result beyond random occurrences. A rather successful experiment to support those opinions.Two it would not support the latter at all even if their was no evidence because they would still have to prove their opinion.
Can you support any action to date that has quantified gods?
Simple. There is little difference in your claim than anyone who would claim any number of invisible and undetectable entities listens to them. If you weren't indoctrinated into your religion and knew nothing about those gods, you wouldn't make that claim. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, for example, you would be claiming Allah listens to you.As for your second statement, can you show that these experiences are purely dilusional? I will tell you that I know God listens to me. Show me how this is indistinguishable from delusion.
Again, the "Religious Experiment" that has been carried out over the past many centuries is evidence enough. And for the record, "speculation" is what YOU'RE doing, not me. I'm simply looking at the results of that experiment.You can speculate all you want, but until you can PROVE that these experiences are purely delusional in ALL cases then you cant "safely shelf" experience as delusion.
Really? He was THERE standing in front of you, telling you what to do?
Exactly. It is a religious view amongst many other religious views. Perhaps you need to quantify your god with the other gods of the world before spouting off to someone who simply believes in one less god than you.
How is it?That's merely a religious belief based on what others have told you, it has no basis in fact whatsoever.
No I can't as I have said plenty of times.The "Religious Experiment" has been underway for centuries, with billions of people involved putting into action daily their rituals and beliefs with not a single, solitary result beyond random occurrences. A rather successful experiment to support those opinions.Two it would not support the latter at all even if their was no evidence because they would still have to prove their opinion.
Can you support any action to date that has quantified gods?
Ok. That does not show that personal experience is a delusion.Simple. There is little difference in your claim than anyone who would claim any number of invisible and undetectable entities listens to them. If you weren't indoctrinated into your religion and knew nothing about those gods, you wouldn't make that claim. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, for example, you would be claiming Allah listens to you.As for your second statement, can you show that these experiences are purely dilusional? I will tell you that I know God listens to me. Show me how this is indistinguishable from delusion.
Looking at the results of that "experiment" you will notice that God has not been proven. But again (getting tired lol) that does not prove that he isn't there.Again, the "Religious Experiment" that has been carried out over the past many centuries is evidence enough. And for the record, "speculation" is what YOU'RE doing, not me. I'm simply looking at the results of that experiment.You can speculate all you want, but until you can PROVE that these experiences are purely delusional in ALL cases then you cant "safely shelf" experience as delusion.
That is a fallacy, which can be invoked to submit to any and all imaginary entities, not just your god. If you use that line of logic, then you MUST submit to believing in any and all imaginary entities. And, that would diminish your belief in one god.
That is poor reasoning. The reason I "submit" to believing in God is because I have experience of God. That is what makes the difference. If I had no experience of God I would be an agnostic.That is a fallacy, which can be invoked to submit to any and all imaginary entities, not just your god. If you use that line of logic, then you MUST submit to believing in any and all imaginary entities. And, that would diminish your belief in one god.
Really? Then perhaps it's your turn to demonstrate how your experience of god cannot be distinguishable from your imagination?
I think you meant "perhaps it's your turn to demonstrate how your experience of god can be distinguished from your imagination?"Really? Then perhaps it's your turn to demonstrate how your experience of god cannot be distinguishable from your imagination?
I cannot prove that to you. Technically I cannot prove it to myself either. But I trust my own instincts.
Sox, imagine for a moment someone that believes in a being that does not exist, like a magic friendly troll. The troll is watching over him from the clouds, he believes that this troll loves him and cares about him and that he can lend him strength and support during trying times. When he has trying times he asks this troll to help him and then fully expects the wondrous troll to endow him with the courage, wisdom and strength that he was lacking. He feels the troll helping him. When he needs advice, he reads the book about the troll and all the people he has helped before, written by a few of these people a long time ago. He reads a passage and then thinks about what he has read and how it could apply to his life, and sees the relevance. Yet, the troll does not exist in reality. Do you think that this is a possible scenario? What if you substitute the troll for a Roman or Greek god that does not exist either? What about if the person (people) believes and subjectively experiences all of these things about the sun?
What are the differences between the above and your relationship with god?
That's blasphemy! Everyone knows troll's only live under bridges!
Sox, many people trust their own instincts. I commend you for that. I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Son of Sam... They relied on instinct as well.I think you meant "perhaps it's your turn to demonstrate how your experience of god can be distinguished from your imagination?"Really? Then perhaps it's your turn to demonstrate how your experience of god cannot be distinguishable from your imagination?
I cannot prove that to you. Technically I cannot prove it to myself either. But I trust my own instincts.
And Sox, his reasoning is not invalid, it's perfect in a sense.
"No one can prove Zeus doesn't exist, thus he must be real"
"No one can prove krypton isn't real, thus it must be real!
Well I've got experience of God. I don't have expereince of this troll so naturally I would be dubious of it's existance. But to the person with the troll, it would seem every bit as real.
I would assert my God was real, they would assert that their Troll was real. And the atheists like yourself would get to laugh because you would think we're both on smack!
Sox, what experience do you have with your God?
That's very immature and offensive. You clearly have nothing to contribute to this discussion. Perhaps you should run along and play with your toys? Or are you too busy moaning that your lifes so hard because a christian was mean to you once?
You're making a fool of yourself verzen... I haven't said that because God can't be disproven that he must exist. I stated quite early on that the reason I believe in God is due to personal experience.
Short memory much?Looking at the results of that "experiment" you will notice that God has not been proven. But again (getting tired lol) that does not prove that he isn't there.
It may be immature and offensive in your eyes.. But think about it for a second. There was a teacher named, "John Freshwater" who burned CROSSES in his students arms. He was a science teacher that kept saying evolution is a lie. He refused to teach it and he kept spewing his christian garble. And i'm sure he said God was real because he had a hunchThat's very immature and offensive. You clearly have nothing to contribute to this discussion. Perhaps you should run along and play with your toys? Or are you too busy moaning that your lifes so hard because a christian was mean to you once?
This is why I say "religion - leading cause of ignorance since 5,000 BC"
Lack of intellect much?
Re-read the rest of my posts and try and keep up with the rest of the guys.
So you turn to petty insults to prove a point? Pot calling the kettle black with that immature comment.
Dude, you can believe in god if you want. It's your delusion. It's more harmful then good to believe in some non-existent sky troll.
I didn't turn to petty insults to prove a point. What point was it I was meant to have proven? I turned petty because you insulted me by comparing me to three murderers.
And lets break it down for you.Which means he has not been dis-proven either, since you are assuming that god will one day be proven.. according to your comment. Then your next comment is, "But again, that does not prove he isn't there." which translates to, "He must be there since he cannot be dis-proven and will eventually be proven"Looking at the results of that experiment, you will notice that god has not been proven.
I noticed that you used experiment in quotes as well, signifying your disbelief in that experiment saying it wasn't an actual experiment.
WHO REACTED on INSTINCT. If you rely on instinct to make all of your judgements, you will be just as bad as them.I didn't turn to petty insults to prove a point. What point was it I was meant to have proven? I turned petty because you insulted me by comparing me to three murderers.
This whole discussion has involved people being very careful about how they worded their responses. I have never once implied or stated that since God cannot be disproven that therefore he MUST exist.
So please don't go putting word in my mouth.
But I believe it is a very important question. Is it a question you have asked yourself? If you have, what was your answer, if I may? What is it that makes you believe that the source of what you experience is anything other than your own mind? With this I am not trying to use the standard delusion argument, since I believe we all have some internally induced experiences from time to time. I know it is not as if you feel His presence in every waking moment, is it? It is when you want to connect to this "source" that you sometimes experience powerful feelings that you can often even physically feel, no? Feelings of safety, being watched over by someone that really understands you, the only one that does.Well I've got experience of God. I don't have expereince of this troll so naturally I would be dubious of it's existance. But to the person with the troll, it would seem every bit as real.
I would assert my God was real, they would assert that their Troll was real. And the atheists like yourself would get to laugh because you would think we're both on smack!
When you sit by yourself and turn your attention to yourself, looking at yourself as laid bare as you can dare, do you feel someone else there that knows every bit of you, even parts that even you don't want look at? A companion of sorts, a guide, a confidant?
Oh, btw.. The Son of Sam thought that his neighbors dog was a demon giving him orders. There are several delusional people who believe that there is an entity out there that doesn't exist.. But in their mind, they do. It's called delusional schitzophrenia. The religious out there are delusional and some have a severe case of schitzophrenia. People who believe in that crap should be locked up.. Fanatics should be put into padded rooms.Well I've got experience of God. I don't have expereince of this troll so naturally I would be dubious of it's existance. But to the person with the troll, it would seem every bit as real.
I would assert my God was real, they would assert that their Troll was real. And the atheists like yourself would get to laugh because you would think we're both on smack!
Your quote of
proves that it is a delusion. Either something is real, or it isn't real. You can't say something like, "Well, MY god doesn't think like that! Maybe your god.." Something is real or it isn't. You can't just say, "My god or your god think this way" then you are equating that with an imaginary being. Deep down, you know that it's imaginary... and thats why you say that it's, "Your god" That you have experience with, but not the "troll god" since the troll god is only John who has experienced him.Well I've got experience of God. I don't have expereince of this troll so naturally I would be dubious of it's existance. But to the person with the troll, it would seem every bit as real.
Yes, sorry about that.
You don't need to prove anything, simply offer a demonstration.I cannot prove that to you. Technically I cannot prove it to myself either. But I trust my own instincts.
"Instincts: Inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli."
You can start by first explaining the "specific stimuli" from your god? Then we can move on to the mechanism in your body that receives and acknowledges it as a godly experience and transfers that data to your brain.
Ah yes... good point. So some caution and discernment might be warranted in determining which of your instints, intuition and rationals one should follow, right? Surely you are not advocating the idea that these examples mean that one should never follow any of ones own instincts, intuitions or reasons. I mean just believing and following what other people tell you doesn't sound like such a great idea does it?
It didn't seem to me like this is the sort of reasoning that sox was using. It seems to me more like Q was, as usual, using the following reasoning:
"You cannot prove to me that your God does exist and therefore you are delusional."
The Flat Earthers and Creationists use the same kind of reasoning:
"You cannot prove to my satisfaction that the earth is round and therefore the earth is flat."
"You cannot prove to my satisfaction that evolution is the origin of the species and therefore the theory of evolution is an unscientific pseudo-religious dogma."
Surely you can see the obvious logical fallacy in this type of reasoning.
If you fully believe in an idea without any proof, then you are delusional. We have proof that earth is round. Saying that the earth is flat is delusional. We have proof that evolution happened, to say it doesn't is delusional. (There was a recent scientific research where they had RNA act very life like by using a bunch of chemicals.)
And mitchell, people have been following their belief system based on what others tell them for centuries =P
Yes you seem to have the idea pretty well. It's more like someone watching over me and who listens when I think about certain things such as personal matters.But I believe it is a very important question. Is it a question you have asked yourself? If you have, what was your answer, if I may? What is it that makes you believe that the source of what you experience is anything other than your own mind? With this I am not trying to use the standard delusion argument, since I believe we all have some internally induced experiences from time to time. I know it is not as if you feel His presence in every waking moment, is it? It is when you want to connect to this "source" that you sometimes experience powerful feelings that you can often even physically feel, no? Feelings of safety, being watched over by someone that really understands you, the only one that does.Well I've got experience of God. I don't have expereince of this troll so naturally I would be dubious of it's existance. But to the person with the troll, it would seem every bit as real.
I would assert my God was real, they would assert that their Troll was real. And the atheists like yourself would get to laugh because you would think we're both on smack!
When you sit by yourself and turn your attention to yourself, looking at yourself as laid bare as you can dare, do you feel someone else there that knows every bit of you, even parts that even you don't want look at? A companion of sorts, a guide, a confidant?
When I say watching over me, I don't mean I have this feeling of being watched every minute of the day. But when I pray, the feeling I get is that God knows all thats going on with me, which makes me think he must be watching what I do. Not neccessarily protecting me from events, but he is aware of whats going on.
Okay, I've grown quite uncomfortable with this equating belief in what is "not real" AKA empirically verifiable with the minds of serial killers.
Let me explain something about delusion, Verzen. After you were born, your parents decided you must be the most beautiful baby in the world. Oh, they wouldn't test others too much with their odd belief, and on some level they must have known it delusional, but they did have this belief, if they were like most parents. Normal people have many healthy delusions. Some are good old delusions - mores and values if you will; some stem from unexamined instincts we share with primates among other mammals; some are modern as in "you've got to be a little crazy" to make it in this society.
You must strain to map these delusions. Of course, you've got them is why they're invisible to you! These are not just games you decide to play along with - they've beliefs so deeply ingrained that for most people an alternative is literally unthinkable. They're strong beliefs.
Holding your particular culture's set of delusions, makes you "sane" to that culture.
No, human instincts are good. Reason questions "what is good" and instinct answers it. Ask your mom. People may confuse and pervert their instincts, but instinct in itself is manifestly good.
Dahmer and Manson in fact were difficult to prove insane, in the courts. The prosecution wanted them judged "sane" so they'd be fully accountable for their crimes, the defense wanted them to appear as nutters. However those losers, like most psychopaths, lacked ingrained sanity - that is: normal delusion - which they compensated for by calculating everything. In other words they'd pet a dog not because they felt like doing that but because they'd think that beneficial in some way. These trials must have driven the juries nuts. :wink:
Many people wrongly equate rationality with sanity, and delusion with insanity. Normally those errors are marks of sanity. They prove one's common naivety (good). But when you elaborate on them, a dangerous contradiction unfolds. You begin to suggest (as you did) that human instincts are dubious, and we should institutionalize those who fail to think in a purely calculating manner, as psychopaths do.
I'm not meaning to single you out Verzen as inadvertently preaching psychopathy (technically I mean dissocial personality). Often enough this forum sees someone insist on empirical proof and utility where sanity and morals belong. Whole discussions about God, love, etc. run with that insane/amoral condition. It's tragic isn't it?
*sigh* Maybe calculation is the new sanity? Then no wonder Dahmer was finally judged sane.
Hmm the stimuli... well I suppose the best way to explain it is the sense of calm I get when talking to God. By the way I should point out, God does not talk to me. I talk to him and he listens and then I come away knowing what I need to do and that I shouldnt beat myself up too much for my mistakes.Yes, sorry about that.
You don't need to prove anything, simply offer a demonstration.I cannot prove that to you. Technically I cannot prove it to myself either. But I trust my own instincts.
"Instincts: Inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli."
You can start by first explaining the "specific stimuli" from your god? Then we can move on to the mechanism in your body that receives and acknowledges it as a godly experience and transfers that data to your brain.
That would only demonstrate that you talk to yourself, like many do.
"Feelings" people get which they interpret as gods are more to do with what they want to believe as opposed to what they think they believe.
Correct.That would only demonstrate that you talk to yourself, like many do.
So you are saying that subconsciously I want to believe in a deity who looks out for me so therefore I do believe it; and this makes my life easier or happier because I can live with the knowledge that someone is looking out for me?"Feelings" people get which they interpret as gods are more to do with what they want to believe as opposed to what they think they believe.
It's an interesting idea, but in my case it doesnt add up because my life has become harder since I became a christian. It was easier before hand. As a christian I am more aware of my shortcomings and so have to work hard to overcome them.
So overall my subconscious wouldn't have done a very good job if what you're saying is correct.
"Feelings, reasons and arguments that people have that God does not exist has more to do with what they want to believe as opposed to what they think they believe.""Feelings" people get which they interpret as gods are more to do with what they want to believe as opposed to what they think they believe.
Do I believe this? No. It no more valid than what Q just said, it is just an excuse that ideologues make for disrespecting those who believe differently than they do. It is empty and meaningless rhetoric.
Nevertheless what we want to believe can not be completely divorced from an assessment of reality, because reality IS NOT completely independent from what we believe. There is a definite aspect of human life that is a matter of our creative involvement and some things are made a reality by an act of will. Is everything? Of course not. Discernment IS required. BUT if you insist on treating reality with detached objectivity ONLY, you will be an observer of life only and never a meaningful participant (and as an observer only you will really be little more than a waste of space).
Does this mean that I think that God is a human creation? No. But I do believe that God wants belief in Him to be a matter of desire and choice and the reason is that this produces the best results. He wants us to live our own lives, for IF we choose to include Him in our lives, then that is our choice and it is our choice that makes His inclusion meaningful and worthwhile.
| « Religion and peace | The hypocrisy of the religion sub-forum » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
