Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
f'real though, doesn't that argument best explain the extremes that God displays throughout the bible?
No it does not. The best explanation in keeping with our epistemological limitations and understanding of reality is that the Yahweh, like most (if not all gods), was created as a post hoc rationalization of the reality that we perceive on the part of the authors of the bible and that because those authors had different goals and axioms the behavior of the figure which is being used as their post hoc rationalization is naturally somewhat erratic to facilitate the needs of the diverse views of these authors.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
It would appear that the Yahweh is not actually commanding anything and also that the Yahweh would consider the ripping open and dashing against rocks in question to be just acts. I'm not sure that is particularly better and certainly does not paint a picture of the Yahweh's moral character that I would call positive.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.
Well stated. I applaud your honesty and only wish I saw this kind of admition more often. From theists and atheists alike.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
To me, it's evidence that God isin't real because how could this happen in an infallible bible?
There are thousands of religions. Many I will warrant you have not studied to the degree that you can dismiss them with the same casual flippancy as you are dismissive of the Yahweh. This story at best illuminates one possible god and at worst proves that one story about one god was likely apocryphal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
So creation ex nihilo makes perfect sense but somehow you draw the line at a boat?
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
it sounds like you at least minored in philosophy
I am a highschool dropout. My dyslexia was not condusive to higher education in a formal setting. Nevertheless I shall take this as a compliment so thank you.
THIS GOT TOO LONG. I HAD MORE. SORRY 'BOUT THAT.
I would prefer to read what else you have to say before responding to your points in full but so far you have at best an action (reprogramming yourself) that is based on a desire (the desire to better oneself in regards to some goal) and since we do not choose our desires it sounds like cause and effect are at least sufficient to explain the process. That means cause and effect is observable and sufficient. I am not prepared to make a black swan fallacy and say that no metaphysical "self" could be contributing in some way but I am prepared to dismiss this self until it is demonstrably and also to dismiss that this self has any free will unless you can demonstrate that cause and effect is not sufficient to explain this self's actions/decisions.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
If you agree that pedophilia is abominable and unconnected with homosexuality in any rational way it does make me wonder why you brought it up since it is not otherwise impactful to our discussion. I am not emotional by the way and this isn't a personal topic for me per se I am just not going to let you get away with pretending that allowing homosexuals to live their lives as they choose and allowing pedophiles to harm children are in any way related subjects. If you think homosexuality is in some way immoral you will have to support your claim without reference to pedophilia.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That is why I did my best to verify my premises.
Let me try one more time to explain. You cannot verify anything that happened before the Planc time. It is an exercise in futility. Any premise that relies on trying to make sense of something that the best and brightest cosmologists in the field who have been working on the mystery their whole lives cannot make sense of is unlikely to be a fruitful endeavor. If your premises hinges on determining what reality was like before the big bang then it is by necessity unverified. In fact we don't even know if "before the big bang" is a nonsensical phrase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why do you have to start with skepticism?
Because I know of no other way to differentiate between claims which contradict one another but have equal standards (if not amounts) of evidence. You see it doesn't matter how much flawed or insufficient evidence you have. No amount of insufficient claims adds up tonone sufficient claim.
Start with chance. Is that reasonable? Start with an eternal, necessary, omniscient, immutable, omnibenevolent being. Is that more reasonable?
Neither of those seems particularly reasonable to me because neither has been demonstrated. In fact I am not sure I believe in chance any more than I believe in any god(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
There are billions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world.
Yes and they are in layers with the old es st rocks containing the oldest fossils and more complex life appearing in younger rocks and younger fossils exactly as we would expect to find if they had been laid down gradually over hundreds of millions of years. You are clearly not a geologist or a paleontologist and it shows. Please if you wish to offer an expert opinion look at the work of actual experts
Do you think your worldview, devoid of God is more reasonable?
What is actually more reasonable is to make no claim that is insufficiently demonstrated and to exercise skepticism in the face of claims which are insufficiently demonstrated. I am not making a positive or negative claim I am merely not prepared to accept yours without far better arguments to support them than I have ever heard in regards t ol any supernatural claim. No god claim has met its burden of proof and many would appear to be logically inconsistent or scientifically inaccurate. Also evolution is entirely unconnected with the existence or non existence of some god(s). They are entirely separate issues.
For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved,
We have discussed this before and even if I grant that the bible makes prophecies that are too accurate for any naturalistic explanation like coincidence and the use of Barnum statements you would still have to establish the source of these prophecies and it is as likely to be flying spaghetti monster inspired as god inspired unless there is some way other than the claims of humans to determine the difference between the two possible sources. And that is only if we accept the false dichotomy of the Yahweh or the pasta monster only.
what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism?
Christianity is only more widely accepted not more reasonable. Reason in a claim is a matter of observably true premises that support the conclusion. If you lack either the same your argument is logically flawed even if you do arrive by chance at the truth.
I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational.
I agree. Now demonstrate how your religios claims differ in this regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
My evidence is anecdotal at present and I am not trying to convince you to maintain or abandon any "belief" you have concerning free will. But as with most things, the truth usually lies between the two extremes (free will and no free will). That is the crux of my ideas.
Middle ground fallacy. When the answer is unknown there is no way to say that any particular answer is mor likely including the middle ground between two answers.
My evidence is merely my ability to notice my failings, to analyze them and to reprogram my habits and attitudes to create different output than would otherwise be possible. This is indirect free will (for me) --- not trying to change you here.
In this case it sounds as though your failings act as a cause. A catalyst to this reprogramming. If there is a cause then it is demonstrably cause and effect. There is at least cause and effect at work. Can you demonstrate more?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You are missing the point. Some biblical claims can be investigated scientifically and those if they happened somehow managed to leave not a shred of evidence for (in the case of the arc story) the huge landscape changing event it describes. Those that cannot I really don't know a way to investigate. All religions make faith based claims of revealed knowledge. I'm not sure how you would ever demonstrate any god(s) but in order to prove yours was any different than all the other proposed gods whom we agree are most likely not real you would have to first show a different kind of evidence than faith based claims, anecdotal evidence, an old book, logically flawed arguments and arguments with unsupportable premises because lots of religions have those and you haven't explained why I shouldn't believe in some non Christian religion.
I'm prepared to embrace the worst case scenario. Pastafarianism. Yes a joke religion that even its followers admit are not to be taken as truth. Nevertheless can you conclusively prove in any way that some pasta monster of some kind did not reach out its noodily appendages and inspire the authors of the religion to present the actual truth of the universe and its creator just for fun?
This sounds easier than it actually is. The standard you have set is that you must have faith in order to have the truth come into you and that your answer is sufficient to explain reality. Can you say you have tried sincerely to seek the pasta monster? And if not how can you say he isn't real? His noodly appendage quivers for you and only a powerful timeless spaceless eternal being could have made the universe. The fsm checks off all those boxes by definition. Do you see how absurd this all sounds?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you denying you were attempting to ridicule me as opposed to my argument? When you asked the question "are you seriously ...?" It certainly seems personal.But I am prepared to accept the benefit of the doubt in this instance.
Take it however you like. If you were equating consensual sex between adults with molestation of children any argument to that effect deserves to be ridiculed and if you honestly believe that they are equally abominable behaviors I don't really care if I offended you pointing it out. Furthermore I am not prepared to continue this discussion until we have resolved the difference between the two and exactly why that is an unacceptable attitude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
It is not meant to be rude. I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence and explaining why that is the case with regards to your argument.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well now you say you don't care. Five minutes ago you were attempting to ridicule me for what you say you don't care about. LOL@ inconsistency.
Please stop conflating criticism of your argument with criticism of you.
We were actually discussing the distinction between someone's belief and their person.
A person's sexual orientation is not a belief or a choice it is part of who they are as a person and provided they are not causing harm that is sufficient to justify obstructing th wer ir liberties thror liberties should not be impinged. Comparing pedophilia with consenting sex between adults is muddying the waters at best and ad hominem attack at worst. You are confirming the consequence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Different claims would require different levels of evidence. That some human was guilty of wrongdoing is not going to require the same evidence to convince me as some supernatural claim because I know humans exist and that they are sometimes guilty of wrongdoing. You don't have to first demonstrate that humans and wrongdoing are even non fictitious. The more extraordinary a claim the less believable it just be considered.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't care what you think is sinful. I'm discussing morality and homosexuality is not noticeably more harmful than heterosexuality. Pedophilia is harmful. That is the difference.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Either it's sound or it isn't.
A sound argument with unverified premises is as liable to arrive at untruth as truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What alternative method to the scientific method would you like to suggest? Does it have the same track record for arriving at truth and observably improving the human condition that scientific theory does?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Dismiss it if you like. But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting.
(IF) whatever god(s) you are suggesting cannot be investigated (THEN) any statements made about whatever god(s) you are suggesting becomes necessarily an argument from ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Pedophilia is an act that forever scars children. A crime and an unconscionable act.
Homosexuality between consenting adults is not.
You do not have a valid point. One is objectively harmful to humans and by extension society one is in your opinion "sinful".
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's true, but I'm not saying that it's impossible just because it seems nonsensical to me. I'm making a logical argument demonstrating that it is impossible.
And I reject your hypothesis as untestable. Now what?
Ontology is not my strong point, but I'm not sure that there are any qualities common to all real things beyond simple existence.
Your definition has become circular. Existence means a thing that is real and a real thing exists. May I suggest that the only useful definition is observable and independently verifiable. That definition may not cover all "undiscovered truths" whatever they may be but it eliminates absurd arguments such as loch ness bigfoot flying spaghetti flat earth voltron theory. If we allow unverified "truths" to enter the discussion where will it end?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I call pedophilia sinful
Are you seriously comparing homosexual behavior between consenting adults with paedophilia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Another subjective statement by you. I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences..and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God.
You have constructed an unfalsifiable premise. Such premises deserve to be dismissed out of hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
If you cannot demonstrate your claim then it deserves to be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
it is an unfalsifiable claim.empirical evidence is beyond me at this point.
These two statements agree with each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Any god(s) whatever would need to meet their burden of proof before I would be able to maintain a belief. Your god conception, whatever it is, is no different and in any case I'd like to know what differentiates the god you believe in from the Yahweh as described in the bible sufficiently to justify your hair splitting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
That is a lovely sentiment and I'd like to believe that too. The trouble is that I don't. You see it is an unfalsifiable claim. In fact you as much as admitted so which I can respect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Respectfully, how can anything be objectively true until we have agreed to an objective standard?
We cannot. That is precisely the point. We must agree to a standard if we are to have any meaningful discussion.
if the Biblical God exists
Immaterial unless the Yahweh can be demonstrated through testable, repeatable and reliable methods. Preferably in such a way that it was confirmed by multiple examples of evidence by independent parties.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
when Christians suggest that homosexuality is condemned by God as sin, that many gays and others are self-harming.
Ridiculing someone's sexual orientation is not at all analogous with ridiculing their arguments especially those with clear and identifiable logical flaws.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I disagree with that especially in the context of a debate site. I can appreciate that some people are exceptionally sensitive. This is the wrong hobby for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.Says who? It sounds like you are making an objective statement? Or is that really just a subjective statement you are making? If it is the first, then what is objective standard you are basing it on. And if the latter, then aren't you really just giving people permission to abuse other people?
It is objectively true that without some standard we agree upon then no objective statements about morality are possible. It is also objectively true that some god(s) existing does not necessitate any objective standard unless the standards of said god could be the demonstrated to be more than subjective opinion.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
If your belief in the Yahweh hinges on the story of Noah's arc being literally true I may have some bad news for you. Also just to be clear ridiculing a person's beliefs is not analogous to ridiculing them. You are not being persecuted here. You are being reminded that there isn't a shred of geological, archeological or paleontological evidence and in fact that there is serious geological evidence against. Anyway I have a hunch that if you were somehow convinced that the story of Noah and the flood were not literally true you would just go on believing in the Yahweh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
we is humans and evil is immoral
And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok it does not specify the age of the animals. Now what? Do you think it is likely that they were infants? Does it even matter since there is no reason to think that the events in question are not completely fictitious?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Those who wish to reply to this OP - need only address the particular aspects of whether the Bible forbids infants from entering the Ark or rather the Bible only commanding that adults are put into the Ark.
I'll bet you don't want to talk about any other aspects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
why do we commit evil acts
Who is we? What is evil? Please don't use subjective language without first establishing well defined (preferably mutually acceptable) axioms.
Sorry I didn't tag you the first time I posted. I didn't realize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I agree 100% with the Bible, but don't believe a homosexual should be put to death.
These two statements are in fundamental conflict.
Do I consider homosexuality a sin? Yes!
Why should I care what you consider a sin? I'm not talking about sin I'm talking about morality and I don't see any moral issues in and of itself with consenting adults engaging in sexual activity.
Yes, there are some words in some bible versions that don't fit. That's why we have hermeneutics......and the concordance. Anyone studying the bible should have a concordance.
I'm sorry is it the holy spirit or the concordance that you are using to interpret the bible? I'm not necessarily saying you are moving the goal posts rather than simply not having thought of the concordance when I initially asked the question but it does bring up an important point. What if a well meaning Christian who is not a biblical scholar reads this passage and takes it that the "holy spirit", which you still have not demonstrated and do could be imaginary, wants them to take it at face value? would that not result in terrible consequences? It seems like an all powerful god (if he were more than a fiction) would be more careful about how his book ends up being translated?
I don't believe under any circumstances a rapist should be allowed to marry his victim. None!
Well that is something we agree on but it doesn't address that the bible seems to imply that a woman's value can be measured in silver which is a detestable idea.
No disagreement with the bible here. And I don't believe anyone should be bought or sold.
These two statements are in fundamental conflict.
You also seem to be implying that god could not simply put an injunction against owning people because owning people was such a popular and wide spread practice even though he was able to put injunctions on other activities that were popular and widespread that are not as clearly immoral like eating shellfish or making statues to represent some god(s).
If I can't refer to apologetics, then we may not have much of a discussion here.
If all you have to refer to are apologetics then we may not have much of a discussion here.
I don't ever recall saying anything like "but god is good though so he couldn't have done that".
Perhaps I am misunderstanding.are you not arguing that the Yahweh is morally perfect by nature and if he does something that appears immoral to us there must by necessity be a good moral reason for the apparent flaw? That our understanding is the problem not the Yahweh?
I don't think I was implying that atheism necessitates communism. Why do you think that (assuming you do)?
I am merely explaining the difference between an "atheist regime" (which is a nonsensical term) and a regime that happens to promote atheism because you brought up atheist regimes. The fundamental difference between a regime that promotes atheism and a theocracy is that nothing is being done in the name of atheism. Atheism itself is not informing actions the political ends of the nation do and they must be justified on their own merits even in those cases where horrific injustices are committed the reasoning is never "well there's no god(s) so we may as well". In a theocracy (or even any political ideology that is strongly tied to a monarchy such as the spanish monarchy in the 1600s) by contrast things are done "in the name of god(s)" with no further justification (although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)).
If you can recognize the difference and if you are of the opinion that some of the world's many many religions (presumably you consider every religion but one to be false and likely consider many denominations of your own religion to be false) then we can discuss whether the holding of false religions can be harmful and if we are in agreement that false religions are harmful then you should by logical extension understand my concern about belief in christianity unless it can somehow meet some reasonable burden of proof. Especially if it would inform your behavior in ways that would limit the liberties of others. For example if someone voted against gay marriage because they considered it a "sin" or voting for an observable less moral political candidate in order to avoid voting for someone who has a different spiritual ideology (or indeed none at all).
I want to be very clear I am not accusing you of anything I have mentioned above but I have observed arguments from Christians trying to justify christian beliefs informing actions. That coupled with manifest Destiny being A) observably an immoral idea and B) that it was not a true biblical command but was justified by the white Christian belief that white Christians should by divine providence own the world. The long and the short of it it almost doesn't matter what the bible says or if it is fiction or not. It has observably caused harm in reality. You could claim that this was not the will of the Yahweh but the fault of human immorality and I would agree. What we would disagree on is whether or not anything at all is the will of any god(s).
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
AD infinity is indeed material to the conversation. If time had existed forever, then we would be living in the year Infinity, although not AD Infinity. Yes, time passes; however, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present year if time had existed forever. We would be in the forever that never comes. Thus, time cannot have existed forever.
That it seems nonsensical to you does not mean it is not a possibility. Humanity once largely regarded lightning as an act of god(s) but then we became more able to investigate the phenomena and found that it is actually due to imbalance in the positive and negative charge. This is now fundamental to our understanding of lightning but if you could go back in time and try to explain this to primitive people it would sound nonsensical to them because they are fundamentally unaware of positive and negative charge and its effects on the movement of electrons.
No, it doesn't exist. Nothing in the sense I'm using it is not a thing that exists; it's the absence of anything existing.
The tautologically nothing as you describe it cannot be somethings cause. This is not the same as saying something could come about without a cause.
The definition from the Cambridge Dictionary is a good one. "To be, or to be real."
This is not especially helpful. What does it mean to be or to be real? How do we verify that things are real? That they are? What qualities does a thing have that make it real?
Very well. My evidence is a simple process of elimination. There are four possibilities (I forgot one the first time I listed them).
Ok
1. Time existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause.
I think I've pointed out that while I am not advocating for this position even if it seems like a nonsensical statement to say that time has always existed to us does not preclude it being the actual case.
2. Time hasn't existed forever, but it didn't have a cause.
Same as above. That this would seem counter intuitive is true but our best evidence that nothing occurs without a cause is that we have not confirmed positively any things that don't. Now we have observed virtual particles that appear to be causeless but if I claim that they are in fact without cause I would be committing the same black swan fallacy that you are committing when you say that the universe in fact does have a cause. The best we can say of either is that we are unaware of any demonstrable cause.
3. Time hasn't existed forever, and it did have a cause.
We both accept this as a possibility but while other potential possibilities exist we cannot rule that it is a necessary only a sufficient and an explanation being sufficient =/= it being true. On a separate note this thinking does not get us to a creator even if we accept it as necessary it only gets us to a cause.
4. Time has existed forever, so it doesn't need a cause, but it has one anyway.
Again this would seem counter intuitive but that does not make it necessarily untrue. Perhaps causation I'd not necessarily linear, especially if objects enteties and/or causes can exist outside of time (itself as seemingly impossible to me as something happening without a cause or time existing forever).
Created:
Posted in:
There's nothing in the Bible I disagree with.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
So either you believe that homosexuality should be a capital offense or you disagree with the bible.
Deuteronomy 22: 28 and 29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
So either you agree that a rapist should in some circumstances be allowed to marry his victim rather than be institutionalized in order to protect the public and also that women's worth can be calculated in an amount of silver or you disagree with the bible.
Leviticus 25: 44-46
Both thy bondman and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shalt be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them after you; they shall be your bondmen forever. But over your bretheren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
So either you agree that some people should be available for sale resulting in ownership of the individual as property in perpetuity including being passed down to ones children as inheritance or you disagree with the bible.
I could keep going and point out that the bible states that women cannot teach men, divorced women should be executed and that people who fail to believe in the Yahweh should be executed but I trust you get the point. Also I am perfectly willing to take these passages at face value so I am mostly uninterested in apologetics in this regard unless you can demonstrate a stronger reason to look into the matter than "but god is good though so he couldn't have meant that".
I am willing to abandon my argument concerning manifest destiny however, though it was argued for at the time as a Christian prerogative, and not because some native Americans are Christians but because the American west was not specifically mentioned in the bible and do it is not necessarily a biblical law. I am also prepared at least at this time to forgo any discussion of biblical scientific inaccuracies as it is immaterial to a discussion of moral principles unless the conversation takes that turn. The point is that most modern Christians disagree with or try to explain away many biblical laws (it is to he hoped.
There are no regimes that give themselves the title of atheist regime. No communist regime flies the "A" or "atom" flag. But they're an atheist regime by virtue of being atheist.
Whether communism necessitated atheism or not (and some forms of communism certainly do) atheism does not necessitate communism. The regimes you are referring to are regimes that are atheistic not atheist regimes in the same way that manifest Destiny was an belief commonly held by Christians at one time not a Christian belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I don't know why there being no sufficient evidence would be a problem. I don't believe in aliens from other planets. Many people do. But I don't consider it by any means a problem.
I don't know what you.mean by problem at this point. Could you clarify?
And I actually agree with you that if homosexuals were being killed in the name of Christianity in the U.S., I would consider that terrible. Or if native people were marginalized, the same.
Ok well I would consider it a terrible thing regardless of which country we are discussing and historically speaking this has been the case throughout history. Eleven today many Christians would like to criminalize gay (secular) marriage and the idea of manifest destiny that was used to justify nearly wiping out the native americans and which resulted in their still being relegated to small reservations was a primarily Christian belief which even if it is not popularly held today (hard to say since we have not given back the land) has modern and far reaching consequences.
You can't simply gloss over the attitudes of Christians that are observable throughout history and the injunctions in the bible against homosexuality and women and non believers (including believers of other religions) contained in the bible by saying that you personally disagree. Although it is admirable of you to realize that such biblical commands and Christian attitudes are monstrous and should be disagreed with.
I would also consider it terrible if an atheist regime took powerful, and imprisoned and executed religious folk.
This is a non starter. Atheists do not have a dogma or a creed and figures like Stalin and Mao did not persecute religious people in the name of atheism but rather in the name of the political systems they endorsed which are not shared by all atheists and are not "atheist commandments".
There are no "atheist regimes" only regimes that incidentally happen to promote atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Then what's the problem (if there is one)?
If by problem you mean why do I not believe I have already explained. There is no sufficient evidence to convince me.
Isn't it wonderful that we both have the freedom to believe what we believe?
It is neither wonderful nor terrible. It just is. The consequences of believing may be wonderful or terrible however. For example if you believe that there is no higher power and so we had better do our best to take care of one another because we are the only ones that will the consequences may be wonderful. Conversely if you believe in a higher power that instructs that a man who lays with another man should be put to death or that allows for the ownership of people as property in perpetuity or in the idea of manifest destiny leading to the genocide and marginalization of a native people by its "divine law" the consequences can be terrible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Preference =/= belief. I believe in many things I wish did not exist. My desire is immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Don't you have suspicions that I'm deluded to some degree? After all, I'm claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. Are you completely opinionless about my belief?
I have no trouble thinking that you believe you have such a relationship I just don't consider personal testimony sufficient evidence of such an extraordinary claim and I know that the senses can be unreliable. It isn't your belief I doubt.
With God, that's not the case. Believing means following.
This doesn't logically follow. If the Yahweh as described in the bible were demonstrated to me he would have some very serious explaining to do before I considered him worthy of my worship or even respect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
As I stated, you have the freedom to believe or not.
Of course I am free to believe or not. What I lack is the ability to believe in the absence of sufficient evidence.
There are a number of believers who were atheists. They didn't believe either. So I don't really by the "I have no choice" thing.
Please demonstrate how to choose to believe something you are unconvinced of. Perhaps by believing briefly that Voldemort is in fact a real being and not a fictitious character. I will then attempt to use your method.
I would be willing to wager however that people do not choose to believe but instead are convinced or unconvinced. In any case this is immaterial as it is not unique to christianity and atheists have also been known to convert to other faith based systems that are mutually exclusive to yours. This leaves me again with no way to distinguish between your faith based unsupported claims and other unsupported faith based claims. Assuming I can and do choose to believe in some god(s) what possible reason would I have to choose your preferred faith over some other faith?
Are you going to claim that your view of Yahweh as a criminal has no bearing on your non-belief?
That is exactly what I am claiming. Likewise my belief that Hannibal Lecter is a criminal has no bearing in my non-belief of that fictional character. My beliefs are predicated on sufficient evidence and nothing more. Please do not tell me what I believe or why I believe it. I know you aren't trying to be insulting but that is the net effect of implying that I am lying regarding my personal beliefs and standards of evidence. This is purely meant as a constructive criticism by the way and so long as you work to improve your behavior as an interlocutor no apology is necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Is there a claim that Voldemort is real?
Claims =/= reality. Undemonstrated claims are indistinguishable in truth value from claims which have not been put forward.
Just so there's no confusion, you have the freedom to choose whether or not Jesus is real. It seems a number of atheists in religion discussion forums choose to hold to Jesus as fictional. But what exactly is your conflict then?
Belief is not a choice. I cannot simply choose not to believe in something for which I have ample evidence (say the germ theory of medicine) nor can I simply choose to believe something for which I have insufficient evidence.
Other religions make claims, but I'm not aware of any others that stress having a personal relationship with a creator, or deity. The Muslims don't make that claim. Polytheistic religions don't seem to do that. Pantheistic religions don't. Buddhism most definitely doesn't.
Why does the specific claim matter if it is based on equal evidence and the claims are mutually exclusive? Why would I be more likely to believe in your unsupported claims just because you claim a personal god, whatever that means given that the god in question cannot be detected by normal means? As a side note I am not necessarily convinced that the claim of a personal god is unique to christianity although I am not prepared to debate that point at this time as it is in fact immaterial to the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
And wouldn't it be logical to assume that if you feel Yahweh is guilty of genocide, finding Yahweh would not be on your shopping list?
Would it be logical to assume that if you feel Voldemort is guilty of murder, finding Voldemort would not be on your shopping list? Or is it possible to recognize the fictional crimes of fictional characters without making the assumption that they could be real.
What other religions are making the same claim?
As far as I know all religions make faith based claims and as far as I know none has met its burden of proof for such claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Your assumption that I am unwilling to accept sufficient evidence is untrue and a little insulting. If you offer sufficient evidence I will have no choice but to accept your claim. Unfortunately the "evidence" you have thus far offered does not appreciably distinguish your faith based religious beliefs from those of other faiths. If all religions have evidence that can only be accessed if one sets aside one's skepticism and many religious beliefs are mutually exclusive then why would I believe you over some other theist with equal faith who claims you are wrong? Your argument for "holy spirit" (or rather the argument presented in the bible) leaves a lot to be desired. Would you care to reform and restate your argument with this in mind?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Arguably (all) religions (equally) can help to focus or mitigate human passions (which may or may not be a good thing depending on the situation) although religion is not the only effective method (others include breathing excercises or screaming into a pillow). How us this qualify as an endorsement of christianity specifically?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Dr. Franklin please try to keep up with the conversation. Humans are subject to human passions regardless of moral stance, religion, sex, nation or creed.
Created: