Discussion in 'Community' started by Rogue_Ten, Jun 3, 2013.
What difference does it make to you?
The thing is, I have had experiences in my life that show me that God exists; they tell me that what I know and feel in my heart—indeed, feel in my Soul—is true. But these experiences are very close to my heart. I would not expect them—nor ought I expect them—to mean the same to you, timmo. Therefore, it is—IMHO—pointless me trying to explain those experiences to you.
They will not carry the same weight, because you did not experience and feel them as I did.
But—and here is where I expect I differ with a great many people of faith—that does not matter a jot to me. Because I do not believe that I need to prove it to you.
I am perfectly happy living my life, with my faith, in the knowledge that you are living yours with your beliefs.
No one wants to submit their beliefs to an independent review board for objective evaluation. Which is a shame, not that such a review board exists. But if it did.
See this is a good and proper response. Conflict arises in this world when certain pople of the power hungry variety use this as a tool to influence laws and education.
What you do, see, is get yourself one of these.
You take one of those metal drums in each hand, then you describe each of those experiences that shows you God exists. This device is called an E-Meter. The "E" stands for "evidence." You'll get a high reading on the needle if your experience offers good proof for the existence of an omnipotent deity.
"4- Even in the human experiment, you are setting out with the conclusion that there is no God. This leads to the conclusion, obviously, that there is no God. Both experiments are designed so that the cause of food or points is random. Within the human experiment, they are led to believe that they are to do something that causes the points. They are led to believe that the points are important, even if only for fun."Score 100 points within 30 minutes to open the door. Open the door to win the key," the walls say. So, they are simply lied to. "(you) score 100 points" is the grammatical translation of that phrase.
These are demonstrations of an idea, not proof that one is correct.
And they are false demonstrations of that idea" -me earlier to you (once again, it's understandable you didn't read it)
btw, "I agree we are not the same, but we are similar," simply is not an adequate response. Everything you said regarding pigeons to humans is in this vein. I didn't say we're not similar, but we. are not. the same. We function on a higher level. And it's irrelevant, anyway, as there was human testing and [see above].
evangelize (second def): to advocate a cause with the object of making converts
This was lest directed at you, specifically, and moreso atheists in general. It doesn't make sense to me that atheists would care to evangelize, but they do. That's why videos like the one you posted exist. (it makes some sense, but not good sense)
I don't define myself as an evolved ape, whether that's the method through which I was created or not. If you'd like to identify yourself as just another animal, I am not with you. I understand to a large degree why you hold your positions, but you must understand the foundational difference of belief in God changes everything. It is the lens through which you view life.
Why I'm wired to believe in God? If God exists, I'm wired that way because it is the truth, just like we are wired to breath.
You don't believe in God, so you must account for why people do, because there is a cause for every effect.
The onus isn't on you, but you tend to take it upon yourself, in actions like posting that video. I am telling you your efforts to do so, whenever you decide to act them out, will always be futile.
You may reject my idea of proof, but that's more because you don't want to hear it than the idea that it is not proof. A miracle of epic proportions simply would be sufficient proof for most.
But we'll all find out firsthand when we die. Well, you won't find out anything if there is no God, as you will not exist, either, but, whether it's nothingness or standing before God himself, the truth will be completely evident, so there's certainly beauty in that. 80 years isn't very long to wait, and many of us have a far shorter time than that.
I don't see any mechanism for the truth to become self evident in the likely event there is no afterlife. No true believer in God has ever been disabused of that notion upon death, except to the extent that they are equally disabused of all notions.
Because I cannot agree enough
It is not particularly difficult to do so.
Well that's the rub. Everyone now says their relationship with God is personal. Why? Why is God afraid of the public?
It's because only in the personal is there the emotional reasoning necessary to believe in a God. If we objectively, and publicly, evaluated God, it'd be a pretty short evaluation.
Billy Bob- Fair enough, but my point was to dissect V2's point that I must understand why I believe in God. If God is real, then it is already apparent. He makes this point because he does not believe.
But, he is publicly evaluated and the debate has not ended. In actual debates, educated theists are not laughed out of the building.
It matters because people constantly go on and on about how they "know" God exists. If they know it, why can't they prove it?
Geez, timmo... he's not trying to shove anything down your throat. I think his post was pretty reasonable. Why do you insist on badgering him?
Because if I made a claim that there was a purple unicorn in my neighborhood that farts glitter and rainbows, would you believe me, or would you want proof? And if I couldn't provide that proof, wouldn't it therefore follows that the unicorn does not actually exist?
Finally, after 20 pages we have our unicorn. Thread over.
harps, while I am loathe to find myself a co-belligerent to timmo, claims *should* be challenged, especially if the thread is specifically about that claim (regardless of the OP's troll status).
I always thought there was an even playing field for everyone - believers and unbelievers alike. We are all confronted by the same complete lack of objective evidence for the existence of a deity. What separates us, so the story goes, is the ability to adopt a deity through the mechanism of faith (of course you can point out that "adopting a deity through the mechanism of faith" is a tautology, since faith is defined as believing despite the lack of evidence).
Yet some people claim experiences that provide proof of a deity's existence. These people have no need of faith, because they have proof. I think it's natural when someone claims that they have passed beyond the need for faith after their deity has revealed its existence in some manner to inquire into the details of their experience.
I'll take hard evidence over faith and personal experience any day.
Well 'evidence' clearly has different levels of reliability. Evidence which is purely subjective and non-falsifiable, such as "personal experience" evidence, is the most unreliabilable and least compelling of all forms of evidence. If an argument is being made that God exists based upon the evidence of "personal experience" then I would say the evidence for that proposition is extremely weak in terms of reliability. There is an old axiom that states 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - the existence of God is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. If the best there is amounts to personal revelations then... yeah, I think the evidence which points to other factors other than a cosmic creator deity to explain the universe, the planet and all life upon it is far more compelling and reliable.
I found this awesome gem of a website today. Hooray, Christianity has been disproven!
Briefly skimmed it. Not a bad site.
Well for those that care, I will tell you many things are just a theory until you have experienced it first hand. That you know it is not just in your mind because someone was there with you to experience with you and confirm you never imagined it or are going crazy. They say yes that happened. I am talking about actual events that involves evil invisible beings. As one person told me one time, what sold them out of an agnostic belief system was that they observed the demons in action, not their fault other people were channeling them. They new instantly that if that side of the equation existed then the good side existed as well. There is so much more to it, but if you have ever seen a ouija board work, that is entry level kids play to them, and not recommended at all. There is intense evil in this world that mostly stays in the shadows, but the good guys are out there too and they are active, I have experienced that too.
This is a battle that has raged for eons see Mark 5
I also believe these beings have different personalities and they influence entertainment such as movies and songs in very subtle ways. "Iris" by the goo goo dolls is one example, not evil, just them getting their story out there.
Objectively though, it's not a very good one either. At all. A lot of times it bypasses arguments of any quality or logic, instead cheerleading for the atheists in the same way talk radio provides ideological reassurance to conservatives. Take, for instance, its "Jesus" section.
As a takedown, this incredibly weak. First, it's not at all clear why we're supposed to take this one passage as representative of all Jesus's moral teachings. Wouldn't each account have its own historical validity or lack thereof? Putting that aside, this passage is considerably less famous than the more oft cited Sermon on the Mount, which is more responsible for his reputation as a moralist. Even beyond that, it ignores that the three major themes found in that story (forgiveness, condemnation of Pharisaical hypocrisy, and admonishment to avoid immorality) are all persistent themes throughout every single one of Jesus's recorded teachings. Thus, even if we accept this particular story as false, it doesn't alter the fact that Jesus was a chief proponent of the views it is supposed to convey, and is thus as much a moral teacher regardless. So what did we actually do by elevating this example? It just offers a poorly thought out implication that all of Jesus's good reputation on this score is the result of fabrication.
Poor for different reasons, at least. Here, the author shows a pretty basic ignorance of conventions in Jewish religious texts. He makes great hay of the fact that some authors describe "angels" whereas others describe "men." First, this ignores that the men were described with glowing clothing, which was a clear otherworldly element. More to the point, though, angels are often described as men. The angel who gave Daniel an apocalyptic vision of the future is first described as a "man." So are the two angels that blinded the entire populace of Sodom and Gomorrah before killing every single inhabitant save Lot and his two daughters. So is the one that gave instructions to Joshua at Jericho, the one that permanently crippled Jacob by touching him, and the one that strolled around casually in an inferno with the Hebrew boys sentenced to death by Nebuchadnezzar. The obvious conclusion here is that angels were being presented as they always had been, not that there was some fatal contradiction between accounts.
This is by far the laziest section of the piece. It reduces to an argument that Jesus is not God because he didn't do things that the author personally would have chosen to. Along the way, he makes plenty of mistakes. For instance, he rhetorically asks about Jesus's failure to endorse the Old Testament, ignoring his explicit endorsement of the Law and prophets (collectively known as "the Old Testament"). Likewise, about his status as deity, even though Jesus approved of Thomas for addressing him as "My Lord and My God" and said others who did likewise would be "blessed." And this, ultimately, reveals the weakness of his whole argument in this section. He tries to lay blame at the feet of Jesus for any number of historical incidents, and suggests that somehow this was solely the function of some lack of clarity. In fact, as his own incomprehension shows, even points quite plainly stated can be ignored, overlooked, or distorted in subsequent interpretation, and the original speaker doesn't have much to do with it at all.
Let's pull up CARM or Answers in Genesis, shall we?