Post: #326

If God made everything, he certainly is Chinese.

Post: #327

God was actually at my last meetup.

Post: #328

No. I don't believe in god because there is not a sherd of evidence to believe in one.

Same for unicorns.

Post: #329

(03-27-2016 02:14 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Pls define "perfect" and "holiness"

Ah, the semantic dance.

"define define"

I don't know why we can't all just use the dictionary definition of words.
95% of the time they are accurate in portraying what we mean, and we can dance around the 5% when they appear. It keeps the flow going.

(03-28-2016 05:05 AM)the-boxer Wrote:  No. I don't believe in god because there is not a sherd of evidence to believe in one.

What evidence would it take for you to believe in God?

Post: #330

(03-28-2016 05:37 AM)Sooth Wrote:  What evidence would it take for you to believe in God?

Depends how powerful you claim this god to be.

I'll take empirical, testable, verifiable and repeatable evidence - in direct proportion to the massive claims made on behalf of the god in question.

Post: #331

Is it too late to put a poll up? It seems most people here are leaning towards theism.

Post: #332

(03-28-2016 05:37 AM)Sooth Wrote:  I don't know why we can't all just use the dictionary definition of words.
95% of the time they are accurate in portraying what we mean, and we can dance around the 5% when they appear. It keeps the flow going.

Should be noted with vigor that instead of defining 'perfect' or 'holiness', regarding the post you replied to, you simply side-stepped this very important question and somewhat ridiculed the question asker.

Post: #333

Nor are they able to define perfection or holiness as it would show the lack of coherence in their arguments.

Post: #334

For those of you who used to be christian/religious in the past, I`d like to ask that you reconsider just one last time.
Don't look for scientific evidence. Tell yourself if there really is a God, than he should be able to hear and answer you.
Close your eyes, and ask God/Jesus to give you a physical and non refutable sign of his existence.
If you were truly sincere, you might be surprised by what you discover.

Post: #335

I like to think the GOD concept is real, but I have seen so many fucked up things in my long life that I have my doubts.

I do know that Satan is real and I have met many of his followers.

Post: #336

An excellemt video making arguments equivalent to those of Christians. Formatted link this time.

Post: #337

I believe in the Uncaused Cause.

Your father had a father, who had a father, who had a father etc...

There had to be something though that always existed, and will always exist.

The Uncaused Cause isn't sentient though, so it's not "God" as it's popularly known.

It's like the Higgs boson - it exists just to make sure that reality is working correctly, nothing more.

Post: #338

I am going to start a thread entitled Have you ever seen God or heard his voice?

Post: #339

(03-27-2016 02:14 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Paracelsus Wrote:Now we need to define "represented" and "physical world". Get back to me on that, and we'll be able to take that point further. In particular please consider the concept of ghosts or apparitions in connection with these definitions, and also memories while we're at it. Meanwhile...

Trying to win this debate by getting me to laboriously define every word (and give up) doesnt look like good form. But anyway
Physical World " everything that is perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Lets just say for something to exist it must be part of the Physical World as defined above.

Defining terms and defining the debate matters more in discussions about the existence of God than anywhere else, chiefly because atheists tend to be really bad at it.

I find it particularly interesting that you say in order for something to exist it must be represented in the physical world "perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete." Are you then saying that the mind does not exist?

I mean, if your definition of that which exists is restricted to what can be perceived through the senses, given the senses are biologically merely input channels, then if I produce an illusion of an apple, by your definition the apple would exist. This is an odd point of view given you go on to say memories "exist" as a combination of neurochemicals and connections in the brain. Yet we know memories are not tape recordings: biologically they are estimations of past events, estimations that get less accurate with time.

(03-27-2016 02:14 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  That we have no Grand Unifying Theory does not mean one does not exist.

I dont quite understand your point. Pls clarify. We know much about the universe and we have yet to find any existence that is not ordered ( i.e does not follow the laws of physics). Ironically it is you using the Gaps Fallacy to argue for an "unordered" existence. None has yet been proven.

You are confusing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. Science observes the latter: also see Karl Popper and falsifiability. Inductive reasoning is a matter of probability, not proof. Suggesting that we have yet to find any existence that does not follow current scientific theories of physics proves that they apply always and everywhere is inductive reasoning and is precisely the opposite of what science does: it seeks to explain a set of data observed, not assert positively that the theory holds for all sets of data known or unknown.

Quote:

Quote:I believe its more noble for man to be believe in a idea of Ordered Reality as it better reflects a functioning legal, social and economic system, especially a democratic society.

Why should human affairs be in any way a reflection of the physical phenomenon of the universe? Do the protons get to vote whether to split?

Quote:One reason, our universe is one of uniform laws, if god wishes to partake in it he must also follow those laws. Otherwise he might find himself with unintended consequences.

More generally, if we assume ÀLL existence must follow laws (we have yet to find a counter to this) then so should God. Whether they are perceptible to us is not relevant

These assertions all assume:
(1) God is bound by the physical universe
(2) God cannot influence the physical universe outside human concepts of how that universe works.

Many images, concepts, and religions propose God as both omnipotent and omniscient. These qualities are not compatible with a God bound to the physical universe; in short, why should an omniscient, omnipotent God be bound to the universe's physical laws?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #340

(03-20-2016 03:07 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  Since I started believing in God, keeping myself honest and holding myself to an unchanging moral standard has been much harder than anything I ever held myself to as an atheist. When you don't believe in God, you make yourself your own judge. Yes, maybe the lack of faith gives more uncertainty on the future, but exonerating yourself of and rationalizing away every bad deed you commit is far more intoxicating. For decades I would tell myself that yea, I'm imperfect, but I'm a good person. According to whom? If I'm the final answer on that, I'm always going to rule in my favor. The impulse only grows with age.

A big atheist argument I hear a lot is how belief in God absolves an individual from personal responsibility and that it's the easy way out; easy because God is supposed to be a Santa Claus for adults that brings gifts while asking for nothing in return. They seem to be forgetting that there's certain laws and standards that are meant to come with this belief. If anything I would think the easy way is there being no ultimate lawgiver and us being free to indulge every whim and fancy of ours. That's the mentality of a child who is still pure id with no restraint, funny given how much atheists like to refer to the theist mentality being child-like.

Another atheist cliche I hear is how believers in God are just looking a sky daddy to shelter them. If we're going to continue with Freudian daddy analogies then anti-theist atheists are pretty much going "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO DADDY I'M A BIG BOY I DO WHAT I WANT".

Post: #341

(03-30-2016 07:44 PM)Wutang Wrote:  A big atheist argument I hear a lot is how belief in God absolves an individual from personal responsibility and that it's the easy way out; easy because God is supposed to be a Santa Claus for adults that brings gifts while asking for nothing in return.

For extra hilarity, when an atheist next brings up this point, mention how horrible the Catholic Church is for making people feel guilty about their lives.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #342

^ I've personally witnessed the classic "thief who goes to confession". Steal thousands of dollars, priest says god forgives you, feel absolved of guilt, do it again. Religion's moral codes are only as strong as the priests that comprise it, and priests are but men.

Wutang I submit you're only blurring what I've said into "atheists calling theists child-like", because reading what I've actually said probably makes you uncomfortable about the nature of religion. You're welcome to rebut anything I posted.

Post: #343

(03-30-2016 11:18 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^ I've personally witnessed the classic "thief who goes to confession". Steal thousands of dollars, priest says god forgives you, feel absolved of guilt, do it again. Religion's moral codes are only as strong as the priests that comprise it, and priests are but men.

True enough. Plenty of people, when they mention Jesus and his encounter with the adulterous woman, skip the part where -- after saying that he does not condemn the woman -- Jesus says "Go and sin no more."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #344

It's been a long time since I read the bible, is there a story where someone re-offends one too many times, and Jesus refuses to forgive them?

Post: #345

(03-31-2016 05:01 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  It's been a long time since I read the bible, is there a story where someone re-offends one too many times, and Jesus refuses to forgive them?

Christ himself in his own words gave the answer to this question in Matthew 18:22.

Parable of the Unforgiving Debtor

21:Then Peter came to him and asked, “Lord, how often should I forgive someone who sins against me? Seven times?”
22:“No, not seven times,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven!"

Jesus didn't literally mean seventy times seven - he meant an infinite amount of times. He forgave all of us, so we are obligated to always forgive our fellow man. Treat others the way you would like to be treated. This message is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.

There is only one unforgivable sin in the Bible.

Post: #346

Seems like Jesus wasn't familiar with the term "moral hazard" then

Post: #347

God can't be proved or disproved. Either way, the existence (or non-existence) of a deity helps us to make NO PREDICTIONS about the world and how it works.

Post: #348

I used to not really care whether one way or another, and I just went along with what my parents and family taught me as a kid. But none of it truly resonated with me down to the core of my being. It was just like reading a few bedtime stories, a few of which are pretty good, but my reaction to most of what I was taught was more like "yeah okay, whatever" and I'd go back to what I was doing.

That was until a few days after my father died. I had a very spiritual experience during a dream while I was sleeping, a dream very much unlike any other dream, and cannot be explained in words.

I dreamed of being in a garden with my dad, and we had a conversation. I don't remember the words that was actually said, but it didn't matter. He was smiling and telling me that he was okay, no longer in pain and suffering (he had cancer), and that he was looking over my family and I. Then he walked away, through a gate, a blinding bright light overwhelmed my view. There was some colors in the light, like when you see the sun shining through the colored glass in the church windows. Maybe the folks who created the high arched church windows and the colored glass were really onto something?

Anyway, the blindingly bright light wasn't harsh like the sun, it was more of a warm and gentle light. But it was so powerful that it brought me to my knees, and the words "I'm sorry" reverberated around and within me.

Then I woke up. I was drenched in sweat. The bed I was sleeping in was completely soaked down to the mattress itself. It was still dark, not yet 4 am. As I went downstairs to get a glass of water in the kitchen (I was thirsty and dehydrated from the night sweats), I felt a strange calm over me. I felt at peace. It was as if I skipped over several stages of grief, from a mix of denial, sadness, and anger, straight to acceptance. After one night. One dream.

As I thought it over while drinking that glass of water, about the conversation with Dad, the bright light, and the words "I'm sorry" that brought me to my knees. It was the single most powerful spiritual and emotional experience I have ever had in my life.

I truly believe it was God saying "I'm sorry" (for the loss of your father). Just writing about this gets me emotional, even after 8 years. And the final kicker is, I never dreamed about my dad again to this day. Not once. Ever.

So my answer is, yes. I believe in God. To an outsider, this may not be evidence enough to prove that God exists. But to me, it is enough. However, that doesn't mean I believe in religion. I see religion as a completely different and separate thing from belief in God.

Post: #349

(03-27-2016 10:14 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 12:17 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 06:24 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  No, I believe that debating the existence of someone else's deities, and debating the truth of the tales of their mythical characters they tell, is childish (in a literal 'assuming the role of the child' way). Debating the nature of religion is not. These are two different things.

I think people arguing the existence of an omnipotent creator/idea/force with bits of discussion on the roots of Christianity. We're not imposing morals here or saying X religion is right.

Why do you feel this discussion(not one talking about the morals of religion as you've assumed) is wrong?

I'm trying to approach the religion question from a 'zoomed out' perspective. 'Do you believe in god' is not the foundation question, the foundation question is 'in what ways do humans control each other with words'. As I have said before, religion has a biological origin, not the other way around. There is one species with many religions, not one religion with many species.

You're assuming what you're trying to prove. You don't know if God exists or not yet you assume biology comes before God.

Technically speaking, you cannot be certain of this.

Quote:The whole purpose of establishing deities is that they are subjective. The gods that are talked about will never present themselves to confirm or deny the interpretations of the priests. That is by sociological design. An objective god could be challenged with a non sociological input (e.g. someone else makes a differing observation of that gods will via his own telescope or other instrument). That would defeat the purpose. The purpose is to gain dominance over morality, by elevating the most socially savvy to an unchallengable position via a competitive cognitive and knowledge-intensive process of winning subjective debates.

But the problem of subjective interpretation when applied to objective phenomenia is present when discussing anything, not just God. Whether it is discussing one political system is superior to another, or whether or not one type of rocket is better than another for exploring space there is always an element of subjectivity involved. The idea that anything can be purely objective is fantasy.

Quote:To be clear, I do not think this is 'wrong' per se. Indeed, people like me are interesting cases in that whilst I am completely atheist, my morals are pretty much the same as the Christians here, for instance. I would not be too upset if I had children that were being indoctrinated with Christian morals. But the purpose of religion is to impose morals, in a socially hierarchical manner. That is the primary reason it exists, as too is simpler morality imposing devices like Santa Claus. So to the extent that you submit yourself to it, you are not in control of your own fate. You are delegating your conscience to a priest. That is fine for the majority of people, who the current era clearly indicates have little concept of right or wrong, but it isn't good enough for me on agency and self-dependence grounds.

No one is saying you should defer to a priest. Priests are meant to be accepted the same way any other expert should - not with blind obedience but with respect and deserving of attention. They of course can still be wrong.

Quote:So I merely claim the following: 'do you believe in god?' is not a real question, but a request to establish social/moral and dominance/submission hierarchy in the human species.

It's simply not true. It is an objective question that deserves serious consideration. What created the universe?

Post: #350

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  You're assuming what you're trying to prove. You don't know if God exists or not yet you assume biology comes before God.

Technically speaking, you cannot be certain of this.

I am assuming nothing, I am merely looking in the mirror at my human self and trying to see more than just my face. "You don't know if God exists" is a sentence with no meaning. It's point of origin is the question I'm trying to answer. As I see it, when a man stubs his toe, he says "ouch"; and when he strikes the boundaries of the low-fidelity model of the world he carries in his head, he says "god" (or sometimes "gods" or "spirits" etc). The fact that god is then frequently presented in rebuttals to these ideas I have presented is thus consistent with them.

Because the sound "god" (or "allah" or "spirit animals" or names of various norse gods etc) is generated by humans in a social manner, and is inconsistent, I can assume that biology proceeds religion. There are many religions produced by one biological species; not one religion producing many biological species (who each follow it). The history books are full of thousands of different religions, but only one humanity is producing those books.

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  But the problem of subjective interpretation when applied to objective phenomenia is present when discussing anything, not just God. Whether it is discussing one political system is superior to another, or whether or not one type of rocket is better than another for exploring space there is always an element of subjectivity involved. The idea that anything can be purely objective is fantasy.

But which kind of statement is this? That you present it to me in debate is an admission that you actually recognize objective reality. For if we could simply choose our own versions of reality, there would be no point in debate. Both of us accepting that we are observing the same objects is the core of debate, the process by which we reconcile our differing observations of the same thing. Otherwise this is just noise. Do you think it is just random noise, or more meaningful?

Reality is purely objective, subjectivity merely stems from the limited, grainy, and inconsistent rendering of reality that exists in our minds. Subjectivity is then whittled down, not 'objectivity being inflated up'.

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It is an objective question that deserves serious consideration. What created the universe?

It is not a question that deserves serious consideration, because no consideration (serious or not) could provide more answers. It is akin to making a photocopy of a fuzzy picture, expecting the result to be sharper. Using a label of "god" in place of "I don't have the knowledge" is only a different language of response, not differing levels of understanding. As always, where science ends, god begins, precisely because "god" just means "I don't know" and nothing more.