Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, its NEVER logical to choose to believe. Can you choose to believe you can fly? If so, would this be logical?
The only practical way to find out what is true is by using a valid mechanism for doing so. If a mechanism doesn't exist, such as ways to examine the supernatural, then we can only wait until such a mechanism is discovered.
I don't follow you.
so its ok to "believe" in the "belief" if it has a mechanism? or do we just get rid of the word "belief".
"I believe that what he said is true". Thats not a valid statement?
or are you just saying "with no observations, don't believe in it."
be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"
Excellent Post. You just proved not only why the thread title is spot on but why God -believers are incapable of understanding that.
Ok you are going to play the 'Your post makes no sense to me, sit it must be wrong' (argument from incredulity).
The god -concept makes no sense when you even try to think what one is talking about.
"Creator" itself in equally applicable to 'however we came to be here' - but applying some god -belief baggage to the idea.
I proposed the idea that there had to be intent. Just natural processes isn't God, but nature. That the Theist fingers immediately jammed in the theist ears proved to me I have got it right. I know why they did it, too. Because there was something that was faisifiable. They now had the means to validate God -belief. I know too why they stuck their fingers in their ears, because Faith doesn't deal in evidence. It deals in the meaningless so that anything is possible and the anything they choose to believe is as good as anything else. Including the belief that heirs is the only meaningless that is right.
Tell you what you can do, Veep. You can grab the one thing that makes the "God" idea meaningful. Forward -planning intelligence. Otherwise, the Thread title is totally on the button
Actually, this is yet another post that does not understand the concept of GOD.
What is "GOD"? This is a topic of debate those of use who have studied religion have grappled with.
Is it a "creator"? Not necessarily. A self-creating universe could and has been considered GOD by Hinduism for a few thousand years in the form of Brahman, same with Taoism.
The statement "natural process isn't God, its nature" is laughable, as there is no way of objectively coming to that conclusion.
Look at it this way: There is no such thing as "love." It is just a bunch of chemical reactions doing on in the brains of people with less intelligence than myself to understand it is indeed a chemical reaction and nothing more.
Can the above statement be proven? Not really. Why? Because whether or not people refer to the chemical reaction they feel when they see their waste-of-time significant other is an arbitrary decision. I understand that and hence will admit that my very, VERY low opinions on people who waste their time on intimacy and "human connection" are indeed just that, opinions. When I meet the reddit/atheist who can admit that their opinions are just opinions, I will tip their own fedora for them and walk away.
Actually, this is yet another post that does not understand the concept of GOD.
What is "GOD"? This is a topic of debate those of use who have studied religion have grappled with.
Is it a "creator"? Not necessarily. A self-creating universe could and has been considered GOD by Hinduism for a few thousand years in the form of Brahman, same with Taoism.
Indeed?
Quote:
The statement "natural process isn't God, its nature" is laughable, as there is no way of objectively coming to that conclusion.
You really should become Mystic's 2nd disciple, as he and I argued out the same point at length. The fact is that, if you are going to use sound logic and valid evidence, the naturalistic default is the only one that we can logically come to, and thus all processes should be considered natural until demonstrated to be the work of a god. So far nobody has managed to come up with anything but faith -claims and non -science. I won't call the rhetorical swindle of calling natural reality "God" and then claiming that "God" is now proven to exist, laughable, but it is pretty ludicrous.
Quote:
Look at it this way: There is no such thing as "love." It is just a bunch of chemical reactions doing on in the brains of people with less intelligence than myself to understand it is indeed a chemical reaction and nothing more.
You are correct. There is no such thing as language. It is just a lot of people using mouth muscles to shape the expulsion of air over the vocal chords into various sounds which we have in various ways agreed to denote (when combined in certain ways) meanings. I'm glad that your superior intelligence has enabled you to understand that.
Quote:
Can the above statement be proven? Not really. Why? Because whether or not people refer to the chemical reaction they feel when they see their waste-of-time significant other is an arbitrary decision. I understand that and hence will admit that my very, VERY low opinions on people who waste their time on intimacy and "human connection" are indeed just that, opinions. When I meet the reddit/atheist who can admit that their opinions are just opinions, I will tip their own fedora for them and walk away.
I don't wear a fedora, but I will metaphorically tip one to any theist who is clear headed enough to recognize human conventional constructs based upon evolved instinct and decline to ascribe any of that to a god, and will admit that any Theistic beliefs they may have in one are based on Faith and nothing much else. When they do that, we shall have nothing much to argue about.
so its ok to "believe" in the "belief" if it has a mechanism? or do we just get rid of the word "belief".
"I believe that what he said is true". Thats not a valid statement?
or are you just saying "with no observations, don't believe in it."
be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"
My point is that one cannot chooseto believe. Either one is convince by the evidence or one is not. To be able to evaluate the evidence for a claim, one must have a mechanism to do so, i.e. science. Currently we have no mechanism to evaluate the supernatural, so any claim about the supernatural cannot be logically believed.
Spot on. It is all that we have that we can regard as reliable, and in fact cross -referencing from various disciplines have shown it to be very reliable. Arguments designed to make us doubt the validity of science or logic are pretty obvious ploys to try to debunk all kinds of knowledge so that a particular set of faith claims backed up with non -science and illogic can be peddled as truth to the unwary. Fortunately, we can see this coming a mile off.
My point is that one cannot chooseto believe. Either one is convince by the evidence or one is not. To be able to evaluate the evidence for a claim, one must have a mechanism to do so, i.e. science. Currently we have no mechanism to evaluate the supernatural, so any claim about the supernatural cannot be logically believed.
Thats what I thought. level of beliefs. Baseless beliefs are meaningless and beliefs based on unknowns are meaningless too. Supernatural is a null term, there is no supernatural, only unknowns. I know the definition but I think people misuse the word.
so "believing" in something because it fits a mechanism, like the standard model would be logical. For example: this region of space seems "alive" is a logical belief. It fits all known mechanisms and has nothing supernatural in the claim.
if we offer a sound mechanism we offer a sound belief. Although when we raise the dead in the future, I believe we will, I am sure that will be a mechanism. But for now, literal statements of belief or illogical.
A When I meet the reddit/atheist who can admit that their opinions are just opinions, I will tip their own fedora for them and walk away.
you have to remember vic that many atheist have as much an agenda as you do. They admit their opinions are opinions, its just that many, just like you do, say their opinion is the only logical choice.
people get put on ignore list for pointing out atheist personal needs being pushed as more better than than theist personal.
maybe when christians stop supporting literal christians we will have more atheist against fundy-milli-mental atheist
I'm not convinced of what you say. I have seen God in my daily life, and I love her.
So who is this really trying to convince? I suspect it's you. You want so hard to believe what you're saying but you know in your heart it's wrong.
A true believer doesn't need to convince anyone, they know it's true.
This is pointless. Those who resort to "You know I'm right, you just won't admit it!" have pretty much no other argument. It is Faith and trying to force the Faith onto the other side whether they want it or not. I'm actually disappointed with this, Bulmar, your being a sortagod agnostic, or I thought you were.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You just proved not only why the thread title is spot on but why God -believers are incapable of understanding that.
