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.
That is a particularly good question - how do you know you're not being deceived by a powerful trickster? Once you start believing in magic, where do you draw the line?
Probability and faith factors come into play. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
Then the atheist would still say, but how do I know that's really God, and not an imposter?
Nope. Then the atheist would say, "Wow. There really is a God."
Try again.
Quote:
If physical proof is the only thing that will convince you then no, I don't have it
Whew. (exhausted) And there you have it, folks, finally. Jeff himself, as we all have up until this post, is at last admitting he doesn't have an actual, quantifiable proof.
That took a while...and felt kind of like giving birth backward. On the back of a pickup truck offroading at 85rpm. With lots of rocks in the path.
But we come to the bottom line at last...why did it take you so long to admit that, Jeff? Wasn't that deliberately deceptive of you? Does such deception align with your religious beliefs? (Not being snotty, I am actually asking.)
I am not poking you with a stick here but you really don't see how such MOs as the ones you've been using here actually turn people away from religion? It is not uncommon to see apologetics, side-stepping and yes, deliberate deception of this type among the very religious. Have you observed yet how this has the opposite effect of what you wish you could achieve - all, or at least more, people believing as you do? That we non-religious see that and say, "I would never want to be a person who would stoop like that"? I ask that in all honesty. Think about it.
Probability and faith factors come into play. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
How can it NOT be just as likely as it is possible?
What makes it possible but less likely? Any statistical data or examples that can be shared to clarify the degree of difference that exists between possible and likely?
Does or can the degree that exists between possible and likely change?
Does it matter what the subject is as to how possibility and likelihood are related?
Is it usually an inverse relationship? Under what conditions might this relationship show properties of a direct correlation?
Lastly, is the relationship between possible and likely just an arbitrary concept that each individual designs the scales to fit their own perception?
Nope. Then the atheist would say, "Wow. There really is a God."
Try again.
Whew. (exhausted) And there you have it, folks, finally. Jeff himself, as we all have up until this post, is at last admitting he doesn't have an actual, quantifiable proof.
That took a while...and felt kind of like giving birth backward. On the back of a pickup truck offroading at 85rpm. With lots of rocks in the path.
But we come to the bottom line at last...why did it take you so long to admit that, Jeff? Wasn't that deliberately deceptive of you? Does such deception align with your religious beliefs? (Not being snotty, I am actually asking.)
Well you are being Moderator cut: ... . I am only saying that you can't fit God in a test tube and poke and probe. It's the equivalent of only convicting a murderer if the judge and jury personally witnesses the crime. But anyone with an open mind of reason and logic can examine the many facets of evidence and at least come to the conclusion, yeah there's something beyond this world, folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
I am not poking you with a stick here but you really don't see how such MOs as the ones you've been using here actually turn people away from religion? It is not uncommon to see apologetics, side-stepping and yes, deliberate deception of this type among the very religious. Have you observed yet how this has the opposite effect of what you wish you could achieve - all, or at least more, people believing as you do? That we non-religious see that and say, "I would never want to be a person who would stoop like that"? I ask that in all honesty. Think about it.
And what does that say about the atheist who must use tactics like labels, insults and personal attacks to try and appear superior? Without a single shred of support, you now throw out the label "deliberately deceptive". Deceptive about what? Nothing has changed. I still maintain that I have 100 points of evidence. I still maintain that it is a fruitless exercise to share such points with an audience that demands such points be iron clad on the altar of natural science. I still maintain that it would be difficult to really prove ANYTHING in life given the extreme measurements accepted by atheists here. Even with something like evolution, you are still taking it on faith that we really evolved from primates. You didn't witness it firsthand. You haven't seen one species transition completely into another. Yet that is the exact kind of evidence that you demand for God. So yeah, I fully admit, I don't have that level of evidence.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-11-2015 at 03:42 PM..
Reason: Snotty and rude comments are deleted.
I am only saying that you can't fit God in a test tube and poke and probe.
And since you can't, the end result is: it's way less likely that God exists, than that God doesn't exist.
You think anyone who doesn't respond to your posts the way you want us to is snotty and rude, so I'm not considering myself special in that department. What if you decided to stop being snotty and rude? I'll bet people would stop responding to you with same. Just a thought to keep in your back pocket. I was, FTR, being humorous (giving birth in the truck, etc.) but you seem to be so heavy about everything (here on the forum, I don't know what you're like IRL) so I'm not so surprised that you have responded this way. But if you have a problem with a post, you know where the button is, I mean what can I say?
Quote:
And what does that say about the atheist who must use tactics like labels, insults and personal attacks to try and appear superior?
It says that atheist uses tactics like labels, insults and personal attacks...and is not hypocritical about it. What does it say about a theist who uses such tactics...all the while proclaiming to be filled with Christ's love and encouraging - or rather hammering - that everyone else must be JUST like him in order to be acting correctly?
Well you are being snotty and rude. I am only saying that you can't fit God in a test tube and poke and probe. It's the equivalent of only convicting a murderer if the judge and jury personally witnesses the crime. But anyone with an open mind of reason and logic can examine the many facets of evidence and at least come to the conclusion, yeah there's something beyond this world, folks.
Have you ever provided said evidence? I have not seen any actually compelling evidence.
.... It's the equivalent of only convicting a murderer if the judge and jury personally witnesses the crime. But anyone with an open mind of reason and logic can examine the many facets of evidence and at least come to the conclusion,...
But that's what we don't do. We look at the evidence and what's the most reasonable conclusions. Those are rejected by theists on the grounds that "We didn't see it happen". In fact you say as much, here.
Quote:
.. I still maintain that it would be difficult to really prove ANYTHING in life given the extreme measurements accepted by atheists here. Even with something like evolution, you are still taking it on faith that we really evolved from primates. You didn't witness it firsthand. You haven't seen one species transition completely into another. Yet that is the exact kind of evidence that you demand for God. So yeah, I fully admit, I don't have that level of evidence.
We take it on the evidence. It is the anti -evolutionists who refuse to accept that it happened because they don't see it happen in front of their eyes.
In fact, it does - "Micro" evolution is accepted because it does happen before our eyes. it is denied that this could -or did - happen over a millions of years and lead to such changes that a different creature appeared. The only argument they have that isn't actually wrong is 'we don't see it happen'.
We look at the evidence and the arguments from both sides and arrive at what we consider believable, based on the evidence - just like a jury. It is the theists who say that we are being unreasonable because we can't be 100% sure or can't prove it isn't true.
And I'm still curious as to why you don't even respond to the invitation to provide one simple everyday bit of evidence that would prove Christianity and make me a believer.
There are new posts DAILY from the usual suspects bad-mouthing religion and attacking it. If you haven't seen that, you're blind.
Those things are not proselytizing.
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.
Just a thought to keep in your back pocket. I was, FTR, being humorous (giving birth in the truck, etc.) but you seem to be so heavy about everything (here on the forum, I don't know what you're like IRL) so I'm not so surprised that you have responded this way. But if you have a problem with a post, you know where the button is, I mean what can I say?
