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.
I have often commented that there is nothing gained, really, by shaking someone's faith, especially if it helps them get through the day sort of thing...
If expressing opinion about our universal truth -- on the other hand -- is somehow "reckless" according to you, then I can only assume you feel people are not mature enough to evaluate the facts of these matters like adults, or to simply turn the channel if they like. Again we don't agree, at all.
You want to veer far off the rails in one way or another with all this other angst and concern you want to introduce into the conversation? Fine. Let's talk about those things instead if you insist, but trying to follow your twisted line of reason related to mine is well beyond me. I can't follow you down your rabbit holes...
thats what I am saying.
We have atheist in our ranks that act just like some Christians in that they think they know whats best for us.
They want to control the type information and interpretations of that information that they feel curb religion's strangle hold.
Say Mystic. Time for me to sign off again, and as usual your comments continue to pull something like an itch you just can't seem to shake, but if we continue to engage tomorrow...
Please have mercy and stop swerving all over the road. I'm getting car sick. Hard enough for me to contend with your comments in response to mine without now reading I am not necessarily the target. Might also want to add before I go that what you now explain works both ways as well! No doubt you will agree.
I was taught to pray before every meal and before going to bed every day, and I did so without any question about doing so for a good long while growing up. What we may or may not learn or believe because "not all people are so mature, adult or capable of rational, reasoned discourse" is a very sharp "double-edged" sword!
While I have often commented that there may not be anything gained by shaking someone's faith if whatever someone believes "helps them get through the day," I have also at least as many times commented that ignorance is perhaps the biggest problem on the planet.
We are not that far apart in our general perspective except perhaps in what we are willing to presume is truth. Our biggest area of ignorance is about whether or not God exists and science despite all its attributes has NOT been able to remove our ignorance. So I agree, ignorance remains our biggest obstacle but so does unwarrantedly presuming we know what the truth actually IS. You have a protocol that you assert can best discern what truth is, but it has yet to provide any answer to the central question underlying these discussions - Does God exist?
Quote:
So..., regardless the consequences, some of us will talk about what is truth and what is not, for better or worse, and I don't know we should have any expectations as to result other than to let the chips fall where they may. Whatever we do, let us not be guided by the Bell Curve of human traits and abilities well established for large populations" when it comes to better educating ourselves, evaluating such truths. At least not for those so inclined or progress for the large population of human beings comes to an abrupt halt, if not takes us backwards...
We can evaluate the merits of the various things believed ABOUT God with some facility with varying degrees of success, but the central issue remains beyond the grasp of your protocol. The willingness of atheists to presume a default of No God belies the very principle of objectivity that underlies your protocol. It elevates a preferred answer for our ignorance as the answer from which we investigate the question. Talk about begging the question!
----- MysticPhD: We are not that far apart in our general perspective except perhaps in what we are willing to presume is truth. Our biggest area of ignorance is about whether or not God exists and science despite all its attributes has NOT been able to remove our ignorance. So I agree, ignorance remains our biggest obstacle but so does unwarrantedly presuming we know what the truth actually IS. You have a protocol that you assert can best discern what truth is, but it has yet to provide any answer to the central question underlying these discussions - Does God exist?
We can evaluate the merits of the various things believed ABOUT God with some facility with varying degrees of success, but the central issue remains beyond the grasp of your protocol. The willingness of atheists to presume a default of No God belies the very principle of objectivity that underlies your protocol. It elevates a preferred answer for our ignorance as the answer from which we investigate the question. Talk about begging the question!
-----
Conversations with online atheists
Selected clips from Sy Garte’s conversations with online atheists
(Sy Garte is a biochemist who has taught at New York University, the University of Pittsburgh, and Rutgers University. He is the author of "The Works of His Hands: A Scientist’s Journey from Atheism to Faith")
----- MysticPhD: We are not that far apart in our general perspective except perhaps in what we are willing to presume is truth. Our biggest area of ignorance is about whether or not God exists and science despite all its attributes has NOT been able to remove our ignorance. So I agree, ignorance remains our biggest obstacle but so does unwarrantedly presuming we know what the truth actually IS. You have a protocol that you assert can best discern what truth is, but it has yet to provide any answer to the central question underlying these discussions - Does God exist?
We can evaluate the merits of the various things believed ABOUT God with some facility with varying degrees of success, but the central issue remains beyond the grasp of your protocol. The willingness of atheists to presume a default of No God belies the very principle of objectivity that underlies your protocol. It elevates a preferred answer for our ignorance as the answer from which we investigate the question. Talk about begging the question!
-----
Well stated, Mystic.
and also, some atheist can't keep a discussion about religion and god separated. Then worse than that, we have some in our atheist ranks that knowingly choose anti-god at all cost to try and achieve a state that think is the best truth for us.
We are not that far apart in our general perspective except perhaps in what we are willing to presume is truth. Our biggest area of ignorance is about whether or not God exists and science despite all its attributes has NOT been able to remove our ignorance. So I agree, ignorance remains our biggest obstacle but so does unwarrantedly presuming we know what the truth actually IS. You have a protocol that you assert can best discern what truth is, but it has yet to provide any answer to the central question underlying these discussions - Does God exist? We can evaluate the merits of the various things believed ABOUT God with some facility with varying degrees of success, but the central issue remains beyond the grasp of your protocol. The willingness of atheists to presume a default of No God belies the very principle of objectivity that underlies your protocol. It elevates a preferred answer for our ignorance as the answer from which we investigate the question. Talk about begging the question!
Yes, we know how your word game prayer goes. But what about actual evidence for your opinions? Not wilful ignorance of 2,500 years of rational thought (it has never been a god did it), not wilful ignorance of Bayesian reasoning, not wilful ignorance of how 7.5 billion people require a physical brain to know things, where is the actual evidence?
Until you can provide that, all you have is a word salad.
The ONLY conclusion necessary is whether or not the subject TRULY BELIEVES they are being watched, NOT who the watcher is. If they BELIEVE it, it affects their behavior, period. If they don't believe, it doesn't.
Basic common sense proves your statement wrong. Christians believe they have somebody watching their every move. Atheists do not. Using your criteria, atheists would be committing the vast majority of the crimes in the world. However, we know that is not the case. Christians make up a larger percentage of the prison population than they do in the population at large. That one statistic is proof positive that your theory is wrong.
Basic common sense proves your statement wrong. Christians believe they have somebody watching their every move. Atheists do not. Using your criteria, atheists would be committing the vast majority of the crimes in the world. However, we know that is not the case. Christians make up a larger percentage of the prison population than they do in the population at large. That one statistic is proof positive that your theory is wrong.
Christians are a huge, loose demographic that includes those who are non-observant to those who do not have any need for there to be or NOT to be any Higher Powers.
Last edited by gabfest; 03-24-2020 at 06:52 AM..
Reason: do's & do not's
Basic common sense proves your statement wrong. Christians believe they have somebody watching their every move. Atheists do not. Using your criteria, atheists would be committing the vast majority of the crimes in the world. However, we know that is not the case. Christians make up a larger percentage of the prison population than they do in the population at large. That one statistic is proof positive that your theory is wrong.
You have no way of knowing who TRULY BELIEVES what, mensa. The critical factor is the sincere belief so your generalization using loosely assigned categories is irrelevant. The evidence is clear that if one TRULY BELIEVES they are being watched (for whatever reason), it affects their behavior, period. The critical variable is the true belief, not who or what or why they believe is watching. That factor is not discernible in your statistical or common sense theory.
We are not that far apart in our general perspective except perhaps in what we are willing to presume is truth. Our biggest area of ignorance is about whether or not God exists and science despite all its attributes has NOT been able to remove our ignorance. So I agree, ignorance remains our biggest obstacle but so does unwarrantedly presuming we know what the truth actually IS. You have a protocol that you assert can best discern what truth is, but it has yet to provide any answer to the central question underlying these discussions - Does God exist? We can evaluate the merits of the various things believed ABOUT God with some facility with varying degrees of success, but the central issue remains beyond the grasp of your protocol. The willingness of atheists to presume a default of No God belies the very principle of objectivity that underlies your protocol. It elevates a preferred answer for our ignorance as the answer from which we investigate the question. Talk about begging the question!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, we know how your word game prayer goes. But what about actual evidence for your opinions? Not wilful ignorance of 2,500 years of rational thought (it has never been a god did it),
There is no evidence that "no God did it" whatsoever, let alone 2500 years of evidence and that is a fact.
Quote:
not wilful ignorance of Bayesian reasoning,
Bayesian probability analysis quantifies our guesses, period. It provides no evidence.
Quote:
not wilful ignorance of how 7.5 billion people require a physical brain to know things, where is the actual evidence?
The brain produces the entity (Self) that DOES the thinking - like an apple tree produces the apple. Once produced the apple still exists whatever happens to the tree that produced it.
Quote:
Until you can provide that, all you have is a word salad.
I sympathize with your difficulties with reading comprehension. You can improve with time and effort.
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.
