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.
none of that has any relevance or bearing whatsoever on:
people recognize, acknowledge, engage, and participate in relationship with spirit.
Not surprisingly, I wasn't responding to that, or I would have quoted it. I was, however, responding to the portion of your post that WAS quoted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
....for a number of practical reasons and with a plethora of evidence in their own lives that satisfies a large number of people. a large number of intelligent, rational, reasonable, logical human beings....
... which suggests, to my reading, that we should be satisfied with appeal to numbers + appeal to authority + the "evidence" of personal experience as rational support for our beliefs. And THAT is what my response addressed.
I missed that part. Here I was judging him suspiciously. I should pay more attention. Thanks for pointing it out.
Yup. The guy is a clear mystic, but he has limits. I don’t think he will be appearing with Steven Anderson or any of the other demon haunted young earthers.
Not surprisingly, I wasn't responding to that, or I would have quoted it. I was, however, responding to the portion of your post that WAS quote
... which suggests, to my reading, that we should be satisfied with appeal to numbers + appeal to authority + the "evidence" of personal experience as rational support for our beliefs. And THAT is what my response addressed.
and if you had noticed, the quote I was responding to was this below, which said that "deity belief should be categorically dismissed in seconds by rational human beings" because "there is no evidence and no practical reason."
THAT is what my post addressed....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I have many beliefs. None of them are retained when there is no evidence to support their continued belief. Deity belief should be categorically dismissed in seconds by rational human beings that care whether what they believe is true or real. Why? There is no epistemic warrant, no evidence, and no practical reason. Plus it’s just silly in 2020, and it was probably silly in 1020.
....because it is categorically not true.
and because, as i said before, the evidence does not have to satisfy you.
just as your beliefs and opinions do not have to satisfy anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
clearly people know, understand, experience, grasp, and acknowledge something you don't.
clearly people engage and participate in a relationship which you do not.
for a number of practical reasons and with a plethora of evidence in their own lives that satisfies a large number of people. a large number of intelligent, rational, reasonable, logical human beings.
their evidence does not have to satisfy you.
just as your beliefs do not have to satisfy anyone else.
just as your quaint list of oddities (post #1490) is apparently of interest to you, but is totally irrelevant to anything I am addressing.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-30-2020 at 10:33 PM..
Not surprisingly, I wasn't responding to that, or I would have quoted it. I was, however, responding to the portion of your post that WAS quoted:
... which suggests, to my reading, that we should be satisfied with appeal to numbers + appeal to authority + the "evidence" of personal experience as rational support for our beliefs. And THAT is what my response addressed.
also i don't do tract speak, the rote regurgitation of vacuous shopworn phrases ("appeal to authority"! "appeal to numbers"! anything "fallacy"! ). For any kind of discussion to take place it needs to be in a person's own words.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-30-2020 at 10:41 PM..
also i don't do tract speak, the rote regurgitation of vacuous shopworn phrases ("appeal to authority"! "appeal to numbers"! anything "fallacy"! ). For any kind of discussion to take place it needs to be in a person's own words.
Since the vast majority of theistic spewing is littered with fallacious premises, assumptions, and conclusions, it is virtually impossible to discuss it without referring to its constituent errors of logic. If you are discussing theism without referencing fallacies, there would be total silence.
The vast shift in the population of America toward non-belief, especially by those under 30, is fueled by these millions of conversations, youtube videos, talk shows (Joe Rogan interviewing Richard Dawkins was great!), podcasts (Atheist Experience!), and online forums like these.
Exposing deistic fallacies is what is gradually causing a new American Enlightenment. Thank you for helping!
Hi Harry. Have you had a chance to view the video by James Tour? He makes a lot of points that should cause you to reconsider your 100% confidence in abiogenesis. Can you refute any of the points he makes?
James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained
Once again you are attacking (with your 22 minute video) our position without defending yours. If you can not provide a rational third option based on evidence, then I have no need to watch your video, which if honest will just be arguing we do not know the precise details.
Let me explain again. Because GodDidIt is so improbable (near 0% because of point 6), then not God must be most probable (near 100%). Until you provide a credible third alternative to abiogenesis, then my confidence level must remain 100%, even if we do not know the precise details.
Once you have reviewed the relevant papers I provided, then I will watch your video (or possibly look at what James Tour actually argues). Here are the papers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Sources
Well, I watched it. I get his point - we don't know how to synthesize life. We don't know how to create the components, we don't know how to assemble the components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
All he says is that we have not figured out how to create life yet. Big whoop. I could have told you that.
Excellent, that saves me time watching a video telling me something I already know.
none of that has any relevance or bearing whatsoever on:
people recognize, acknowledge, engage, and participate in relationship with spirit.
it gets back to using the best truths we have.
To me, when your spirits traits line up with the traits of the known universe then that "spirit" tends to be a more solid base to make life's choices. The statement of belief about spirit tends to broaden its reach so to speak.
If you guys would align your spirits traits, actions, and characteristics to the traits of the universe the statement of belief will have a tenancy to self correct over time.
notice tzaph, I do not just deny everything you guys say. I haven't suffered an abuse from religion so I have no ax to bury to help my therapy. In fact, I don't make any choices based on a statement of belief about god (yes or anti-god).
We only ask that your statements of belief line up with observation. We ask that you do not base beliefs on unknowns. And its a sin to ask a person to reject commonsense to form a statement of belief about god to us.
clearly people know, understand, experience, grasp, and acknowledge something you don't.
clearly people engage and participate in a relationship which you do not.
for a number of practical reasons and with a plethora of evidence in their own lives that satisfies a large number of people. a large number of intelligent, rational, reasonable, logical human beings.
their evidence does not have to satisfy you.
just as your beliefs do not have to satisfy anyone else.
his key word is deity tzaph. And also keep in the back of your head that there is a therapy component here. How should we talk about this with people needing therapy? does that mean anything to us? How should people talk to eachother (not needing a therapeutic session) talk in a room full of people needing it?
when we talk about what god may be or may not be that discussions goes in a different direction. the anti-god belief set falls as short as my-god-only types.
list some of the traits of your deity that we should follow? and lets compare your take and my take side by side. Along with the reasons we hold those beliefs.
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.
Not surprisingly, I wasn't responding to that, or I would have quoted it. I was, however, responding to the portion of your post that WAS quoted:
to ask a person to reject commonsense to form a statement of belief about god to us.