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.
While it is an interesting discussion, the topic wasn't about proving that a god might be possible and the different ways to describe how it might be possible. It assumed that the reader was wrong and that there is now proof of the opposite.
Indeed. Appealing to Quantum -Woo in hopes to dismiss science so that any God -claim looks more likely has always been a favourite of the Believers. Actually looking at the religion itself seems to be far less popular other than trying to debunk evolution in the cause of Bible literalism or arguing for the resurrection as reliable eyewitness testimony that would stand up in a court of law is almost as popular.
Indeed. Appealing to Quantum -Woo in hopes to dismiss science so that any God -claim looks more likely has always been a favourite of the Believers. Actually looking at the religion itself seems to be far less popular other than trying to debunk evolution in the cause of Bible literalism or arguing for the resurrection as reliable eyewitness testimony that would stand up in a court of law is almost as popular.
here you go again "appealing to quantum woo in hopes to dismiss science" for god. That is not what happens.
that is an absolute intentional to try and dismiss anybody that uses science to for a belief that you don't want. You are the one that actually dismisses science and avoid/shuns any claims that use science but don't directly attack believers.
you list out the evidence and see what the evidence is describing. Then ones belief align with what the evidence is describing.
"appealing to quantum woo" is not a line of logic. Its is more to attack the person and minimize the claim so that a less reliable claim can look like it is on equal footing.
People that are worried about (I would say scared of) being wrong deploy the tactic in this post.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 10-05-2020 at 05:06 AM..
here you go again "appealing to quantum woo in hopes to dismiss science" for god. That is not what happens.
that is an absolute intentional to try and dismiss anybody that uses science to for a belief that you don't want. You are the one that actually dismisses science and avoid/shuns any claims that use science but don't directly attack believers.
you list out the evidence and see what the evidence is describing. Then ones belief align with what the evidence is describing.
"appealing to quantum woo" is not a line of logic. Its is more to attack the person and minimize the claim so that a less reliable claim can look like it is on equal footing.
People that are worried about (I would say scared of) being wrong deploy the tactic in this post.
Arq, will not stop, Arach. His ego will not allow him to. He wants to eliminate belief in God not just the deleterious effects of religion, as he claims.
he stops talking to people like me. People That don't care about what religious people say. We are not scarred by a theist, and do not have an ax to grind. we base no claim on faith.
He counts on well meaning people like 303 to bamboozle to just get out of his way. Its too bad they don't see it Castro-like all over again. like trans and mord tries to tell me. "Although the science is valid we need to avoid it so theist can't use it and make atheism harder to sell.
their brand of atheism is based on faith that's why they have to outlaw facts.
they won't debate "pantheism is irrelevant" because once we debate their position it becomes more like faith based atheism
thats why they they avoid people that are free thinkers. All strong faith based people are afraid of free thinkers.
...they they avoid people that are free thinkers. All strong faith based people are afraid of free thinkers.
Profound truth right there!
Both atheists and theists are critical of anyone who doesn’t go along with their herd mentality’s belief package.
If one is an independent thinker, there is no such label to describe their thinking.
I was just discussing with someone about prejudices inside the lds church (which I grew up with & still affiliate, though with boundaries). Some would say their main prejudice is blacks, others would say “non-members” - but who they avoid like the plague even more are those who have had a “faith crisis” &/or have come to see dysfunctional aspects of their belief package. In fact to be considered worthy they must promise not to affiliate with anyone who openly questions Mormon dogma. But it’s not just the lds - I’ve seen this with political herd mentalities (like ANTIFA) also.
“Speak nothing but the truth & you’ll soon be considered dangerous.” -A Brilliant
Arq, will not stop, Arach. His ego will not allow him to. He wants to eliminate belief in God not just the deleterious effects of religion, as he claims.
I agree, but I think it’s driven by more than just ego. I don’t think he’s as sure that God does not exist as his words and actions suggest. If he was so confident in his beliefs and truly desired to eliminate belief in God and the deleterious effects of religion, as he sees them, then being effective and striving to improve his efficacy would be a high priority to him, but it’s not. This leads me to believe his motivation is not really about achieving results from his efforts, but more about how the act of making the effort makes him feel in the moment (i.e. driven more by emotions than intellect). Do you agree?
I agree, but I think it’s driven by more than just ego. I don’t think he’s as sure that God does not exist as his words and actions suggest. If he was so confident in his beliefs and truly desired to eliminate belief in God and the deleterious effects of religion, as he sees them, then being effective and striving to improve his efficacy would be a high priority to him, but it’s not. This leads me to believe his motivation is not really about achieving results from his efforts, but more about how the act of making the effort makes him feel in the moment (i.e. driven more by emotions than intellect). Do you agree?
I think we could say something pretty much the same about you.
I would accept that god exists, but if it is the god of the OT, then I would not worship it.
Thank you very much for the straightforward answer.
Since the Old Testament is also integral to Judaism and Islam, would you also refuse to worship the God of those religions if you found out conclusively that the God of either of them existed?
I agree, but I think it’s driven by more than just ego. I don’t think he’s as sure that God does not exist as his words and actions suggest.
Gods, plural. And your usual non sequitur requires evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
If he was so confident in his beliefs and truly desired to eliminate belief in God and the deleterious effects of religion, as he sees them, then being effective and striving to improve his efficacy would be a high priority to him, but it’s not. This leads me to believe his motivation is not really about achieving results from his efforts, but more about how the act of making the effort makes him feel in the moment (i.e. driven more by emotions than intellect).
The irony is you rationally argued your god out of existence, and have an emotional fear of dealing with rational arguments you do not like or can not handle.
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.
