Hey, look. New meat.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2012, 05:03 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-07-2012 04:43 PM)Magoo Wrote:  Welcome Smile

The fact that you "know" a god doesn't exist, seems more ridiculous than any sort of religion. Religion: Belief with tiny tiny, crap evidence. You: Belief with ZERO evidence. Religion seems to be the winner. But we should leave that another time.

Welcome again Smile
Really? Let's not leave it for another time.
Don't you suppose that by "know" he might mean "is convinced"?

What evidence, even tiny crap, do you have?

Alright then, you asked for it. Even if he said "I am convinced", convinced on what evidence? Sort of the same thing, is it not? Consider

Evidence you say? Well for Christianity you have the bible. Technically it is evidence because it is eye witness accounts, but the reliability of these story's is obviously poor so clearly we shouldn't base our belief in the Christian god if we are getting our info from the bible. It is evidence none the less though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 05:10 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-07-2012 04:43 PM)Magoo Wrote:  Welcome Smile

The fact that you "know" a god doesn't exist, seems more ridiculous than any sort of religion. Religion: Belief with tiny tiny, crap evidence. You: Belief with ZERO evidence. Religion seems to be the winner. But we should leave that another time.

Welcome again Smile
Really? Let's not leave it for another time.
Don't you suppose that by "know" he might mean "is convinced"?

What evidence, even tiny crap, do you have?

Uh oh ... duck and cover bitches, terse and deadly fire in the hole [Image: uzi_left.gif]

Chas is right, Magoo. Unless you want to go spelunking in some seriously dark and twisted epistemological caverns, "convinced" and "know" are effectively synonymous.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 05:11 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 05:03 PM)Magoo Wrote:  Alright then, you asked for it. Even if he said "I am convinced", convinced on what evidence? Sort of the same thing, is it not? Consider

Evidence you say? Well for Christianity you have the bible. Technically it is evidence because it is eye witness accounts, but the reliability of these story's is obviously poor so clearly we shouldn't base our belief in the Christian god if we are getting our info from the bible. It is evidence none the less though.
Evidence that people can write down fairytales Tongue

I'm interested in the claim "theistic God I *know* does not exist". He's saying, I think, that theistic God has conditions to fulfill which make it into a disprovable hypothesis.

He does not claim the same for deist God.

(Distinction between theist/deist God is basically distinction between concrete Christian devil-God and abstract creative force God).

I think if OP can comment here would be nice?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 05:20 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 05:03 PM)Magoo Wrote:  
(16-07-2012 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Really? Let's not leave it for another time.
Don't you suppose that by "know" he might mean "is convinced"?

What evidence, even tiny crap, do you have?

Alright then, you asked for it. Even if he said "I am convinced", convinced on what evidence? Sort of the same thing, is it not? Consider

Evidence you say? Well for Christianity you have the bible. Technically it is evidence because it is eye witness accounts, but the reliability of these story's is obviously poor so clearly we shouldn't base our belief in the Christian god if we are getting our info from the bible. It is evidence none the less though.
The Bible has no eyewitness accounts whatsoever. The four canonical Gospels, for instance, were written decades after the purported events. The Bible is not evidence of any historical events.

The evidence for the non-existence of the Christian God is all around you, in nature, in the existence of evil and suffering.

I don't know that this God doesn't exist, i.e. I can't prove it, but I am convinced by the evidence that no such god exists.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 05:03 PM)Magoo Wrote:  
(16-07-2012 04:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Really? Let's not leave it for another time.
Don't you suppose that by "know" he might mean "is convinced"?

What evidence, even tiny crap, do you have?

Alright then, you asked for it. Even if he said "I am convinced", convinced on what evidence? Sort of the same thing, is it not? Consider

Shit ... should I just stay out of the way or should I pile on the young lad. Consider ... Ah fuck it, I'm gonna pile on.

It is perfectly reasonable to be convinced a claim is bullshit by a lack of evidence. I mean there's a tiny crap of evidence that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s, but I know they're not.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 05:39 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
I stand corrected. However, one could say that the person who claimed to have seen jesus's miracle could have been 20 when they saw it, and were 50 when they wrote it. And if it is really that simple how much rubbish the bible is, why the hell does KC believe in god??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 05:41 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 05:39 PM)Magoo Wrote:  I stand corrected. However, one could say that the person who claimed to have seen jesus's miracle could have been 20 when they saw it, and were 50 when they wrote it. And if it is really that simple how much rubbish the bible is, why the hell does KC believe in god??
KC had a mental/emotional storm that he perceives as a religious experience. He then went to the Bible for support in an ex post facto search for confirmation. A little like Egor.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 05:58 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
I'd say he's guilty of wanting to believe what's in the bible. After his 'experience', he probably wanted it to true so when he read the bible he was one-sided and bias about it. He seems quite intelligent and reasonable so if it wasn't for that experience I bet be would have dismissed the bible and stayed agnostic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2012 06:08 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 05:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-07-2012 05:39 PM)Magoo Wrote:  I stand corrected. However, one could say that the person who claimed to have seen jesus's miracle could have been 20 when they saw it, and were 50 when they wrote it. And if it is really that simple how much rubbish the bible is, why the hell does KC believe in god??
KC had a mental/emotional storm that he perceives as a religious experience. He then went to the Bible for support in an ex post facto search for confirmation. A little like Egor.

Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, and hell even learned helplessness, can be useful psychological tools if they help you keep your shit together (HoC's Gwynnies are a prime example). Their utility increases even more if you realize that they're merely psychological tools you are employing (again, HoC is a prime example) cause then you can manipulate them. I work with a bunch of scientists and engineers who are also deeply religious (in various cults). I don't understand it, but as long as it makes you less of an asshole and a more decent person, I got no issue with it. Both KC and HoC are some of the most decent people I've ever virtually encountered. To each their own when it comes to delusions. I know I got mine.

And, true to form, I see we have yet again derailed the shit out of another newbie's thread. ... Ah well, best to get 'em used to it early.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-07-2012, 06:11 PM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
So you are saying HoC would be messed up if it wasn't for his obsession with Gwyenth what's her face? Consider It keeps him happy and not being an asshole, sort of, ish?

EDIT: Lol yeah this thread has fallen off the tracks, down the canyon and exploded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: