I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2017, 05:49 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 05:36 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 05:29 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  If it's science based then the foundation is not making up the rules.

And I do believe in a God, just not the Christian god.
Science based = something they've made up with no real definable methods behind it or actual scientists involved.


In an actual scientific method based test, something would have to be clearly defined that you can measure.


For example, take rob's rolls of the dice method. You place a psychic behind a screen, and roll a dice 100 times, asking them to tell you what
number it lands on each time. Then you do this over the course of several months to make sure it's not just a fluke/dumb luck on the first attempt. Depending on their supposed claims, you could expand on this a lot, but I honestly
can't understand how you dont get this:

A group of Psychics have invented a test, to certify other psychics, using a marking sheet that they have also invented themselves NOT
consulting a real scientist, and you think this somehow makes them capable of doing that?

It's like saying I could write a test, and test others, in the skill of flying.

According to the science council, this is the actual definition of science: Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Now the Forever Family Foundation is claiming to use evidence for their tests, so if they are wrong then why don't you sue them for conning poor fools like me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 05:50 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
This is all just bouncing around subjects looking for holes to poke woo into.

There are inherent limits to knowledge (what we can demonstrate to be probably true). We can either accept that, or make stuff up based on extrapolating the known into the unknown. Or just plain make stuff up based on what we want things to be like.

It's clear that "God" is made up because of how few people are prepared to define it; and when they do, they don't agree. So there's a God for each theist at best. If it's one single entity, they're almost all wrong about what it is.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
31-05-2017, 05:51 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 05:39 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 05:35 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  Or what if the psychics are the government and they're raising money for the government?

Sure...


You can write anything after "what if", but it's not of much use if there's no way to test whether it's true or not.


I think you're messing with us now.

Evidence of God? You've refused to even
define God, repeatedly.

I can assure you I'm not messing with you. I have paranoia because of schizophrenia
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 05:54 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 05:40 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 05:33 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  I'm not off track, we're talking about common sense and you're saying that actual common sense is not necessarily true. If that's true then how do we even know for sure that there is such a thing as reality?
Having "common sense" is a term used to explain how somebody *should* have knowledge of something, as most others seem
to do. You're taking this to be a random thing where in your world if common sense doesn't exist, the fabric of reality becomes unraveled for some reason.



i'm not saying knowledge doesn't exist, just the term "common sense" is normally a bad thing, because it implies people SHOULD know stuff
(like how you should know that psychics are garbage) but often they don't and it doesn't make them stupid, but more that you should tell them what they need to hear.
But how are there things that we "should" know if there may not even be a reality? Why should we know it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 05:54 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 05:49 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  According to the science council, this is the actual definition of science: Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Now the Forever Family Foundation is claiming to use evidence for their tests, so if they are wrong then why don't you sue them for conning poor fools like me?
That's what science is yes, but what don't seem to understand is they are setting the standards of this test, so could potentially make it easier to get the right answers, and even intentionally mark it as a "pass", for example, if they may have accepted a minor bribe.

That's just an idea, but if it's all done in house...on a test that THEY have made...that THEY mark as well...it just seems a bit backwards to me. You need independant study, from people NOT involved over the course of lengthy periods of time, not an afternoon in a barn guessing between 1 and 10.

I don't want Fop, goddamn it! I'm a Dapper Dan man!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OakTree500's post
31-05-2017, 05:57 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 05:54 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  But how are there things that we "should" know if there may not even be a reality? Why should we know it?
Like I've said "common sense" is just term used by people, it's not actually "a thing" like we don't have a common sense area of our brain. We say this as a majority of people know to do things, via being taught as a child, whilst others learn from experience. Again, going back to the milk in the kettle story. I know never to do this, as I was taught that you can;t do that. My friend didn't know this, and almost burnt his house down.

To be honest the term is normally used in a condescending way, "Come on mate, use your common sense" because you've done something wrong, as opposed to "something every has".

I don't want Fop, goddamn it! I'm a Dapper Dan man!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 05:57 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 05:45 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 05:38 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  Well I'm a her if that helps and just because there are occasionally different topics doesn't mean the thread is not all about the same thing: The evidence for God.



Sadly, the examples you use are simple rehashings of tired, old, worn-out and long-since-discredited arguments. I gently and
humbly suggest that you acquaint yourself with those arguments and refutations.

There's nothing new that you've presented that hasn't been examined in excruciating detail
before and found wanting.

There may be evidence for a God, somewhere, but so far, in thousands of years of trying, nobody has been able to show it yet. If
there was, the majority of us here would change our beliefs accordingly, based on that evidence.

I personally believe that people don't want to believe in God because there's so much suffering in the world. After all, if God is love and we know what love is, then why do we suffer?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 06:01 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
If you're not messing with us, why can't you define the word?

If you're going to say things like "God is love", you're just playing semantic games.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 06:01 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 05:57 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 05:45 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Sadly, the examples you use are simple rehashings of tired, old, worn-out and long-since-discredited arguments. I gently and
humbly suggest that you acquaint yourself with those arguments and refutations.

There's nothing new that you've presented that hasn't been examined in excruciating detail
before and found wanting.

There may be evidence for a God, somewhere, but so far, in thousands of years of trying, nobody has been able to show it yet. If
there was, the majority of us here would change our beliefs accordingly, based on that evidence.

I personally believe that people don't want to believe in God because there's so much suffering in the world. After all, if God is love and we know what love is, then why do we suffer?

> Speaking for myself, my beliefs and disbeliefs are involuntary and open-ended, based upon a preponderance of evidence. My disbelief in God has nothing to do with "wanting." Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 06:02 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:16 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 04:10 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  I never said "nothing is capable of being eternal." I was just quoting what you said to point out it was inconsistent.

As far as we know mass/energy can't be created or destroyed. While we don't know that this was true "before the big bang" (if there was
a before), it is still within the realm of possibilities that it was. In that case, the universe in whatever form is eternal, but no single thing can last forever within it. We just don't know yet.

So your first piece of evidence for God fails -- for lack of supporting evidence. You said you had "too much evidence." What else do you have aside from the cosmological argument? (Even psychics can't get you there if we can pose alternative explanations which can't be disproved.)
If nothing in the universe can last forever then it's not eternal. Eternal is to forever exist in the future.

No thing can exist forever. That doesn't mean the universe can't exist forever in some form. That's a category error.

Do you have any more evidence? (Since you didn't answer before, I'm back to assuming you're just messing with us.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: