Spin-off of Why I believe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2017, 08:25 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(18-04-2017 08:11 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  First I would like to clarify I wouldn't want this spin-off thread to be seem in any way as taking over or away from SeaJay's thread. It was started at SeaJay's request due to his origin thread morphing into to separate and different ideas about what belief is being presented, I acknowledge my part of the blame for drifting off his OP. Hindsight of a different thread title would have helped. SeaJay's OP, correct me if I mis-speak SeaJay,
was the implication that a large part of his belief was based on fear, and specifically the fear of hell as presented in the Bible was real.

This spin off was more on the positive belief of God and prayer. Again hindsight is 20/20 Sad.

I believe it is quite easy to make a distinction between what I believe about the creator God and something that is merely imaginary. First what would make "something" merely imaginary. I say that if something is always presented and aways accepted by a majority of the people and the majority of the time is a good indication it is merely imaginary. Also if it presents itself as merely imaginary it would be accepted and viewed as merely imaginary. A few examples I would present as meeting what I would think qualifies for an accepted view of what would be merely imaginary would include: the tooth fairy, fairytales, the Easter bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster ( by self definition) , pink unicorns etc. it can reliably stated then that theses are merely imaginary by the majority of people.

Then what would serve reliably that there is a distinction between the God I believe as not just merely imaginary compaired to those above. The God I believe on is not taught and accepted by the majority of the people the majority of the time as being merely imaginary. The God I believe in does not define Himself as merely imaginary. I acknowledge that there are those who do teach and accept the God I believe as merely imaginary.

There are what I consider to be examples that the God I believe in is distinguished as much more than merely imaginary.

Examples that the God I believe in is not viewed as merely imaginary is:
God is taught that His Son Jesus came to earth. Is this just merely imaginary? The fact that the Georgia calendar marks that date and has been used and acknowledged that point in time with the designation BC and A. D. For hundreds of years to denofe that birth is more than merely imaginary

The founding fathers declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To declare our unalienable rights are endowed on us by a Creator is definitely not viewing the God I believe in as merely imaginary.

Our National Motto "In God We Trust" , a law of the land since 1956 and first appearing on coins in 1864 is anything but merely imaginary

Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” Merely imaginary?

If one simply looks there is a multitude of evidence that the God I believe in is reliably distinguished differently than those above as merely imaginary when compared to fairy tales etc.

A final note, no I'm not saying any of this implies nor is offered, nor claims as proof of God. But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.

Also note I acknowledge that for those who believe there is no god as definited as the one I believe in or lack a belief in or any god or gods I realize the above is meaningless other that the distinction noted.

Thank you for answering my question Yogi. Sorry it took me so long to respond but I've been extremely busy with work.

Your method reduces to "people believe in it and are taught it is real instead of imaginary", that's the essence of what you're saying. Unfortunately this is not a reliable method of telling the real from the imaginary. People are incredibly credulous and will believe all sorts of things that aren't true (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism for example). And the number of people that believe something or the strength of their conviction is not a reliable method either. It's fallacious reasoning.

As far as the calendar, this is not a reliable method either. The people who made the calendar were of course believers and what's to stop someone from basing a calendar on something that is merely imaginary? Nothing that I can see. If this were a reliable method then we would be assured that Wodin, Frig and Thor are real since Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are named after them. Better start worshiping them now or else!

Any method for distinguishing the real from the imaginary must necessarily adhere to the primacy of existence principle since it is only on this truth that the distinction can be made. This is why no matter how hard you try, you'll be unable to provide a method that is rational to answer my question and will be forced to resort to fallacious thinking. That is because when you say that your god is real you are contradicting yourself by making use of the primacy of existence while at the same time affirming the primacy of consciousness.

Also the christian based calendar isn't the only one currently in use, nor is it the only one that has ever been used. There's been MANY different calendar and dating systems, some people were just born in the right time and right place (with the right lack of general intellect) not to realize that in other places and times different calendars are used....

Seriously they are prolly aware of at least the Chinese calendar, guess they simply refuse to put in the smallest amount of thought..... Facepalm

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
19-04-2017, 06:11 AM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2017 07:35 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(18-04-2017 08:25 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(18-04-2017 08:11 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Thank you for answering my question Yogi. Sorry it took me so long to respond but I've been extremely busy with work.

Your method reduces to "people believe in it and are taught it is real instead of imaginary", that's the essence of what you're saying. Unfortunately this is not a reliable method of telling the real from the imaginary. People are incredibly credulous and will believe all sorts of things that aren't true (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism for example). And the number of people that believe something or the strength of their conviction is not a reliable method either. It's fallacious reasoning.

As far as the calendar, this is not a reliable method either. The people who made the calendar were of course believers and what's to stop someone from basing a calendar on something that is merely imaginary? Nothing that I can see. If this were a reliable method then we would be assured that Wodin, Frig and Thor are real since Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are named after them. Better start worshiping them now or else!

Any method for distinguishing the real from the imaginary must necessarily adhere to the primacy of existence principle since it is only on this truth that the distinction can be made. This is why no matter how hard you try, you'll be unable to provide a method that is rational to answer my question and will be forced to resort to fallacious thinking. That is because when you say that your god is real you are contradicting yourself by making use of the primacy of existence while at the same time affirming the primacy of consciousness.

Also the christian based calendar isn't the only one currently in use, nor is it the only one that has ever been used. There's been MANY different calendar and dating systems, some people were just born in the right time and right place (with the right lack of general intellect) not to realize that in other places and times different calendars are used....

Seriously they are prolly aware of at least the Chinese calendar, guess they simply refuse to put in the smallest amount of thought..... Facepalm

Great point. The Chinese also have the year of the dragon. I guess that means dragons are real.

I think the arguments of apologists are strong evidence that there is no God. You're this all knowing being and yet you let the ones defending believe in you parade around with such bad arguments that turn some away from believing in you when you could easily give them irrefutable arguments to use.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
25-04-2017, 02:49 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(13-04-2017 03:16 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  First I would like to clarify I wouldn't want this spin-off thread to be seem in any way as taking over or away from SeaJay's thread. It was started at SeaJay's request due to his origin thread morphing into to separate and different ideas about what belief is being presented, I acknowledge my part of the blame for drifting off his OP. Hindsight of a different thread title would have helped. SeaJay's OP, correct me if I mis-speak SeaJay,
was the implication that a large part of his belief was based on fear, and specifically the fear of hell as presented in the Bible was real.

This spin off was more on the positive belief of God and prayer. Again hindsight is 20/20 Sad.

I believe it is quite easy to make a distinction between what I believe about the creator God and something that is merely imaginary. First what would make "something" merely imaginary. I say that if something is always presented and aways accepted by a majority of the people and the majority of the time is a good indication it is merely imaginary. Also if it presents itself as merely imaginary it would be accepted and viewed as merely imaginary. A few examples I would present as meeting what I would think qualifies for an accepted view of what would be merely imaginary would include: the tooth fairy, fairytales, the Easter bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster ( by self definition) , pink unicorns etc. it can reliably stated then that theses are merely imaginary by the majority of people.

Then what would serve reliably that there is a distinction between the God I believe as not just merely imaginary compaired to those above. The God I believe on is not taught and accepted by the majority of the people the majority of the time as being merely imaginary. The God I believe in does not define Himself as merely imaginary. I acknowledge that there are those who do teach and accept the God I believe as merely imaginary.

There are what I consider to be examples that the God I believe in is distinguished as much more than merely imaginary.

Examples that the God I believe in is not viewed as merely imaginary is:
God is taught that His Son Jesus came to earth. Is this just merely imaginary? The fact that the Georgia calendar marks that date and has been used and acknowledged that point in time with the designation BC and A. D. For hundreds of years to denofe that birth is more than merely imaginary

The founding fathers declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To declare our unalienable rights are endowed on us by a Creator is definitely not viewing the God I believe in as merely imaginary.

Our National Motto "In God We Trust" , a law of the land since 1956 and first appearing on coins in 1864 is anything but merely imaginary

Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” Merely imaginary?

If one simply looks there is a multitude of evidence that the God I believe in is reliably distinguished differently than those above as merely imaginary when compared to fairy tales etc.

A final note, no I'm not saying any of this implies nor is offered, nor claims as proof of God. But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.

Also note I acknowledge that for those who believe there is no god as definited as the one I believe in or lack a belief in or any god or gods I realize the above is meaningless other that the distinction noted.

HuhHuhHuh What??

Okay, I don't find what you said intellectually offensive or dishonest. I just don't understand a word of it. Are you presenting evidence as to why I should believe that your god is distinguishable from my G-d? Please clarify for the peanut gallery.

Hi Alize, it's been a while I know but it has been very productive. I've been able to keep up with a sudden increase in workload with several jobs getting ready at the same time and it has allowed me to take in all the responses to the thread. It has been very enlightening.

The evidence presented was simply some distinguishing examples, for me personally, of why I believe God, as I see Him, is real to me and that the other things are not. The contrast isn't my God as opposed to your God but my God as opposed to: the tooth fairy, fairytales, the Easter bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster ( by self definition) , pink unicorns etc.

A second point of clarification is that the focus is on distinguishing my "belief" that the God I believe in is real as opposed to the "belief" that the other things listed are merely imaginary to me. I am not presenting the evidence as proof that one is real and the other imaginary.

It is amazing all the responses that challenge that the evidence was being presented as empirical scientific proof that God is real. There simply isn't any such empirical scientific proof as science cannot prove nor disprove those things outside of the physical and material. I have stated this many times and I also clarified this twice in post #216:

A final note, no I'm not saying any of this implies nor is offered, nor claims as proof of God. But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.

Also note I acknowledge that for those who believe there is no god as defined as the one I believe in or lack a belief in or any god or gods I realize the above is meaningless other that the distinction noted.

Something I've learned in my time away - some folks who claim a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods sure can get in a tizzy about something they have a lack a belief of. Interesting isn't it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 02:55 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 02:49 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 03:16 PM)Aliza Wrote:  HuhHuhHuh What??

Okay, I don't find what you said intellectually offensive or dishonest. I just don't understand a word of it. Are you presenting evidence as to why I should believe that your god is distinguishable from my G-d? Please clarify for the peanut gallery.

Hi Alize, it's been a while I know but it has been very productive. I've been able to keep up with a sudden increase in workload with several jobs getting ready at the same time and it has allowed me to take in all the responses to the thread. It has been very enlightening.

The evidence presented was simply some distinguishing examples, for me personally, of why I believe God, as I see Him, is real to me and that the other things are not. The contrast isn't my God as opposed to your God but my God as opposed to: the tooth fairy, fairytales, the Easter bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster ( by self definition) , pink unicorns etc.

A second point of clarification is that the focus is on distinguishing my "belief" that the God I believe in is real as opposed to the "belief" that the other things listed are merely imaginary to me. I am not presenting the evidence as proof that one is real and the other imaginary.

It is amazing all the responses that challenge that the evidence was being presented as empirical scientific proof that God is real. There simply isn't any such empirical scientific proof as science cannot prove nor disprove those things outside of the physical and material. I have stated this many times and I also clarified this twice in post #216:

A final note, no I'm not saying any of this implies nor is offered, nor claims as proof of God. But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.

Also note I acknowledge that for those who believe there is no god as defined as the one I believe in or lack a belief in or any god or gods I realize the above is meaningless other that the distinction noted.

Something I've learned in my time away - some folks who claim a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods sure can get in a tizzy about something they have a lack a belief of. Interesting isn't it?

Welcome back. Smile

No worries on the delay in your return. I hope you had a nice easter. I'm prepping for finals, so I've been pretty busy too.

Those last two sentences in your post are going to bring in a storm of replies, so brace yourself. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
25-04-2017, 02:59 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 02:49 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Something I've learned in my time away - some folks who claim a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods sure can get in a tizzy about something they have a lack a belief of. Interesting isn't it?

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

And by même chose I mean the same condescending religionist, full of the same shit.

Apparently a name change wasn't enough.

Quelle surprise.

Not. Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vera's post
25-04-2017, 03:10 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(13-04-2017 03:51 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  First I would like to clarify I wouldn't want this spin-off thread to be seem in any way as taking over or away from SeaJay's thread. It was started at SeaJay's request due to his origin thread morphing into to separate and different ideas about what belief is being presented, I acknowledge my part of the blame for drifting off his OP. Hindsight of a different thread title would have helped. SeaJay's OP, correct me if I mis-speak SeaJay,
was the implication that a large part of his belief was based on fear, and specifically the fear of hell as presented in the Bible was real.

This spin off was more on the positive belief of God and prayer. Again hindsight is 20/20 Sad.

I believe it is quite easy to make a distinction between what I believe about the creator God and something that is merely imaginary. First what would make "something" merely imaginary. I say that if something is always presented and aways accepted by a majority of the people and the majority of the time is a good indication it is merely imaginary. Also if it presents itself as merely imaginary it would be accepted and viewed as merely imaginary. A few examples I would present as meeting what I would think qualifies for an accepted view of what would be merely imaginary would include: the tooth fairy, fairytales, the Easter bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster ( by self definition) , pink unicorns etc. it can reliably stated then that theses are merely imaginary by the majority of people.

Then what would serve reliably that there is a distinction between the God I believe as not just merely imaginary compaired to those above. The God I believe on is not taught and accepted by the majority of the people the majority of the time as being merely imaginary. The God I believe in does not define Himself as merely imaginary. I acknowledge that there are those who do teach and accept the God I believe as merely imaginary.

There are what I consider to be examples that the God I believe in is distinguished as much more than merely imaginary.

Examples that the God I believe in is not viewed as merely imaginary is:
God is taught that His Son Jesus came to earth. Is this just merely imaginary? The fact that the Georgia calendar marks that date and has been used and acknowledged that point in time with the designation BC and A. D. For hundreds of years to denofe that birth is more than merely imaginary

The founding fathers declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To declare our unalienable rights are endowed on us by a Creator is definitely not viewing the God I believe in as merely imaginary.

Our National Motto "In God We Trust" , a law of the land since 1956 and first appearing on coins in 1864 is anything but merely imaginary

Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” Merely imaginary?

If one simply looks there is a multitude of evidence that the God I believe in is reliably distinguished differently than those above as merely imaginary when compared to fairy tales etc.

A final note, no I'm not saying any of this implies nor is offered, nor claims as proof of God. But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.

Also note I acknowledge that for those who believe there is no god as definited as the one I believe in or lack a belief in or any god or gods I realize the above is meaningless other that the distinction noted.

unfogged already pointed out that Argumentum ad populum is not a very good argument.

One billion Hindus believe in Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer, another 1.6 billion Muslims believe in Allah and Muhammad, if we go with your premise you have to acknowledge that they too are not imaginary. Now you have at least 4 competing and mutually exclusive gods. Blink

If all you need is a lot of people believing in one thing to say it isn’t imaginary or wrong then the world at one time was indeed flat and for centuries the Sun did revolve around the Earth right? Do you see the problem with your argument now?

Question for you Full Circle: If the "Argumentum_ad_populum" is not a very good argument why are you using it in presenting the beliefs of one billion Hindus? Do you see the problem that presenting an argument that you already stated wasn't a good one is kinda like proving yourself wrong? Just thinking out loud here.......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 03:10 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 03:51 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  unfogged already pointed out that Argumentum ad populum is not a very good argument.

One billion Hindus believe in Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer, another 1.6 billion Muslims believe in Allah and Muhammad, if we go with your premise you have to acknowledge that they too are not imaginary. Now you have at least 4 competing and mutually exclusive gods. Blink

If all you need is a lot of people believing in one thing to say it isn’t imaginary or wrong then the world at one time was indeed flat and for centuries the Sun did revolve around the Earth right? Do you see the problem with your argument now?

Question for you Full Circle: If the "Argumentum_ad_populum" is not a very good argument why are you using it in presenting the beliefs of one billion Hindus? Do you see the problem that presenting an argument that you already stated wasn't a good one is kinda like proving yourself wrong? Just thinking out loud here.......

Did you miss the part where he was using it to demonstrate it was a bad argument?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
25-04-2017, 03:52 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 02:49 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The evidence presented was simply some distinguishing examples, for me personally, of why I believe God, as I see Him, is real to me and that the other things are not.

"Real to me" is a meaningless phrase. your god either is real or it is not.

Quote:A second point of clarification is that the focus is on distinguishing my "belief" that the God I believe in is real as opposed to the "belief" that the other things listed are merely imaginary to me. I am not presenting the evidence as proof that one is real and the other imaginary.

You've shown that you believe something based on evidence no better than things you don't believe. You can believe whatever you want but if you want to convince anybody else that you are not being irrational then you need actual evidence.

Quote:It is amazing all the responses that challenge that the evidence was being presented as empirical scientific proof that God is real. There simply isn't any such empirical scientific proof as science cannot prove nor disprove those things outside of the physical and material.

So you are amazed that some people require legitimate reasons to believe things. The phrase "outside of the physical and material" is just as meaningless as "real to me" until you can explain how such a thing can exist and how it can interact with things inside. Claiming a god exists that can't be detected is simply pointless because you can make up any attributes you like for something like that. It's the invisible dragon on the garage.

Quote:A final note, no I'm not saying any of this implies nor is offered, nor claims as proof of God. But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.

Except that there isn't. All you've offered is the fact that many people have shared the same apparent delusion. That may be comforting for you but it doesn't make you any less deluded.

Quote:Also note I acknowledge that for those who believe there is no god as defined as the one I believe in or lack a belief in or any god or gods I realize the above is meaningless other that the distinction noted.

Fixed that for you. No distinction was made.

Quote:Something I've learned in my time away - some folks who claim a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods sure can get in a tizzy about something they have a lack a belief of. Interesting isn't it?

Spend your life listening to the majority of people around you telling you that Santa is real and that we have to pass laws based on that belief and that you are evil and unworthy for not crediting Santa for everything and you might begin to understand. As the song says, I ain't afraid of your Yahweh, I'm afraid of things that you do in the name of your god.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
25-04-2017, 04:16 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(15-04-2017 07:00 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I believe it is quite easy to make a distinction between what I believe about the creator God and something that is merely imaginary.

You should be answering the questions we've already posed, rather than continuing your apologetics.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  First what would make "something" merely imaginary. I say that if something is always presented and aways accepted by a majority of the people and the majority of the time is a good indication it is merely imaginary.

There is a difference between a created, fictional character and a character that is believed to be real, but is not. However the number of believers is not an indicator of truth, as others have noted. Seriously you don't really believe in the Easter bunny do you?

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Also if it presents itself as merely imaginary it would be accepted and viewed as merely imaginary. A few examples I would present as meeting what I would think qualifies for an accepted view of what would be merely imaginary would include: the tooth fairy, fairytales, the Easter bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster ( by self definition) , pink unicorns etc. it can reliably stated then that theses are merely imaginary by the majority of people.

The FSM is indeed imaginary, and was created to show the fallacy and failures of faith based belief.

However the millions of children believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus and the easter bunny. According to your logic (bandwagon fallacy) that would make them true. Saint Nicholas aka santa claus was indeed based on a real person.

Even worse for you, children can present actual evidence of the existence of the tooth fairy (missing teeth and money), santa claus (missing snacks and presents, mall santas, etc.) and the easter bunny (candy baskets, etc.)

Unicorns, even worse for you, actually do exist, although the stories have become embellished to the point of fiction. The actual bestiary texts that describe unicorns are talking about the rhinoceros. (Aaronra talks about these in one of his videos.) There are also cases of horned animals, like deer, having one horn and horn growth in other animals, even people. (google it. it's not pretty.)

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Then what would serve reliably that there is a distinction between the God I believe as not just merely imaginary compaired to those above. The God I believe on is not taught and accepted by the majority of the people the majority of the time as being merely imaginary.

Bandwagon fallacy.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The God I believe in does not define Himself as merely imaginary. I acknowledge that there are those who do teach and accept the God I believe as merely imaginary.

Your god does not define anything. People define their god(s), and interestingly enough, those gods always seems to agree with the desires and intentions of those describing them. Go figure.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Examples that the God I believe in is not viewed as merely imaginary is:
God is taught that His Son Jesus came to earth. Is this just merely imaginary? The fact that the Georgia calendar marks that date and has been used and acknowledged that point in time with the designation BC and A. D. For hundreds of years to denofe that birth is more than merely imaginary

The fact that people made a calendar for their character does not mean the character is real. According to that logic, Spongebob is real because we have TV schedules that show when the episodes air.

ALL HAIL THE MAGIC CONCH!!! LOOLOOLOOOLOOOLOOO

You also seem unaware that the dates (such as Dec. 25th) are arbitrary. There is no way to know the "true" date of jesus' birth. Another thing that you would think an omnipotent god would have thought of...)

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  The founding fathers declared "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To declare our unalienable rights are endowed on us by a Creator is definitely not viewing the God I believe in as merely imaginary.

The founding fathers used the language of the times in accordance with their own understanding and societal pressures. The founding fathers were various types of christians, theists, deists and atheists. The atheists mostly kept quiet about it.

Thomas Jefferson? Deist. He believed in a creator god and that jesus was an admirable but human person. Look up the Jefferson bible.

Thomas Paine? Atheist. We owe more to this man than any of the others. He was the first man to use the words Human Rights together. He was openly atheist and was socially ostracized for that.

Ben Franklin? Atheist but kept his views hidden.

The founding fathers also specifically wrote in the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE because otherwise, the feuding christians would never have ratified the constitution.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Our National Motto "In God We Trust" , a law of the land since 1956 and first appearing on coins in 1864 is anything but merely imaginary

A clear violation of the constitution. The former motto, E Pluribus Unum was much better and more appropriate. The motto was changed during one of the darkest, most repressive times in American History, the Red Scare. A fitting time to adopt a motto reflective of an oppressive god.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” Merely imaginary?

As a private institution Princeton can make their motto anything they want.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  If one simply looks there is a multitude of evidence that the God I believe in is reliably distinguished differently than those above as merely imaginary when compared to fairy tales etc.

Nope. I think I might have even proved that there is more evidence for the easter bunny than your god...

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  A final note, no I'm not saying any of this implies nor is offered, nor claims as proof of God. But is being presented as evidence that there is a multitude of evidence that there is a real distinction between the God I believe in and the other things noted above as merely imaginary.

Nope. Shredded on multiple levels.

Shredded on multiple levels. You sir are a legend in your own mind Yes

Just a couple points: Are you saying children define truth by their beliefs as children? Interesting concept but not held by many. Did you know that psychologists say it's good to expose children to fairy tails? Good read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dre...iry-tales. Even the Bible acknowledges that about children: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11

Neither secular nor biblical teachings promote that these childish beliefs be carried into adulthood...................you don't still believe in fairy tales and unicorns do you? I did say pink unicorns, not the ugly ones.

Another point, one which would not be obvious except you shouted it from the roof tops, is that the founding fathers did not write the phase "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" into the constitution. The constitution was written in 1787, the phase "separation of church and state" has gained frequent usage after Thomas Jefferson penned it in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. in 1802

It appears the motto "In God we Trust" isn't in violation of the constitution, except in your opinion, as it has been challenged several times even to the Supreme Court. In fairness I don't agree with evey decision they have made either.

I agree that as a private institution Princeton can make their motto anything they want, but the fact is they didn't make it “Under the Easter bunny she flourishes” instead of God in spite of the fact that you think you might have even proved that there is more evidence for the Easter bunny than God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 05:01 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 04:16 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Shredded on multiple levels. You sir are a legend in your own mind Yes

I am confident that the posts will speak for themselves.

I have responded to your points and not dodged any. If only you could say the same...

(25-04-2017 04:16 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Just a couple points: Are you saying children define truth by their beliefs as children?

I was using examples of fictional characters that children believe are real. Yes, they grow out of those beliefs. But when they believe in them, the children do believe the characters are real.

You are making a strawman. I did not claim adults define adult beliefs by childish standards.

(25-04-2017 04:16 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Even the Bible acknowledges that about children:

The bible also acknowledges that children are the spoils of war. Well the female virgin children anyway.

Careful about quoting the bible in reference to children.

(25-04-2017 04:16 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Neither secular nor biblical teachings promote that these childish beliefs be carried into adulthood...................you don't still believe in fairy tales and unicorns do you? I did say pink unicorns, not the ugly ones.

Yeah, still a strawman.

My point was the numbers of children who believed in mythical creatures, not that those beliefs would carry on to adulthood.

(25-04-2017 04:16 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Another point, one which would not be obvious except you shouted it from the roof tops, is that the founding fathers did not write the phase "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" into the constitution. The constitution was written in 1787, the phase "separation of church and state" has gained frequent usage after Thomas Jefferson penned it in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. in 1802

First, tell me please, what the Danbury Baptists were afraid of.

Secondly, the Founding Fathers wrote:

First Ammendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That'd be the Constitution, wouldn't it?
That'd be the Founding Fathers, wouldn't it?


(25-04-2017 04:16 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  It appears the motto "In God we Trust" isn't in violation of the constitution, except in your opinion, as it has been challenged several times even to the Supreme Court.

Would you object to the following mottos:

"In Allah We Trust"
"In Jehovah We Trust"
"In Buddha We Trust"

I can't really give an atheist motto, since there are no overarching organizations that speak for all atheists. Oh well.

In any case, do you see my point?

(25-04-2017 04:16 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I agree that as a private institution Princeton can make their motto anything they want,

But you don't see why that their choice of motto is meaningless?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: