Spin-off of Why I believe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2017, 06:41 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(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

Someone's been watching God's Not Dead 2. Drinking Beverage

Fatbaldhobbit basically already covered this, but while the phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't used until Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, it's important to understand why it was used then. Something FBH asked you about. Jefferson wrote these letters to explain the thing you're trying to not acknowledge, the Establishment Clause. The words "separation of church and state" are used to continue to further explain the Establishment Clause. He was assuring the congregation that the new federal government could not interfere with their church, nor could the government offer any special favors to any particular sect or church.

A few quotes from the Danbury Baptist Association's letter to President Jefferson:
Quote:Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty‐‐that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals‐‐that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions‐‐that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors.

...

we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men‐‐should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

And here's the relevant section of Jefferson's short reply to them:
Quote:Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

It's been used time and again in American jurisprudence to reiterate that the Establishment Clause is there for separating church and state. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black even stated about the letter, that it is, “almost an authoritative declaration” about that separation.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Shai Hulud's post
25-04-2017, 07:03 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 02:55 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(25-04-2017 02:49 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  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

Yes it was a nice Easter, those last two sentences were posted 22 pages back but from the posts I received they were basically disregarded so who knows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Yogi_Bear's post
25-04-2017, 08:15 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2017 08:35 PM by Yogi_Bear.)
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 03:52 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(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.

I totally 100% agree that He is or He isn't. I also understand "real to me" is a meaningless phrase to you and I would think it should be meaningless to you assuming you self identify as an atheist who lack a belief in God.

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.

I acknowledged in my introduction I had no preconceived notions I could convince anyone here of anything but came here to: "I come here not to proselytize nor stir up trouble or venomous arguments and have no preconceived ideas that any thing I might say or argument/position I might present hasn't been hashed out here over and over. Simply interested in exploring and understanding other people's worldview and their basis for holding those beliefs." To say that everything anyone believes requires empirical proof is painting with a mighty wide brush. I read a lot science articles and it is startling sometimes that the title of the article is stated as matter of fact but the number of times that: we think, could possibly be or mean, one could assume, maybe, it might be that etc. is used.



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.

No I'm not amazed that some people require legitimate reasons to believe things, what is amazing, at least to me, is that some people require scientific proof of God's existence while at the same time they acknowledge science cannot prove nor disprove God's existence. So are you saying you know with proof there is no "outside of the physical and material". Funny thing about science, it truly is a wonderful tool for helping us to understand the physical and material world around us but there are times past when a new discovery was made it did so at the expense of science proving itself previously wrong. Who's to say everything science holds true today will not be proven wrong tomorrow This is an interesting read about the possibility of dimensions outside the physical and material world so who knows what science might one day find: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13070896/ns/te...P_81NLyuUk

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.

It is totally understandable that it would seem deluded to some people, it was stated long ago the cross would be as foolishness to some but not to others.

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.

I won't pretend to say I do understand, having not personally experienced the things you have, but I can say I acknowledge your grievances and, like you, have experienced myself the judgmental actions and attitudes of religious professing people and unbelievers alike. (Expanded view above contains some more thoughts) [/i]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 09:22 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 05:01 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(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?

I did not claim adults define adult beliefs by childish standards. Really?

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

So you didn't state: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.)

Seems to me that yes, even as an adult, you stated that even children can present actual evidence of the existence of these as real and you go on to say: I think I might have even proved that there is more evidence for the easter bunny than your god...

Your question about the Allah, Jehovah, Buddha is the definition of strawman in it's truest sense.

As to Princeton's motto, no I don't see why their choice is meaningless. Perhaps you can put a spin on why Princeton University, one of the eight ivy league institutions of higher learning no less, would choose a meaningless motto but I don't think they would be buying it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2017, 09:27 PM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
Yogi,

Did you have any thoughts on my response to your method for distinguishing what you are calling God from something that is merely imaginary? Do you find any fault in my analysis of your answer? If so what is it? If not do you concede that there is no reliable method to distinguish it?

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
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
26-04-2017, 05:59 AM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 09:22 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I did not claim adults define adult beliefs by childish standards. Really?

No you did not. I misread that part of your post.

(25-04-2017 09:22 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  So you didn't state: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.)

Yes, I did say that. Children who believe in the tooth fairy, believe that the tooth fairy is real. That is what the word belief means.

It was in reference to your comments here:

(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.

Religious leaders see themselves as parents, the faithful as children.
Their tooth fairy is god and the boogeyman is the devil.

Continuing the point, the evidence children base their belief on is flawed. It does not stand up to scrutiny and upon investigation does not support their belief.

This is exactly the case with religion.
This is exactly the reason that empirical, scientific evidence is vital.
Anything that is "true" can be seen by everyone, not simply the "faithful".

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Seems to me that yes, even as an adult, you stated that even children can present actual evidence of the existence of these as real and you go on to say: I think I might have even proved that there is more evidence for the easter bunny than your god...

The evidence for god ranks right up there with the evidence for the easter bunny.

If you would like to present some evidence, we can discuss it.

(13-04-2017 02:45 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  Your question about the Allah, Jehovah, Buddha is the definition of strawman in it's truest sense.

FFS. Do you even understand what a strawman fallacy is?

When I misread your post and said that you believed adults defined belief by childish standards, that was a strawman. While it was unintentional, it was still my fault for misreading the post and it was indeed a strawman.

To reiterate, this is the post in question:
(25-04-2017 05:01 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(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?

My point was that I doubt that you would like having the motto refer to a god that was not your god. In other words, you're okay with "In god we trust" but I don't think you'd like it if the motto was "In allah we trust".

That is not a strawman, because I ASKED YOU WHAT YOU THOUGHT.
A strawman would be if I SAID "You wouldn't like it if the motto was..."

(25-04-2017 09:22 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  As to Princeton's motto, no I don't see why their choice is meaningless. Perhaps you can put a spin on why Princeton University, one of the eight ivy league institutions of higher learning no less, would choose a meaningless motto but I don't think they would be buying it.

Because the fact that an organization chooses a motto has no bearing on the truth of that motto. The people who chose the motto probably believe it is true. That does not mean that it IS true.

So you insinuate that because a group of people believe something it is true.
That is a bandwagon fallacy.

You use the fact that it is an institution of higher learning to bolster that claim.
That is an argument from authority.


ETA:
Still waiting to hear your response regarding the Danbury Baptists.

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
26-04-2017, 06:26 AM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(25-04-2017 08:15 PM)Yogi_Bear Wrote:  I also understand "real to me" is a meaningless phrase to you and I would think it should be meaningless to you assuming you self identify as an atheist who lack a belief in God.

No, it is a meaningless phrase with or without a god belief, Things are either real or they aren't. you don't get to decalre that your delusions are real because you think they are and not be considered irrational.


Quote:To say that everything anyone believes requires empirical proof is painting with a mighty wide brush.

To say that there are cases where it is reasonable to believe without actual evidence is to degrade what it means to be a rational person.

Quote:I read a lot science articles and it is startling sometimes that the title of the article is stated as matter of fact but the number of times that: we think, could possibly be or mean, one could assume, maybe, it might be that etc. is used.

Wow, you really are dense. The title of an article doesn't include all the nuance of the full article so that means people are believing things without evidence? Facepalm The whole point of those articles is to show the evidence that means that there is reason to believe something. Reminders that new evidence might modify or even overturn that belief are part of why science is far more reliable than religion.

Quote:No I'm not amazed that some people require legitimate reasons to believe things, what is amazing, at least to me, is that some people require scientific proof of God's existence while at the same time they acknowledge science cannot prove nor disprove God's existence.

You miss the point completely. There is no reason to believe something that has not been demonstrated to be true. This is not a "gotcha" from atheists.... you are claiming that a god exists and we say "please demonstrate". When you reply "we can't" then we say "then there's no reason to accept your claim". Your claim is hardly strengthened by the very fact that it can't be supported.

Quote: So are you saying you know with proof there is no "outside of the physical and material".

No. I am saying that we have no evidence for anything that meets that criteria and have no available way to investigate it. That means that a rational person holds no belief about it.

Quote:Funny thing about science, it truly is a wonderful tool for helping us to understand the physical and material world around us but there are times past when a new discovery was made it did so at the expense of science proving itself previously wrong. Who's to say everything science holds true today will not be proven wrong tomorrow This is an interesting read about the possibility of dimensions outside the physical and material world so who knows what science might one day find:

That is the strength of science. We look at the evidence we have now and try to find the best explanation we can that fits the facts as we know them. If new evidence is found then we modify our beliefs. That's called learning.

What do you offer as an alternative? Let's make up something without a shred of evidence to support it and then just assume that's the truth? Really? It's childish and pathetic.

Quote:It is totally understandable that it would seem deluded to some people, it was stated long ago the cross would be as foolishness to some but not to others.

Yes, cult leaders often disparage rational thought. That is hardly surprising. It is also just as worthless as the rest of their vacuous pontificating.

By the way, it would help if you learned to insert quote tags appropriately according to normal usage for this site.

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
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
26-04-2017, 06:46 AM
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.......

The Inquisition already pointed this out but let me reiterate, YOU MISSED THE POINT! Flew over your head like migrating Bar-headed geese flying at 21,000 feet.
Laugh out load

I’ll write slower.

Your.....point.....is.....refuted.....by.....pointing.....out.....that.....if...​..an.....argument.....by.....popularity.....is.....made.....then.....Hindus.....​and.....Muslims.....have.....just.....as.....much.....credence.....as.....your..​...unsubstatiated.....viewpoint.

Does..........that..........help? Consider

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
26-04-2017, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2017 10:09 AM by adey67.)
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
Mmmmm Consider This thread currently is like watching a very very uneven boxing match, painful.....but hard not to watch. Ouch ! Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
26-04-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: Spin-off of Why I believe
(26-04-2017 10:06 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Mmmmm Consider This thread currently is like watching a very very uneven boxing match, painful.....but hard not to watch. Ouch ! Wink

Train wreck, dude, train wreck. Popcorn

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: