Willingness to believe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2016, 10:47 AM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 08:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok...and the more theologians look, the more God is there. In other words, there is always that "reverse" side of things. The opposite effect.
Scientists would use 21st century search techniques and technological devices if they were looking for the Christian god. Whereas theologians use what exactly? They have not one tool at their command, other than repetitiously trying to "prove" that their holy book is largely factual. And there's no such thing as your "reverse side of things" (whatever that means in English). Scientists have proved that the force of gravity exists; are you really going to claim that it doesn't?

Quote:God is adequately defined.
Nope. Of course it isn't. Many Christians believe that the words of the Gospel of John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time" and other numerous statements were meant to apply not only to God, but to all attempts at the depiction of God. Can you please give us your definition of this supernatural entity?

Quote:I would be willing to accept evidence against god's existence. *awaits the typical "you can't prove a negative" nonsense..*
It's been said a thousand times: It's the job of the proponent for the notion that gods exist to provide supporting evidence, and not the job of the opponent to disprove the notion. If I tell you I can fly, I need to jump off the roof to prove it; it's not your job to disprove it.

And here's a little task for you to contemplate: There are numerous written records held in Irish churches that consist of eye-witness accounts of Leprechaun sightings in the 16th and 17th centuries. Can you prove that Leprechauns do not (or did not) exist? And if you can't, does that mean that they do exist? After all, you're saying—in effect—that because atheists can't prove your god doesn't exist, it's "evidence" that he does exist. Which of course is absurd.

Quote:Why are you making it seem as if defining God is such a difficult task...as if that is the stumbling block for you?
Defining gods is actually a difficult task to achieve in a scientifically enlightened 21st century. It was a lot easier 2,000 years ago when it was thought that the earth was flat, and the sun and the moon physically moved across the firmament every day. And of course it's only logical that if you want to prove your god's existence that you define what compromises that existence—unless you do that, we won't know whether or not you've proved it will we? So I ask again, can you please give us your own definition of this entity? Should be easy.

Quote:Theists are willing to face life's challenges, we are just unwilling to accept the notion that mindless and blind processes (nature) can create things like universes, life, species, consciousness, language, and be the source of objective moral values.
The fact that you're "unwilling" to accept the tenets of the contemporary sciences, human inventiveness and modern philosophy is simply a failing of your dialectic processes, or logical argumentation. And do you truly believe that every time a single-cell amoeba divides spontaneously (as in nature) that it's because your imaginary god has told it to? Seriously?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
19-03-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: Willingness to believe
Among the many problems with theism this one is paramount:

(19-03-2016 08:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ... we are just unwilling to accept the notion ...

Yet:

(19-03-2016 09:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ... truth value is not based on what you like/dislike ...

Well, you said it yourself. But as you said at the top here, theism is terrible at opening its minds to learning to enlarge comprehension and not be confined by ignorance into only being able to understand childish concepts, or consider concepts it deems "unpleasant".

So you wind up in direct opposition against yourself - and incapable of persuasion by reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Airportkid's post
19-03-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 09:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything that is LOGICALLY possible. So the question is, is it logically possible for God to create human beings with FREE WILL but NOT allow them to commit evil acts WITH their freedom of the will? The answer is NO. It is not possible.

And this sort of "reasoning" is a clear illustration of your poor grasp of logic.

Your imaginary, allegedly omnipotent god let 5.9 million children under age five die in 2015 in sub-Saharan Africa, or 16,000 every day. This includes babies as young as one month old. Are you now going to claim that having (purportedly) endowed these infants with the power of free will, that they chose to die in pain from malnutrition and preventable illnesses? What "evil acts" did these innocents carry out to deserve death?

Can you answer this simple question: If your all-powerful god sees a 4-week old baby in distress, and about to die, why doesn't he step in and help the baby survive? Or is he a capricious, callous, arrogant god?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
19-03-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 08:48 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2016 02:17 PM)debna27 Wrote:  As a rationalist and a skeptic, since my deconversion I've always said that if the right evidence was there I'd 100% admit that there was a god. I do still feel that way, but something else has changed.
I used to say that I wished I could believe in God, and that I would like him to show me he was real so I could have the comfort of that belief system. But now that I've spent more time away from religion, I don't think I want that any more. I've stopped looking for God, not because I'm sure that he couldn't exist, but because a big part of me really hopes that he doesn't. Don't get me wrong: I'm still a rationalist and I will accept evidence of God if it's legitimate. But I'm not going to actively go looking for it right now.
I'm scared that I'm acting like a theist in that I only want to find things that support my worldview, and that I'm being closed minded. However, I'm cognitively willing to accept evidence, just emotionally unwilling, which seems like an important distinction.
Do any of you feel this way? (Sorry if it sounds convoluted, these kinds of topics never translate as well into words as I would like them to)

You just said it, "....not because I'm sure that he couldn't exist, but because a big part of me really hopes that he doesn't".

Now, why does a big part of you HOPE that God doesn't exist? Why? Why, why why?

Because the god I was taught about was kind of an asshole.

And because of comments like this. I got your point with the first question, and would have responded to it. I'm obviously struggling here (which is why I'm bringing it up in the first place), and I think it's rather unkind of you to metaphorically rub my face in that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes debna27's post
19-03-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 12:39 PM)debna27 Wrote:  Because the god I was taught about was kind of an asshole.

Nothing surprising. OT god is asshole, bloody one at that. Trying to make him into caring figure is an exercise in futility.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Willingness to believe
(18-03-2016 02:17 PM)debna27 Wrote:  As a rationalist and a skeptic, since my deconversion I've always said that if the right evidence was there I'd 100% admit that there was a god. I do still feel that way, but something else has changed.
I used to say that I wished I could believe in God, and that I would like him to show me he was real so I could have the comfort of that belief system. But now that I've spent more time away from religion, I don't think I want that any more. I've stopped looking for God, not because I'm sure that he couldn't exist, but because a big part of me really hopes that he doesn't. Don't get me wrong: I'm still a rationalist and I will accept evidence of God if it's legitimate. But I'm not going to actively go looking for it right now.
I'm scared that I'm acting like a theist in that I only want to find things that support my worldview, and that I'm being closed minded. However, I'm cognitively willing to accept evidence, just emotionally unwilling, which seems like an important distinction.
Do any of you feel this way? (Sorry if it sounds convoluted, these kinds of topics never translate as well into words as I would like them to)

The west teaches us concepts like fairness and empathy, but in science, in a lab, there is no such thing as fair.

You cannot for example, make the claim "My snarfwidget is real" and expect any credible accredited lab to invite you in.

You are allowing your sense of empathy and sense of fairness get to you. That certainly is a requirement in a civil society, but in science, claims are not treated as equal by default.

I call myself an agnostic atheist. As far as past and current claims my current position is "off". Technically and semantically in word only, I am "agnostic" about the future, only because I have not lived my entire future yet.

Our best data is running away from a god of the gaps as a requirement to explain anything and Stephen Hawking has said as much "A god is not required".

Now apply Occhams Razor to that, which stipulates out of all the proposed answers to a problem, the one with the least baggage, the least complex, is going to be your most likely answer.

You certainly already reject all many dead god myths like Thor and Apollo and Horus. But keep in mind, to the people back then, they were very real.

So out of these two choices, which one seems to explain why god claims exist.

1. A God or gods do exist?

Or

2. They are merely reflections of human's qualities reflecting the societies that created them?

Consider that there was no written religion 200,000 years ago, or 4 billion years ago, or 14 billion years ago.

Also consider that there are billions of suns in our galaxy in which a ray of light takes 100,000 years at the speed of light just to cross our galaxy. Also consider that there are 100s of billions of galaxies in our observable universe.

Now does it make sense that humans, or the gods and religions they make up matter to such a big and old universe? We cant even get out of our solar system, much less Mars right now.

Don't allow your self to fear that this is it and fall for "just in case". Monkeys might fly out of my butt in the future "technically", but how likely is that and what kind of danger would you be in if you gave up on such an absurd claim?

Religion being popular and god claims being popular are not because they are true, but because our species evolved with a very notoriously flawed sense of perception and old habits for most, are hard to break.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
19-03-2016, 01:34 PM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 10:47 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 08:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok...and the more theologians look, the more God is there. In other words, there is always that "reverse" side of things. The opposite effect.
Scientists would use 21st century search techniques and technological devices if they were looking for the Christian god. Whereas theologians use what exactly?
Presupposition.

They presuppose their god's existence, they then point out a multitude of things that they personally don't understand and boldly claim that it must have been god that done it.

Like Call of the wild professing to not understand how evolution can result in speciation, and boldly claiming that his god must have done it.
At no point does he try to question his god, how can it have always existed, how can it have intelligence before anything exists, what is it made of, how can it manipulate existence, how can it violate the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, non contradiction? So many questions, but the answers are just presupposed.

It's easier for presuppositions to intentionally remain ignorant on things such as the Theory of Evolution so that they can fully, and boldly claim that god must have done it. They have an incentive to be ignorant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
19-03-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 08:56 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2016 02:34 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  the more scientists look the more god isn't there.

Ok...and the more theologians look, the more God is there. In other words, there is always that "reverse" side of things. The opposite effect.

(18-03-2016 02:34 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  And one should remember that Piglet had advantage over god - he was adequately defined.

God is adequately defined.

Agreed. We are all B-b. There are those of us who realize Slack and those of us who don't.

P.S. Your philosophy fu is almost as weak as your logic and math fu.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 02:15 PM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 12:39 PM)debna27 Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 08:48 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You just said it, "....not because I'm sure that he couldn't exist, but because a big part of me really hopes that he doesn't".

Now, why does a big part of you HOPE that God doesn't exist? Why? Why, why why?

Because the god I was taught about was kind of an asshole.

And because of comments like this. I got your point with the first question, and would have responded to it. I'm obviously struggling here (which is why I'm bringing it up in the first place), and I think it's rather unkind of you to metaphorically rub my face in that.

COTW is a twit. Don't waste your time on him. A few like me will chirp him 'cos we get a kick out of making him wail and gnash his teeth, but it needn't bother you. Right now he's foaming at the mouth 'cos he's got a real live seeker here and he sees you falling off the cliff and becoming one of *them*.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-03-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: Willingness to believe
(19-03-2016 02:15 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 12:39 PM)debna27 Wrote:  Because the god I was taught about was kind of an asshole.

And because of comments like this. I got your point with the first question, and would have responded to it. I'm obviously struggling here (which is why I'm bringing it up in the first place), and I think it's rather unkind of you to metaphorically rub my face in that.

COTW is a twit. Don't waste your time on him. A few like me will chirp him 'cos we get a kick out of making him wail and gnash his teeth, but it needn't bother you. Right now he's foaming at the mouth 'cos he's got a real live seeker here and he sees you falling off the cliff and becoming one of *them*.

Thanks for the heads up. After I read some more of his posts I had started to drift towards that opinion as well, but I like to give people a chance first. It appears that he's been given that in plenty, so I'll keep that in mind from now on.

Also, I think that I've already become one of "them". For which I am grateful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like debna27's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: