I came across a video on youtube that I found very entertaining. It was a simple video and describes the problems with God in a very simple and concise manner.

Basically what it does is offer 10 questions about God, Jesus and the bible. Some of these are toughies such as:

Why doesn't God heal amputees? Why are their prayers ALWAYS on deaf ears, while those suffering from cancer and other far less understood conditions, sometimes healed through prayer?

There are more 9 more similar questions that are difficult for a christian to answer. It points out that a christian CAN and does answer those questions, but they have to come up with some pretty creative and inventive ways to do so, often times offering simple horseshit such as the "mysterious ways" or "we are not to question" pantload.

There exists of course TONS of questions like this about God.

This thread does not exist to discuss the myraid of creative, abstract and flimsy answers a theist can come up with to "answer" these many, many, many questions. The point of this thread is to drive home the same ideal the video did:

Atheists have one very simple answer to any difficult question about God, such as why he will not heal amputees, and the great thing about this answer is, it is both universal (can answer every question one has about God) and logical.

What is this perfect answer.......

God is imaginary.

-------

Link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

Why won't God heal amputees

I never knew the Christian God placed such importance on the physical body, infact I think the Bible warns against pleasures of the flesh.

I'm not Christian but, I do enjoy a good argument, maybe I'll watch the clip and find answers to the other questions.

EDIT: ah, I realize you don't want anyone attempting to answer questions, continue masturbating away to the infallibility of your beliefs atheists.

I never knew the Christian God placed such importance on the physical body, in fact I think the Bible warns against pleasures of the flesh.

I'm not Christian but, I do enjoy a good argument, maybe I'll watch the clip and find answers to the other questions.

EDIT: ah, I realize you don't want anyone attempting to answer questions, continue masturbating away to the infallibility of your beliefs atheists.

The orthodoxy says that since The God of the OT is the same as the NT, than God created you and you are your body and soul until you die when your soul is caught up to heaven and given a spiritual body or descends to hell in a "physical" rendition so you may feel your torments for all eternity. The Catholic Church says that this world is real because, it is created by the All-Loving God.

However, quantum physics is showing that most of the physical is really "not there." It only appears to be, the Gnostic world of forms is the physical world and we are platonic (Platonism / Neo Platonism) in that we believe we come from another place somewhere so different from the physical reality. From a Gnostic perspective the world is "not there" aka illusion. Meanwhile The Pleroma (The Fullness) for all of humanity is our real home, where we really come from, this is the Platonic other world... So different from the physical reality.

Be easy on the atheists, if it was not for them I wouldn't have been able to heed their warning about the dangers of being irrational in trying to explain my beliefs. However, unlike the atheists (popularized form) I believe that reason can only go so far before it turns into rationalizations.

However, quantum physics is showing that most of the physical is really "not there."

Quite literally, did you know that the human body is 99% empty space?

It only appears to be, the Gnostic world of forms is the physical world and we are platonic (Platonism / Neo Platonism) in that we believe we come from another place somewhere so different from the physical reality. From a Gnostic perspective the world is "not there" aka illusion.

Yup, Arms has said time and again, "The soul is nonlocal. Just like Jay Leno isn't in your t.v., your soul isn't in your body." God is everywhere.

Meanwhile The Pleroma (The Fullness) for all of humanity is our real home, where we really come from, this is the Platonic other world... So different from the physical reality.

We are all one, separation is an illusion. Because as you stated before, tangible objects are nothing more than a few atoms and alot of empty space, there must be some sort of energy holding them together. Cue in life energy, call it whatever you want: soul, essence, chi, prana, etc.

Oops, my gnosticism is showing :).

We are all one, separation is an illusion. Because as you stated before, tangible objects are nothing more than a few atoms and alot of empty space, there must be some sort of energy holding them together. Cue in life energy, call it whatever you want: soul, essence, chi, prana, etc.

Why does it have to be something spiritual? This is a classic theist blunder. Just because we dont have a complete understanding or even decent understanding of something it must be magical.

I say classic, because when we did not understand what was happening during an eclipse, we thought an evil force was trying to snuff out our life giving sun. Thor's hammer causes thunder and storms are his rage, Zues provides the lightning. Neptune will sink your boat with a storm, if you bring a human with a vagina on board. The Earth is 6,000 years old, we are the center of not only the solar system, but the universe.

It has been a CLASSIC pattern of human behavior to explain what is not understood with the most fanciful stuff imaginable.

Why jump to conclusions?

I never knew the Christian God placed such importance on the physical body, infact I think the Bible warns against pleasures of the flesh.

I'm not Christian but, I do enjoy a good argument, maybe I'll watch the clip and find answers to the other questions.

EDIT: ah, I realize you don't want anyone attempting to answer questions, continue masturbating away to the infallibility of your beliefs atheists.

By all means attempt, and you WILL answer these questions with something. That is the point, is that when dealing with a non empirical concept like God, any answer will do, you just have to dream it up.

You should watch the video, unless it makes you uncomfortable.

BP, we see the world differently... You think solely empirical data is the only way to explain anything. While I think empirical but intuitional knowledge goes a long way. I find it that you are limiting yourself to one way of knowing. You may disagree, hey if you think its just "dreaming" than I cant help you, only you can do that.

By all means attempt, and you WILL answer these questions with something. That is the point, is that when dealing with a non empirical concept like God, any answer will do, you just have to dream it up.

You should watch the video, unless it makes you uncomfortable.

Now dreaming it up is for men who seek to exploit beliefs do to control people. If you think contemplation is just "dreaming" than I feel sorry for you, truly I do.

I saw the video back in my fundamentalists days, back than yeah it made me uncomfortable but my search goes on and now that does not make me uncomfortable in the least bit.

You rely on empirical data as a way of explaining most every single thing in your life. It is pretty self-evident that we all do.

The main thing in your life you refuse to explain with empirical data, is also the most uncomfortable prosepect. I do not find this to be a convienant coincidence.

Death without a soul, is a rather unsettling prospect.

I can see why so many would like to believe that our ghosts live on for eternity, and granny is not simply food for worms, but just b/c an idea is comforting does not lend any more actuality to the idea.

Telling me my mind is boxed in, and I just can't grasp the depth and scope of what you are saying is foolish. I can grasp everything a theist suggests. Just b/c I don't believe everything I hear, does not make me close minded; simply means I am not naive.

Why does it have to be something spiritual? This is a classic theist blunder. Just because we dont have a complete understanding or even decent understanding of something it must be magical.

I say classic, because when we did not understand what was happening during an eclipse, we thought an evil force was trying to snuff out our life giving sun. Thor's hammer causes thunder and storms are his rage, Zues provides the lightning. Neptune will sink your boat with a storm, if you bring a human with a vagina on board. The Earth is 6,000 years old, we are the center of not only the solar system, but the universe.

It has been a CLASSIC pattern of human behavior to explain what is not understood with the most fanciful stuff imaginable.

Why jump to conclusions?

Since when has Spirituality become synonymous with Superstition?

One can be spiritual and still have as clear an appreciation of the way the world works as anyone else, I'd dare say there are Spiritual athiests out there. Just because someone is spiritual doesn't mean they are instantly a drooling barbarian, or an uncomphrehending child, you are jumping to conclusions.

Saying we are all one is not spirituality, it is an expression of one persons spirituality. Using the words Prana, energy, soul , God, etc is not spirituality, it is an expression of a persons spirituality.



I'm sure there's other stuff I should write... But Ican't think of it.

Since when has Spirituality become synonymous with Superstition?

Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

You tell me the reason or knowledge you posses to affirm the existence of a spirit, and it will cease to become a superstition.

I did not say someone who believes in a spirit is a drooling barbarian. I simply pointed out a human pattern of behavior that explains the unknown with imaginative thinking.

The correct answer to this question:

Do we have a spirit?
Is
We don't know.

Oh noes, a gap in knowledge on a very scary issue. Let's hurry up and fill it with something comfortable.


Saying we are all one is not spirituality, it is an expression of one persons spirituality

No. If we are all one than there is no other persons expression. Suggesting we are all one, and saying what connects us is some for of mystical energy is another superstition.

My orginal point of certain things being self evident still remains, even more so for this one.

IF we are all one, why is it YOU need to tell me that? Why is that not self evident?

If your belief were bullshit and made up, that would explain why you have to tell another person what the core of their own personal existence is.

Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

You tell me the reason or knowledge you posses to affirm the existence of a spirit, and it will cease to become a superstition.

I did not say someone who believes in a spirit is a drooling barbarian. I simply pointed out a human pattern of behavior that explains the unknown with imaginative thinking.

The correct answer to this question:

Do we have a spirit?
Is
We don't know.

Oh noes, a gap in knowledge on a very scary issue. Let's hurry up and fill it with something comfortable.

First of all, I don't believe in a spirit (and for that matter I don'believe there isn't a spirit),nor do I believe that spirituality has to be 'Magical' or connected to an afterlife , or anything like that.

I believe that spirituality is simply the sense of one being connected to the world around them, not in any bullshit magic-love-energy, but simply in the way that we are part of the world around us. Spiritualiy is the feeling of being part of the world, and from this arise spiritual beliefs. But these beliefs are not spirituality themselves, it is merely a way or the individual to express this feeling.

It also seemed to me that you were connecting spirituality with ignorance of the workings of the world as though one included the other. If you are not saying, or ggesting, that spiritual people are ignorant people, then my apologies.



No. If we are all one than there is no other persons expression. Suggesting we are all one, and saying what connects us is some for of mystical energy is another superstition.

My orginal point of certain things being self evident still remains, even more so for this one.

IF we are all one, why is it YOU need to tell me that? Why is that not self evident?

If your belief were bullshit and made up, that would explain why you have to tell another person what the core of their own personal existence is.

'We're all one' is an expression, and it doesn't have to express some magic bullshit idea that you think it does. It can be used to express the idea that we are all one in that we are all living, thinking human beings, we all share certain drives, can experience certain things, and depite our up-bringing or beliefs we are essentially similar. It could also be used to express that we are one in that we are all in this universe, and all that seems to sperate me from this computer is that I seem to see a self in this whatever it is I'm made of.

And yes, I suppose that suggesting some kind of mystical energy connecting us may be a superstition.


Edit: On looking around it seems we may be thinking of differant kinds of Spirituality, I'm thinking more along the lines of Naturalitic Spirituality apparently, so, make of that what you will.

I wonder why atheists keep dragging amputees into these discussions. My guess is that some are so young and inexperienced that they cannot conceive of the possibility of having a rich and fulfilling life when one has a body that has lost some structural integrity.

There is a well-known writer whose name I can't recall at the monet who writes these wonderful positive books, always impresses people with his up-beat outlook, and the guy is a paraplegic.

Closer to home, my sweety is a semi-invalid--on her worst days she can't get out of bed and her son feeds her and all. Yet she continues to amaze everyone who reads her blogs with her honesty, integrity, humor and the depth and profundity of her thinking.

Another thing-- "healing" is not about simply making symptoms or conditions go away. It is more about attaining a state of joy and peace of mind in spite of the symptoms or conditions.

In short, we are not our bodies. Our essential self, the "real" us, is eternal, immutable.

I wonder why atheists keep dragging amputees into these discussions. My guess is that some are so young and inexperienced that they cannot conceive of the possibility of having a rich and fulfilling life when one has a body that has lost some structural integrity.

There is a well-known writer whose name I can't recall at the monet who writes these wonderful positive books, always impresses people with his up-beat outlook, and the guy is a paraplegic.

Closer to home, my sweety is a semi-invalid--on her worst days she can't get out of bed and her son feeds her and all. Yet she continues to amaze everyone who reads her blogs with her honesty, integrity, humor and the depth and profundity of her thinking.

Another thing-- "healing" is not about simply making symptoms or conditions go away. It is more about attaining a state of joy and peace of mind in spite of the symptoms or conditions.

In short, we are not our bodies. Our essential self, the "real" us, is eternal, immutable.

Or yours and hers healing powers are as great as your powers of predictions.
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1738260&highlight=predictions+2007&page=9

Edit: On looking around it seems we may be thinking of differant kinds of Spirituality, I'm thinking more along the lines of Naturalitic Spirituality apparently, so, make of that what you will.

Very well, but you will excuse the myraid of misunderstandings on my part, for so many here say "We are all one" and mean exactly that, and mean it through mysticism. Which is superstition.

I will say acknowledging that we are all one, and meaning that we share certain irrefutable common characteristics, is something that is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, and doesn't really warrant a discussion any more than a discussion on how we all have circulatory systems or brain stems.

A rather moot point.

I am not saying that your claim we are all one, and not meaning it in a spiritual (using the COMMON parlence of spiritual here) way, is a cop out...but damn if it ain't close.

So which is it....a moot point, or a superstition?

In short, we are not our bodies. Our essential self, the "real" us, is eternal, immutable.

I believe this would be self-evident were it true. When I drive a car, I do not mistake myself for my car. Why then, when my soul "drives" a sack of meat with eyes, am I unable to READILY distinguish the two.

That is to say, why does a person NEED to be told they have a soul in order to realize they have a soul? Why is having a soul NOT self-evident?

Many different religions have come up with a myraid of creative and imaginative answers to this question (my fav is L. Ron Hubbards), what's yours?

wonder why atheists keep dragging amputees into these discussions. My guess is that some are so young and inexperienced that they cannot conceive of the possibility of having a rich and fulfilling life when one has a body that has lost some structural integrity..

Your guess is quite wrong.

Amputees are not brought up to illustrate how uncaring a God is, or b/c we are sympathetic to the plight of an amputee.

The point of bringing up the miracleless amputees is to illustrate how impossible things are not possible through magic or prayer.

I promise you not one theistic amputee has failed to pray for his limb back.

The question is why has god magic failed him? Why does it work for some cancer patients, for example, and not for an amputee?

Cancer is a mysterious illness, that sometimes goes into remission. The reasons why are not fully understood. Here we have a gap in knowledge.

Gap in knowledge...filled with magic.

Missing an arm is not mysterious. There is no gap in knowledge here. This cannot be filled with magic.

The point of bringing up the miracleless amputee is to illustrate how impossible things are not possible through magic or prayer. It is not about sympathy for the amputee or so much about an uncaring God.

Very well, but you will excuse the myraid of misunderstandings on my part, for so many here say "We are all one" and mean exactly that, and mean it through mysticism. Which is superstition.

I will say acknowledging that we are all one, and meaning that we share certain irrefutable common characteristics, is something that is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, and doesn't really warrant a discussion any more than a discussion on how we all have circulatory systems or brain stems.

A rather moot point.

I am not saying that your claim we are all one, and not meaning it in a spiritual (using the COMMON parlence of spiritual here) way, is a cop out...but damn if it ain't close.

So which is it....a moot point, or a superstition?



When we notice we are 'All one' and leave it at that, yes, it is moot. But I think that it's value comes in rationally accepting this, and applying it to you interactions with the world around you. You become aware that just as you cn feel pain, so ca someone else, jus as you can feel happiness, so can someone else and regardless of them beng another person, it is stil personal to them. They feel it.

I can't really think on how to elaborate beyond the fact that rational and active recognition and practice of this principle lads to a greate understanding of other peoples points of view, and a greater willingness to negotiate with people. Also an understaning that change is best accomplihed with people rather than against them.

I dunno, to me, it isn't moot, because it is a rational basis behind me not acting like a cock to people, and understanding that when people act like dicks to me, then, whatever. I don't think it is moot bcause of the effect it has on my understandig of othe people.

I believe that spirituality is simply the sense of one being connected to the world around them, not in any bullshit magic-love-energy, but simply in the way that we are part of the world around us. Spiritualiy is the feeling of being part of the world, and from this arise spiritual beliefs. But these beliefs are not spirituality themselves, it is merely a way or the individual to express this feeling.

Fucking awesome.

... all that seems to sperate me from this computer is that I seem to see a self in this whatever it is I'm made of.

Fuck yeah mate.

... active recognition and practice of this principle lads to a greate understanding of other peoples points of view, and a greater willingness to negotiate with people. Also an understaning that change is best accomplihed with people rather than against them.

Thas well said. ;)

You become aware that just as you cn feel pain, so ca someone else, jus as you can feel happiness, so can someone else and regardless of them beng another person, it is stil personal to them. They feel it.

Again PAINFULLY obvious stuff here.

And this obviousness DOES lead to better understanding of others, and there points of view. We all use this to understand others. You are not on anything new, or anything that is not practiced by a vast majority of human beings.

You will excuse the myraid of misunderstandings on my part, for so many here say "We are all one" and mean exactly that, and mean it through mysticism. Which is superstition.

Since, what you are suggesting requires absolutely no mysticism, superstition or god, we are in perfect agreement. Again, pretty obvious stuff.

You will excuse the myraid of misunderstandings on my part, for so many here say "We are all one" and mean exactly that, and mean it through mysticism. Which is superstition.


If you don't mind my asking, what exactly do you mean when you say "we are all one", since it seems your not speaking of an essence that is within every atom and beyond?
Just so I have a clearer understanding of where you're coming from.

Edit: But mostly I just want to see yr explanation of Oneness attached to yr name.

If you don't mind my asking, what exactly do you mean when you say "we are all one", since it seems your not speaking of an essence that is within every atom and beyond?
Just so I have a clearer understanding of where you're coming from.

Edit: But mostly I just want to see yr explanation of Oneness attached to yr name.

I dont say "we are all one". I recognize that we are all seperate beings from one another, linked only by common interest or uses.

The mantra we are all one, for many, means something mystical, like we all share the essence of a God, or are otherwise connected by our spirits to one another.

The second defintion is superstition, which I had to explain to whats his face, until he changed his defintion to fit obvious and non-mystical ones (generic things such as we are all people and have all emotions), to avoid having to admit he is superstitious.

I'll probably regret this, but here goes:

BP, why is "mysteriousness" such a negative aspect of a belief system? Are you saying that since Christianity cannot explain everything it is invalid?

I dont say "we are all one". I recognize that we are all seperate beings from one another, linked only by common interest or uses.


I assume that when you say, "I recognize that we are all seperate beings from one another" you mean I am in my body and he is in his body.

Further I assume when you say, "linked only by common interest or uses." you mean the planet earth, the dancing galaxy, and All that makes the Universe go round.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I'll probably regret this, but here goes:

BP, why is "mysteriousness" such a negative aspect of a belief system? Are you saying that since Christianity cannot explain everything it is invalid?

I dont believe mystery, and have not suggested it, is a negative aspect of a belief system. Mystery is going to arise in any belief structure.

My problem is those who solve the mystery with zero evidence.

For example: Van here....

I assume that when you say, "I recognize that we are all seperate beings from one another" you mean I am in my body and he is in his body.

Further I assume when you say, "linked only by common interest or uses." you mean the planet earth, the dancing galaxy, and All that makes the Universe go round.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

....appears to be agreeing with me. Look closer. He capitalized the word All. I can imagine where the argument would go from here, but it will end up with Van claiming something he lacks evidence for.

Van has solved the mystery without any evidence. He has mysteriously solved the mystery.

It is always nice to believe you are privy to some mystical revelation most of us are not. I imagine it would make a person feel very special and warm fuzzy all over if they were able to be this self-deluded.

I imagine it would make a person feel very special and warm fuzzy all over if they were able to be this self-deluded.

It must be similar to how you feel when you claim to know what reality is and ignore how astonishing it is that anything exists at all, no?

It must be similar to how you feel when you claim to know what reality is and ignore how astonishing it is that anything exists at all, no?

Honestly it depresses me to watch people delude themselves into believing they have stumbled upon a special secret knowledge of the universe even though thay lack any evidence whatsoever for it.

Being a social creature I can't help but feel humanity doesn't stand a chance with such ignorance and foolishness so abound. That depression makes me a bit hostile to the stupidity itself.

For example I thought about posting:

I do love your "I know you are but what am I" Obbe classic posts...but I stopped watching pee wees playhouse years ago, perhaps you should do the same and grow up a bit so you can join the big boy talk.

Then I decided to explain things a bit instead.

For example: Van here....



....appears to be agreeing with me. Look closer. He capitalized the word All. I can imagine where the argument would go from here, but it will end up with Van claiming something he lacks evidence for.

Van has solved the mystery without any evidence. He has mysteriously solved the mystery.


So, capitalizing a few words in order to distinguish the creation process as a whole rather than describe all the parts individually contributing to the whole of creation, is what makes my angle disagree with yours and further means that I have absolutely no evidence for a wholistic view?

If you're trying to describe the whole from adding up the parts, rather than describe the parts from understanding the whole, then you will probably say I have no evidence for these ætherspace theories I like to think about. But if you try looking at the whole of Creation, and then figure out what role these parts play, it may be more interesting and worthwhile to think about.

And for the record, I have never claimed to solve the Great Mysteries. I am a student, constantly learning and edifying a wide foundation that I will continue to grow from.

Unlike some people round these parts, I don't just say God doesn't exist because I had a bad experience with Christianity. Fortunately for me, I was never indoctrinated, therefore, most of these grievances you hold, and unmovingly fuse with God, mean absolutely nothing to me.

And for the record, I have never claimed to solve the Great Mysteries.

My apologies* So then we are on the same page when I state the FACT that we are separate and in the mystical sense of we are all one...we are in fact, not?

*though I do recall you preaching several sermons on here about the All. Am I wrong?

Unlike some people round these parts, I don't just say God doesn't exist because I had a bad experience with Christianity.

LOL.

Swing and miss.

NOTHING that I have ever posted to suggest that I have ever 'round these parts' said that God does not exist, b/c I had a bad experience with him.

When I say God does not exist, it is b/c there is a lack of evidence to claim that he does. Or that God is defined well enough that his existence is contradictory or a paradox

Your speculation otherwise, was a fun read, however.

Just a little FYI so you can make a bit more educated of a guess when your lack of anything valid to say leads you to do so (case in point).

My experience with Christianity wasn't a bad one.

My pastor didn't touch me. I didn't blame God for all my problems and vow to destroy him b/c my puppy got ran over. I didn't become an apathetic teenager and in the throes of my angst decide to become an atheist (I became atheist when I was about 25 maybe).

I became an atheist when I got a job at a college and began reading all manner of scientific books at the library. Carl Sagan's demon haunted world was quite an eye opener for me.

Cannot really pin point the exact moment I became an atheist. Atheists lack the rituals to remind a person of it. I do remember feeling mentally liberated.

That depression makes me a bit hostile to the stupidity itself.

Gee, when did that begin? I remember you telling me you're a very happy person. It must be unfortunate for you that you aren't able to maintain a better control over those emotions.

I do love your "I know you are but what am I" Obbe classic posts...but I stopped watching pee wees playhouse years ago, perhaps you should do the same and grow up a bit so you can join the big boy talk.

"I know you are but what am I?" :confused: I'm not the one claiming to know things, Broke.

So growing up is believing in the uselessness of thinking about anything I don't understand and being pathologically interested in other people? Growing up is assuring myself over and over that I am really not in a state of total uncertainty, that the big questions are no where as important as the trivial ones?

Does it include asserting that anyone who's beliefs I disagree with is a stupid fuck who doesn't deserve respect? Does it include pushing my own beliefs onto them? If so, then no thanks Broke. I prefer my so called "childishness".

Then I decided to explain things a bit instead.

No, you still posted it. You just decided you should make a justification for avoiding the question and being an asshole at the same time.

Now that its out of your system, maybe you can tell me if that feeling is similar or not? Feel warm and fuzzy while convincing yourself you know anything?

Atheists lack the rituals to remind a person of it. I do remember feeling mentally liberated.

You really shouldn't be making stupid generalizations like that after getting so pissed off whenever a misinformed theist says something uniting about atheists beyond their lack of belief in God.

My apologies* So then we are on the same page when I state the FACT that we are separate and in the mystical sense of we are all one...we are in fact, not?


It may seem that we are all separate, but in practice clearly we are not. If indeed we are linked by common uses and interests, wouldn't this imply a connection? Doesn't separate mean disconnected? You agree that everything is connected, yet still we are separate? How do ya figure?

Then if you go back to the cause of things and stuff, the underlying reason to why we are all connected, where is it we arrive?
If you agree with me on the statement that every action has a cause, and every cause has an affect, how then could we all be connected if not for an essence in everything, (making it an All-Thing) processing and calculating and balancing the Universal equation?

No, you don't have to think of it as God.
It's the 21st century for crying out loud, call it whatever you want.



LOL.

Swing and miss.

NOTHING that I have ever posted to suggest that I have ever 'round these parts' said that God does not exist, b/c I had a bad experience with him.
Your not in the least bit bitter about all the time wasted during your involvement with Christianity?

When I say God does not exist, it is b/c there is a lack of evidence to claim that he does. Or that God is defined well enough that his existence is contradictory or a paradox
What about God being the Whole of Creation?

Your speculation otherwise, was a fun read, however.
Uhhh. . . thanks?


My experience with Christianity wasn't a bad one.

My pastor didn't touch me. I didn't blame God for all my problems and vow to destroy him b/c my puppy got ran over. I didn't become an apathetic teenager and in the throes of my angst decide to become an atheist (I became atheist when I was about 25 maybe).
Thats nice to hear.
How religious were you up to the time when you shifted?


I became an atheist when I got a job at a college and began reading all manner of scientific books at the library. Carl Sagan's demon haunted world was quite an eye opener for me.
Janitor?

I became an atheist when I got a job at a college and began reading all manner of scientific books at the library. Carl Sagan's demon haunted world was quite an eye opener for me.

That's interesting. When I began reading more scientific books (mostly concerning theoretical physics) I realized just how much we don't know about anything and it drove me to become agnostic. I find it hard to say that either opinion is definite when science changes the way we look at everything so often.


When I say God does not exist, it is b/c there is a lack of evidence to claim that he does. Or that God is defined well enough that his existence is contradictory or a paradox

Exactly what I was explaining above. While there is no evidence for the existence of any god, there is also no proof that one does not exist. Whether the Christian God is true or not is not the issue for me, but the fact that any god could exist and there is no proof contrary to that is enough for me to keep my mind open about it.

BTW: If any religion has it right, i think that it is Baha'i. Or at least the basic concept of it. http://info.bahai.org/bahaullah-basic-teachings.html

Jesus is actually a rainbow-spitting unicorn. I have this picture to prove it.

http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/ul/96400-JEBUS.jpg

I was using my creative thought process again today, and I think I thought up a better answer for the God or Reality questions.

"Reality/God is perfect."

I dont believe mystery, and have not suggested it, is a negative aspect of a belief system. Mystery is going to arise in any belief structure.

My problem is those who solve the mystery with zero evidence.

It points out that a christian CAN and does answer those questions, but they have to come up with some pretty creative and inventive ways to do so, often times offering simple horseshit such as the "mysterious ways" or "we are not to question" pantload.

So mystery is a "pantload", "horseshit" even, but at the same time not a negative aspect of a belief system?

As far as "solv[ing] the mystery with zero evidence", many Christians know that there isn't evidence for some of God's qualities (hence the "mysterious ways" explanation), but where there is evidence, it is their own; evidence they alone have seen and felt.

You rely on empirical data as a way of explaining most every single thing in your life. It is pretty self-evident that we all do.

The main thing in your life you refuse to explain with empirical data, is also the most uncomfortable prosepect. I do not find this to be a convienant coincidence.

Death without a soul, is a rather unsettling prospect.

I can see why so many would like to believe that our ghosts live on for eternity, and granny is not simply food for worms, but just b/c an idea is comforting does not lend any more actuality to the idea.

Telling me my mind is boxed in, and I just can't grasp the depth and scope of what you are saying is foolish. I can grasp everything a theist suggests. Just b/c I don't believe everything I hear, does not make me close minded; simply means I am not naive.

Check it man - I don't know about afterlife, but I do believe in God. I don't believe in him so that I can go to heaven and reunite with my granny. I believe in him because I think that the universe has/had a creator. I base this belief on data that I have. I believe that matter and energy must come from somewhere. I believe that all the things necessary for life are incredibly fine tuned, and I think that chance isn't the one who tuned them. I believe in God because I would really like there to be a purpose or meaning to life. Without some kind of purpose or meaning, all I see is a bunch of helplessly selfish, inclined-towards-evil people drifting through life, causing destruction with everything they do.

I don't know how else to say this, but you seem quite arrogant in your beliefs to me. You pride yourself on not believing everything you hear and not being naive. You use 'naive' as a derogatory term towards people that you see as holding inferior beliefs to your own. I fully respect your beliefs, as long as you've thought them through, which I believe you have. I am not trying to convince you that I am right or you are wrong. I am simply sharing my viewpoint with you, with the possibility that you may learn something, anything from it.

Be very careful man. I think the motivations for your own belief are dangerous. I believe what I do because I want to live the best life that I can. I believe what I do because I strive to love as Christ did. I do not believe what I do because I want to be right. I do not believe what I do because I want eternal life. Why do you believe what you do?

Gee, when did that begin? I remember you telling me you're a very happy person.

Awesome out of context quote troll..

I am happy...just b/c I get depressed at the rampant stupidity in the world...doesn't mean I am unhappy. Just b/c I feel that humanity doesn't stand a chance with dumbfucks like you leading the charge...and it is depressing...should not suggest that I am overall unhappy.

If humanities state in the world were a gauge for my happiness...I would be unhappy. Since it is fucking not my gauge, I am happy.

I love how you are going to tell me how I feel in my day to day life.

This is the depressing stupidity I am talking about. I forget about you and ALL of your theist dumbfuck buds, the second I have something better to do here at my work, or when I go home.

Your stupidity, my anger at it, kills time for me at work...should not suggest I am an unhappy person.

FAIL (again)

"I know you are but what am I?" :confused: I'm not the one claiming to know things, Broke..

What am I claiming to KNOW? I offered a reason why my answer to any question about God is logically better than the myriad of different ones, and my sole reason was consistency.

I still don't make a claim to KNOW whether or not God is real.

So growing up is........?.

I cannot tell you how to grow up Obbe. You have to figure it out for yourself. Good luck.

No, you still posted it. You just decided you should make a justification for avoiding the question and being an asshole at the same time..

I am trying to be less of an asshole Obbe, but little dumb cunts like you make it so difficult. As to "dodging" your ACCUSATION/question......

Feel warm and fuzzy while convincing yourself you know anything?.

Have not made a claim of knowledge. Do not suggest that I have some ultimate knowledge...so I cannot feel warm and fuzzy about that...now can I?

Are you asking me if my belief that we rot in the ground and die, we cease to be, we think no more forever and ever.......is a warm fuzzy kind of idea?

Do you really want me to answer that......b/c if I do I know I am going to throw around phrases like "are you really this fucking dense" and "do the dumb cunt things you say make better sense in your head" with libral use of moron and fuck.

You really shouldn't be making stupid generalizations like that after getting so pissed off whenever a misinformed theist says something uniting about atheists beyond their lack of belief in God.

"Atheists lack the rituals to remind a person of it" (it being the moment they became an atheist).

^----this is a stupid generalization.

Fucking how?

Do words start in your brain and come unbidden to your mouth without a sort of "stupid shit" intercept or something?

-------

On to another fucking moron...who is still smarter than Obbe....

So mystery is a "pantload", "horseshit" even, but at the same time not a negative aspect of a belief system?

It points out that a christian CAN and does answer those questions, but they have to come up with some pretty creative and inventive ways to do so, often times offering simple horseshit such as the "mysterious ways" or "we are not to question" pantload.

My OP (above) if you fucking read it correctly, says that a Christian answers those (mysterious) questions with horseshit such as "(God works in) mysterious ways" panload.

CLEARLY, It does not call the mystery.........a pantload.......you moron. I call the last resort christian argument of "god works in mysterious ways" a pantload.

Read it again..........let it sink in..........won't hold my breath awaiting your apology.

...evidence they alone have seen and felt.

So then not evidence at all?

Check it man - I don't know about afterlife, but I do believe in God. I don't believe in him so that I can go to heaven and reunite with my granny. I believe in him because I think that the universe has/had a creator. I base this belief on data that I have.

You have data that leans more towards a God than towards say.......alien beings who engineered humans. I would like to see this data that leans more towards God than something like that.

So why do YOU personally believe it is an immensely powerful being and not some ancient transdimensional alien race that is the intelligent designer?

I am simply sharing my viewpoint with you, with the possibility that you may learn something, anything from it.

I respect you more than say the other folks I replied to before this post, in this thread. I appreciate your viewpoint, and respect your opinions, however, I disagree with them and believe you may be deluding your self just a bit as to WHY you choose to believe in a benevolent God.

Why do you believe what you do?

I believe what I do, b/c I believe religion has created and fostered numerous problems throughout history and to this day. I believe one of the MAIN reasons it has been so devastating AND the reason it has not been cast aside as a failed societal function.....is b/c of the lack of evidence to prove or disprove it.

What you call faith, is the only thing that has harbored this destructive force in the world. Faith is fine so long as it remains personal. Group together and try to influence the lives of those who may disagree....and you open your faith up for righteous attacks.

That is why I believe what I do: That humans should try to operate on what is known, and where the evidence points (not where we would like it to go) when it comes to matters that affect the whole of society.

It points out that a christian CAN and does answer those questions, but they have to come up with some pretty creative and inventive ways to do so, often times offering simple horseshit such as the "mysterious ways" or "we are not to question" pantload.

My OP (above) if you fucking read it correctly, says that a Christian answers those (mysterious) questions with horseshit such as "(God works in) mysterious ways" panload.

CLEARLY, It does not call the mystery.........a pantload.......you moron. I call the last resort christian argument of "god works in mysterious ways" a pantload.

Read it again..........let it sink in..........won't hold my breath awaiting your apology.

I'm sorry, would you like to try again? :p

What kind of fucking response do you want? The only "evidence" Christians have for their beliefs is the Bible and the saints (for some, not all). Their explanations will naturally arise because there is no evidence for what goes on. This is similar to what happens in science: could you possibly give an explanation besides "I don't know", or "It's mysterious, we really can't know how it works" to what goes on in a naked singularity? No, you couldn't, and neither could the best scientists. There's no facts there, only beliefs and mystery.

So back to my point here: What do you want Christians to do? Take a random-assed position and stick with it? The "the workings of God are a mystery" explanation is the only thing that logically follows in the absence of evidence of a proper position. What kind of "last resort" do you want? "God feels like it so he just does it"?

So you saying that the explanations are horseshit is completely off the mark; they're about as logical as one can get for something of a religious nature, and in fact, science uses many of the same explanations for answers it can't (yet?) come up with.

So then not evidence at all?

I'll put quotation marks around it next time just for you.

If you were the only one who saw a web page right before it was changed and didn't take a screenshot, would your testimony be evidence of that page having been in existence? This is what I mean by "evidence" that's individual in nature. I'm sure there's a better word for that, but I'll stick with "evidence" for now.

I'll put quotation marks around it next time just for you.

Oh, please do! For me an any other rational individuals.


If you were the only one who saw a web page right before it was changed and didn't take a screenshot, would your testimony be evidence of that page having been in existence?No, not really. It would be a claim: "Such a website existed".

EDIT: Just had to reply to this:

The "the workings of God are a mystery" explanation is the only thing that logically follows in the absence of evidence of a proper position.

Except that's not really an explanation, it's a claim or an excuse. A claim made so that they can conveniently escape the burden of having to explain the "why?" of anything that proves too difficult.

Oh, please do! For me an any other rational individuals.
Nah, just those that bitch at the usage of a word. I had temporarily redefined "evidence" to mean an observation that was unique to that individual in that sentence (it was clear from context; never did I claim this evidence was in any way equal to scientific evidence--which is what I assume you implied in your first post in response); and nobody complained about it but you.

No, not really. It would be a claim: "Such a website existed".
But would you then have "evidence" of your own, that you could not prove to others?

Except that's not really an explanation, it's a claim or an excuse. A claim made so that they can conveniently escape the burden of having to explain the "why?" of anything that proves too difficult.

I could say the same thing about science and naked singularities. Theology is a work in progress; much like science itself.

Nah, just those that bitch at the usage of a word. I had temporarily redefined "evidence" to mean an observation that was unique to that individual in that sentence (it was clear from context; never did I claim this evidence was in any way equal to scientific evidence--which is what I assume you implied in your first post in response); and nobody complained about it but you.

Sorry but it's not the person who wants correct usage of a word that's the problem, it's the person that is using it incorrectly. This was a small peeve, and instead of just acknowledging it, you gave attitude as usual.


But would you then have "evidence" of your own, that you could not prove to others?


No, you would have an experience of your own. It's not evidence in any meaningful way if you can't show it to anybody else.



I could say the same thing about science and naked singularities. Theology is a work in progress; much like science itself.

Science has the equivalent of "God works in mysterious ways"? Please show me where. I know Science says that we currently don't understand something, sure, but it does so and then we actively invest time and energy to investigate it! Have you seen a Christian carry on an investigation of the theological problems that they trot out the "god works in mysterious ways defense" out for?

They are not comparable. The problem here is not admitting temporary ignorance. That's understandable. The problem is one side uses it as an excuse they trot out whenever they are in a corner, the other one does not.

The "the workings of God are a mystery" explanation is the only thing that logically follows in the absence of evidence of a proper position.

The ONLY thing that LOGICALLY follows in the absence of evidence of a proper position is good an healthy...

I......D O N T......K N O W!!!

Still claiming that it is God working some mysterious magic on the unknown in question is a steaming pantload of stupidity.

Read it again..........let it sink in..........won't hold my breath awaiting your apology.

The ONLY thing that LOGICALLY follows in the absence of evidence of a proper position is good an healthy...

I......D O N T......K N O W!!!

Still claiming that it is God working some mysterious magic on the unknown in question is a steaming pantload of stupidity.

Read it again..........let it sink in..........won't hold my breath awaiting your apology.

"God works in mysterious ways" and "I don't know" may as well be the same things; one simply affirms the speaker's continuing belief. Tell me the difference between the two; it's simply not there.

You accused me of hypocrisy; since I claimed I did not have a negative view of mysteries, and I also claimed "god works in mysterious ways" is a pantload.

I assume since you have switched gears here, you do not feel that way now. Have I made my case that it is entirely possible to hold neutral views of mysteries in general, and still hate the "mysterious ways" argument of theists?

GOOD.

----------

"God works in mysterious ways" and "I don't know" may as well be the same things; one simply affirms the speaker's continuing belief. Tell me the difference between the two; it's simply not there.

What the fuck is this shit.......I responded to this....

"The "the workings of God are a mystery" explanation is the only thing that logically follows in the absence of evidence of a proper position.

With this...

The only L O G I C A L.........let me repeat that........L O G I C A L answer to a question you dont know the answer to is...........I DONT KNOW.

I still stand behind that and would like you to show me how logic dictates an answer to an unknown question invokes a baseless assertion of an all powerful creature.

Please....give it a try, so I can laugh my fucking ass off.

------------

NOW you want to argue that "mysterious ways" and "I dont know" are the same?

The difference between asserting that God did it......and a simple I don't know.

You don't see a difference?

God works in mysterious ways actually answers the fucking unknown, with: I KNOW God is behind it.

Q: Why is my baby born with face cancer?
A: God did it.

Lets try that again...

Q: Why is my baby born with face cancer?
A: I dont know.

ONE OF THESE THINGS IS..........................NOT LIKE THE OTHER.

Sorry but it's not the person who wants correct usage of a word that's the problem, it's the person that is using it incorrectly. This was a small peeve, and instead of just acknowledging it, you gave attitude as usual.
In that sentence I had used it correctly because the context altered the meaning. Without the context I would agree with you, but from the surrounding words, it's clear what I meant by "evidence". Otherwise I wouldn't have introduced a phrase so contrary to the idea of evidence.

No, you would have an experience of your own. It's not evidence in any meaningful way if you can't show it to anybody else.
But then you would continue to believe that it was there, would you not? In this sense, it is "evidence" because you treat it as one might treat scientific facts, despite your inability to prove it to others.

Science has the equivalent of "God works in mysterious ways"? Please show me where.
Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity
You might also want to go to the gravitational singularity page, but it moves significantly away from the point I want to make, which is that singularities are unobservable (by any means--the event horizon prevents any speculation as to their natures), and so are forever mysterious. We'll never know what lies beyond the event horizon, so it's forever a mystery. There are various responses (none of which are incorrect) that one can give to the question of the nature of a singularity: "I don't know", "The Universe can be a mysterious place", or "I have an opinion that makes sense logically, but there is no concrete evidence there to validate it" (see: the cosmic censorship hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis), an opinion which makes sense logically, yet has no concrete evidence to support it). These all correlate to responses given by Christians in discussions on "mysterious" theological concepts.

But in RL discussions with Christians (and I'm sure you realize this), "God is mysterious" tends to be a substitute for "I haven't done my research on this topic".

I know Science says that we currently don't understand something, sure, but it does so and then we actively invest time and energy to investigate it!
Theological debates have been around since the 1st century; even longer if you look into Judaism. There are many people who actively invest time and money into finding answers to theological questions in the Bible, or in the writings of holy figures not in the Bible (depending on which version of Christianity they prefer).

Have you seen a Christian carry on an investigation of the theological problems that they trot out the "god works in mysterious ways defense" out for?
I know chemists who are confounded by black holes, yet don't carry on investigations into them. In the same sense, I know Christians who may not actively investigate theology directly, but do read books on it and hope that other Christians (this correlates to other scientists in different fields) eventually find an answer that correlates well to the evidence.

They are not comparable. The problem here is not admitting temporary ignorance. That's understandable. The problem is one side uses it as an excuse they trot out whenever they are in a corner, the other one does not.

Ask an astrophysicist a series of questions that they can answer. Then ask them what goes on beyond the event horizon. You have now effectively "cornered" your astrophysicist. They won't know the answer, and it won't be because of temporary ignorance. The ignorance as to what goes on beyond the event horizon is permanent; it is unobservable. How can you hold Christians to the standard of knowing absolutely everything about the way God operates and not hold scientists to the same standard about the Universe? Neither group claims to know everything about their field of specialty; why you choose to call one admission of ignorance an excuse and another one understandable confounds me to no end.

At least Rust doesn't completely misrepresent what I say:

From a Christian perspective (that is, a perspective that already assumes God in the picture), those two answers "might as well be" the same. This is the perspective I was going from, since the argument is about Christian responses to theological mysteries. The 2 possible responses (in this scenario) to questions about the nature of God are thus "I don't know", and "it's a mystery". Do you disagree that those are different?

BP, your first paragraph corresponds to your response to the above; if you believe mystery is a neutral aspect of a religion and you agree that claiming mystery in theological matters is identical to claiming ignorance, then you contradict yourself.

In that sentence I had used it correctly because the context altered the meaning. Without the context I would agree with you, but from the surrounding words, it's clear what I meant by "evidence". Otherwise I wouldn't have introduced a phrase so contrary to the idea of evidence.

Not clear enough because I didn't see it that way. You might find it obvious,,, but if course you wrote the fucking thing; whether you find it obvious isn't that important, it's whether your readers do.


But then you would continue to believe that it was there, would you not? In this sense, it is "evidence" because you treat it as one might treat scientific facts, despite your inability to prove it to others.No, you would treat it as a personal experience. It is not evidence, and there is no reason to call it evidence that I can see (save for self-serving reasons), when you cannot show it to anybody else.

Sure:Fail. That is nothing close to equivalent. It's a hypothesis or theory that, as of now, is has not been proven. However there is evidence supporting its existence - given that it fits the mathematical models that so accurately govern our universe - and more importantly because Science doesn't use that as a way to stop the discussion. It, liek your very own link shows, takes that as a challenge to investigate the issue further.


But in RL discussions with Christians (and I'm sure you realize this), "God is mysterious" tends to be a substitute for "I haven't done my research on this topic".No, I don't "realize" that because that's hasn't been my experience at all. My experience is that they use it as a convenient excuse for the conversation to stop because it has reached a point they cannot rationalize with any other argument.



Theological debates have been around since the 1st century; even longer if you look into Judaism. There are many people who actively invest time and money into finding answers to theological questions in the Bible, or in the writings of holy figures not in the Bible (depending on which version of Christianity they prefer).Great, then it will be easy for you to find me a definitive "answer" that has been reached regarding a topic on which the excuse "god works in mysterious ways" was used. In other words, please show me where Christians (or theists if you want) have previously said "god works in mysterious ways" and then, following subsequent research, reached a definitive answer.


I know chemists who are confounded by black holes, yet don't carry on investigations into them. In the same sense, I know Christians who may not actively investigate theology directly, but do read books on it and hope that other Christians (this correlates to other scientists in different fields) eventually find an answer that correlates well to the evidence.

Except you haven't shown any Christian that has definitively answered anything that has been explained away by "god works in mysterious ways"! I can name you thousands of Scientists that have answered the questions that have confounded other Scientists in the past.

So Chemists are putting their hopes on Scientists that have found answers in the past,and are currently finding more today. You haven't shown the same applies to Christians.

They won't know the answer, and it won't be because of temporary ignorance. The ignorance as to what goes on beyond the event horizon is permanent; it is unobservable.Wrong. It is not permanent. The current model regarding singularities has flaws, and Scientists are actively working to correct them. Until they do, you have no clue if it's permanent or not.

You're using an argument from ignorance: We don't have a way of understanding it now, so we never will.



How can you hold Christians to the standard of knowing absolutely everything about the way God operates.Who the fuck held them to that standard? I sure fucking didn't. At no point in time have I ever said that they must know absolutely everything about the way God operates. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that they use it as a way to stop the conversation, while Scientists see that as a challenge to investigate the issue further.

Neither group claims to know everything about their field of specialty; why you choose to call one admission of ignorance an excuse and another one understandable confounds me to no end.

Wrong, like BP points out, the theists claims to know that God is still behind the phenomenon. The Scientist does not. The Scientist utters a honest statement: "I don't know". The theists who uses that pathetic argument is saying "You stomped me but I'm still going to claim God is behind this and/or that God has a reason for it". The two are not the same as you claim.

Ask an astrophysicist a series of questions that they can answer. Then ask them what goes on beyond the event horizon. You have now effectively "cornered" your astrophysicist. They won't know the answer, and it won't be because of temporary ignorance. The ignorance as to what goes on beyond the event horizon is permanent; it is unobservable. How can you hold Christians to the standard of knowing absolutely everything about the way God operates and not hold scientists to the same standard about the Universe? Neither group claims to know everything about their field of specialty; why you choose to call one admission of ignorance an excuse and another one understandable confounds me to no end.

Ask a devout Christian a series of questions that they can answer. Then ask them about what goes on beyond the event of their deaths. They're not being very intellectually honest when they claim to know that Jesus will deliver them from their physical bodies, and a glorious heaven is awaiting them after they die.

Their actual ignorance as to what goes on beyond death (being as how reports on the afterlife from dead people just aren't numerous, or credible) is masked by their fairytale explanation that they believe in so fervently, they'd stake their lives on it.

While the scientist honestly claims to not know everything, they're careful to not call an unknowable a knowable. They may have "faith" in the theories available on any given subject, but it's not the same strain of stake-your-lives-on-it fervent belief as it is with religious adherents. Unlike the Christian, the scientist isn't plagued with the rules and regulations of a pious follower. They're allowed to actively try to disprove their own theories, not ignorantly defend them even when evidence attempts to lower the probability of it existing.

Still confounded, to no end?

Just as the ignorance as to what goes on beyond the event horizon is permanent; it is unobservable... so is the events that happen after your brain dies and rots in your skull. Corner a scientist and he's likely to throw his hands up and cry uncle when the task at hand is to define what is unobservable and unknowable. Corner a Christian, and they'll give you a completely fabricated and craftily-orchestrated long diatribe about how it's all going to go down once God "delivers you" from your physical body.

No, you would treat it as a personal experience. It is not evidence, and there is no reason to call it evidence that I can see (save for self-serving reasons), when you cannot show it to anybody else.
Again, note the quotation marks around "evidence". They're there to show a point; if you could bear with me and ignore semantics (I'm sure you know what I mean by "'evidence'") I'll be able to demonstrate it.

Please answer my question: Would you continue to treat your "personal experience" as equal to scientific evidence in the terms of your own beliefs?

Fail. That is nothing close to equivalent. It's a hypothesis or theory that, as of now, is has not been proven. However there is evidence supporting its existence - given that it fits the mathematical models that so accurately govern our universe - and more importantly because Science doesn't use that as a way to stop the discussion. It, liek your very own link shows, takes that as a challenge to investigate the issue further.
Actually, the gravitational force acts as a repulsive agent when an object rotating in the direction of the black hole comes close enough for assimilation. Theologists always take difficult issues as challenges to investigate further, they don't u

No, I don't "realize" that because that's hasn't been my experience at all. My experience is that they use it as a convenient excuse for the conversation to stop because it has reached a point they cannot rationalize with any other argument.
Maybe we talk to different groups of Christians. The ones that I've spoken to would object to theological debates using rationalizations and instead turn to the sources of evidence that they choose to use (the Bible, various holy figures, etc.). And as far as I know, religion is not something that can be easily understood through a purely rational discussion. The Christians I've had real life conversations with see "mystery" as a reason to do more Biblical research. If you're opposed to a specific group of Christians with whom I don't associate (and if you are somehow able to know that they don't stop and research the question as soon as they can) then I suppose I also agree with that. Is that the point you wanted to make; that specific subgroups of Christians sometimes use mysteriousness as a way to end discussion on a topic?

Great, then it will be easy for you to find me a definitive "answer" that has been reached regarding a topic on which the excuse "god works in mysterious ways" was used. In other words, please show me where Christians (or theists if you want) have previously said "god works in mysterious ways" and then, following subsequent research, reached a definitive answer.

I can't give you an example that reaches a definitive answer because any system of thought in which the evidence is laid bare initially will eventually come up with a question where extrapolation and subjective reference alone can come up with an explanation. Such will be the nature of the unanswerable question that the evidence would not be able to bare it out. However there have been several "answers" (competing "theories", if you will) to "unanswerable" questions that have gained acceptance in the Christian community where earlier there had been only mystery.

Except you haven't shown any scientist that has definitively answered anything that has been explained away by "singularities are mysterious objects"! I can name you several Christians that have given answers to the questions that have confounded other Christians in the past.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

So Chemists are putting their hopes on Scientists that have found answers in the past,and are currently finding more today. You haven't shown the same applies to Christians.
I thought it was self-evident. :o That's what I certainly believed when I was a Christian, and I knew several that were constantly in search of books to help them understand some aspect of their religion.

Wrong. It is not permanent. The current model regarding singularities has flaws, and Scientists are actively working to correct them. Until they do, you have no clue if it's permanent or not.

You're using an argument from ignorance: We don't have a way of understanding it now, so we never will.
Actually, we have no way of viewing anything beyond the event horizon. It's impossible to do so by the definition of an event horizon (something that allows no light to enter or exit and cannot be broken) and a singularity (which is by definition cloaked by an event horizon). There is a permanent inability to witness a singularity because it will always be beyond an event horizon.

Who the fuck held them to that standard? I sure fucking didn't. At no point in time have I ever said that they must know absolutely everything about the way God operates. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that they use it as a way to stop the conversation, while Scientists see that as a challenge to investigate the issue further.
Lol @ capital "S" on scientists. As I've said earlier in this post, the second half of what you said isn't true--at least in my experience.


Wrong, like BP points out, the theists claims to know that God is still behind the phenomenon. The Scientist does not. The Scientist utters a honest statement: "I don't know". The theists who uses that pathetic argument is saying "You stomped me but I'm still going to claim God is behind this and/or that God has a reason for it". The two are not the same as you claim.

No, not all theists do this to end conversation and I don't understand why you have to keep making that claim. As I've said before, I've known several Christians that immediately follow up "it's a mystery" with "but I'll research it and will get back to you", or "you should read such and such book, which outlines the various answers that there are to this question; I only think it's a mystery because I cannot decide for myself which is correct; perhaps they all have varying aspects of the truth."

This goes back to whether or not personal experiences are weighted as equal to evidence. I would be crazy (from the empirical viewpoint) to believe your claim of a specific web page existing without any evidence, but for you (depending on how you weigh personal experiences, and I'm fairly certain you treat them as reality), it would be a "belief" (note the quotes) that would not need to be validated by evidence.

At least Rust doesn't completely misrepresent what I say:

How did I misrepresent you?

This is what you said...

"The "the workings of God are a mystery" explanation is the only thing that logically follows in the absence of evidence of a proper position.

To which I responded...the only LOGICAL answer in the absence of evidence of a proper position is "I don't know". To which you respond with this...

"God works in mysterious ways" and "I don't know" may as well be the same things; one simply affirms the speaker's continuing belief. Tell me the difference between the two; it's simply not there.

To which I pointed out....the fucking difference between the two. The Christian perspective doesn't matter...the CORRECT answer is...these are two different things.

Of course a Christain thinks that saying "God works in mysterious ways" is just the same as saying "I dont know" but that doesn't mean IT IS. In reality, they are NOT the same. I give a fuck if in their fantasy land they think it is, and it doesn't detract one bit from my argument.

The 2 possible responses (in this scenario) to questions about the nature of God are thus "I don't know", and "it's a mystery". Do you disagree that those are different?

Not at all. "I don't know" and "it's a mystery" are the same. That is quite obvious. What is also obvoius is that I have not argued that these two things are different. Let me bring you back up to speed...

I have argued that claiming you do not know is different from claiming you know God is somehow responsible.

BP, your first paragraph corresponds to your response to the above; if you believe mystery is a neutral aspect of a religion and you agree that claiming mystery in theological matters is identical to claiming ignorance, then you contradict yourself.

I never claimed mystery is a neutral aspect of a religion. I said that I do not hold mystery in a negative light. I do not hold it in a positive light. I am neutral. I hold "god works in mysterious ways" horseshit, in a negative light.

You claim that it is hypocritical of me to have a neutral view on mystery, and have a negative view of the "God works in mysterious ways" nonsense.

Please show me how I cannot have both of these viewpoints without being a hypocrite, or admit that you cannot, and admit I am not a hypocrite for having them.

AGAIN.........I will not hold my breath awaiting your apology.

Again, note the quotation marks around "evidence". They're there to show a point; if you could bear with me and ignore semantics (I'm sure you know what I mean by "'evidence'") I'll be able to demonstrate it.

Please answer my question: Would you continue to treat your "personal experience" as equal to scientific evidence in the terms of your own beliefs?

Again, please note that the quotations around "evidence" don't magically make the word necessary. In fact, if they are there to show how you don't actually mean "evidence" then all the more reason not to use the word in the first place!

As for your question, no I would not consider it as equal to scientific evidence. I would consider it inferior.


Actually, the gravitational force acts as a repulsive agent when an object rotating in the direction of the black hole comes close enough for assimilation. Theologists always take difficult issues as challenges to investigate further, they don't u"they don't u"... ? You couldn't even finish your thought? Apparently you can't even muster enough strength to produce the bullshit you were going to say! :p

Nothing you said in this unfinished paragraph refutes a single thing I said.




Is that the point you wanted to make; that specific subgroups of Christians sometimes use mysteriousness as a way to end discussion on a topic?Well I would have to say a "specific subset of Christians" and I would have to because I can't say that I've met every Christian everywhere. You can't either, thus you must also be talking about about a specific subset.

So yes I, much like you, am saying that the Christians I have had a the "pleasure" (not the quotation marks... lol!) to discuss things with have used the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" as a way of ending our discussion because they've reached a contradiction or a difficult point and don't which to discuss it further.



I can't give you an example that reaches a definitive answer because any system of thought in which the evidence is laid bare initially will eventually come up with a question where extrapolation and subjective reference alone can come up with an explanation. Such will be the nature of the unanswerable question that the evidence would not be able to bare it out. However there have been several "answers" (competing "theories", if you will) to "unanswerable" questions that have gained acceptance in the Christian community where earlier there had been only mystery.

That doesn't explain a thing, but reeks of desperate rationalization.

The possibility of coming up with an explanation using "extrapolation and subjective reference alone" doesn't refute the possibility of not using "extrapolation and subjective reference alone" to come up with an explanation. The evidence can still bear it out.

So it remains:

Find me a definitive "answer" that has been reached regarding a topic on which the excuse "god works in mysterious ways" was used. In other words, please show me where Christians (or theists if you want) have previously said "god works in mysterious ways" and then, following subsequent research, reached a definitive answer.

This is how your quote would look like if I wanted to respond to this with a simple "fixed".^That is how your quote would look like if what you said was stupid. ... Wow! :rolleyes:


Your silly "fixed" quote is miserably wrong:

1. First it ignores that singularities are relatively new in Science. It's silly to expect them to answer such a complex issue in such a short amount of time. The same does not apply to issues where theists have said "God work in mysterious way" which have had centuries to be worked out in some cases.

2. Second of all it ignores that Scientists are actively searching for an answer; you haven't shown that of theists/Christians besides you saying they are.


I thought it was self-evident. :o That's what I certainly believed when I was a Christian, and I knew several that were constantly in search of books to help them understand some aspect of their religion.In search of books? That's not what Cosmologists do... Cosmologists don't search for books. Chemists might - in regards to issues of cosmology like singularities or black holes - but that's not what I said. I said: So Chemists are putting their hopes on Scientists that have found answers in the past,and are currently finding more today. You haven't shown the same applies to Christians.

The point I'm making is that the Scientists Chemists are putting their hopes in, have provided definitive answers, and are actively working in doing so today.


Actually, we have no way of viewing anything beyond the event horizon. I think I said as much... We have no way of viewing it, now.

It is an argument from ignorance to claim that we never will. You could use an argument from it's definition however as I already explained Scientists think our current conception (our current models) is (are) flawed.


Lol @ capital "S" on scientists. As I've said earlier in this post, the second half of what you said isn't true--at least in my experience.
Lol @ capital "C" on christians, and on you not admitting you put word in my mouth right after you berate BP for doing just that!

As I've said, the second half of what I said is absolutely true -- at least in my experience.



No, not all theists do this to end conversation and I don't understand why you have to keep making that claim. As I've said before, I've known several Christians that immediately follow up "it's a mystery" with "but I'll research it and will get back to you", or "you should read such and such book, which outlines the various answers that there are to this question; I only think it's a mystery because I cannot decide for myself which is correct; perhaps they all have varying aspects of the truth."

This goes back to whether or not personal experiences are weighted as equal to evidence. I would be crazy (from the empirical viewpoint) to believe your claim of a specific web page existing without any evidence, but for you (depending on how you weigh personal experiences, and I'm fairly certain you treat them as reality), it would be a "belief" (note the quotes) that would not need to be validated by evidence.


Did you even bother reading what I said - what you just replied to? The thing you just quoted and supposedly replied to has nothing to do with me saying they are "stopping the conversation".

You said that neither group claims to know everything and were claiming both sides where doing the same thing. I'm explaining to you, just like BP did before me, that they are not doing the same thing. They are not doing the same thing because Scientists simply say "I don't know" where as what we're discussing is those theists that say "God works in mysterious ways". The two are not equivalent. One ("I don't know") allows all possibilities. The other ("God works in mysterious ways") does not; it allows only theistic (and only their god) to be the solution to the problem.

They are not the same. The theists when he says "God works in mysterious ways" is already claiming that their God is behind the problem. They are saying "Im not wrong, this isn't a contradiction, my god is behind this for some reason". That is not the same.


P.S. I would like for you to read AF's post. She said what I was trying to say in a much more intelligent and eloquent manner.

I'll get back to (hopefully both of) you sometime soon; but for now more important things call.

Like researching how to make this fucker: http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=10319707

:mad:

Just b/c I feel that humanity doesn't stand a chance with dumbfucks like you leading the charge...and it is depressing...should not suggest that I am overall unhappy.

Leading the charge? Why do you treat My God like a battlefront and theists as the enemy?

If you haven't already realized, through our numerous conversations on the topic, that someone like me would not want to be "in charge" or would not want to control everyone else's thoughts and actions, then it would appear that you are the dumbfuck.

What exactly is stupid about believing I cannot know anything for certain? What is stupid about believing God exists?

What is less stupid about being an angry know-it-all on totse who makes his business everyones?

What am I claiming to KNOW?

I was just referring to your childish summary of my post. "I know you are but what am I" does not sound like anything I would claim.

I offered a reason why my answer to any question about God is logically better than the myriad of different ones, and my sole reason was consistency.

Consistency? Haha, because you have somehow verified it is consistent outside of your own subjective experience of the matter, right?

Logical? Kiko already pointed out how flawed the statement is, if God is defined as all that exists.

I believe the statement I used my creative thought process to think up is better: "God/Reality is perfect". See any problems with it?

I cannot tell you how to grow up Obbe. You have to figure it out for yourself. Good luck.

"Quote out of context troll, a-hyuck hyuck ..."

I already told you, if it includes the things mentioned, "growing up" isn't for me.

Have not made a claim of knowledge. Do not suggest that I have some ultimate knowledge...so I cannot feel warm and fuzzy about that...now can I?

You certainly love telling others why they're wrong and you're right.

But alright ;).

"Atheists lack the rituals to remind a person of it" (it being the moment they became an atheist).

^----this is a stupid generalization.

Fucking how?

An atheist may have a ritual. It may indeed remind the atheist of a time they were theist.

Do words start in your brain and come unbidden to your mouth without a sort of "stupid shit" intercept or something?

Not as easily as the hate which flows from your angry lips, like disgusting farts escaping a sleeping trucker.

^You try too hard...



:rolleyes:

^You try too hard...



:rolleyes:

I really do.

:(

Leading the charge.........

So long as you understand, me being angry or depressed at dumbshit I encounter on here, in no way reflects my overall happiness.

I think you do since you went off that topic here, did not address my denial of your assessment, and I have no desire to entertain the rest of the retarded shit you posted in "response" to me shooting down your accusations or insinuations of me being an unhappy person.

I was just referring to your childish summary of my post. "I know you are but what am I" does not sound like anything I would claim.

I said:

I imagine it would make a person feel very special and warm fuzzy all over if they were able to be this self-deluded.

You said:

It must be similar to how you feel when you claim to know what reality is and ignore how astonishing it is that anything exists at all, no?

It was a snipe. It was a cry for attention. It was an effort to join the big boy convo. It was childish. It was a troll post.

Rather than debate against my point, you decided to attack me, and accuse me of being unable to ascertain reality, and accused me of not being astonished that anything exists.

Both of which are rather preposterous statements. Just b/c I dont dream up fanciful reasons for being here, should not suggest I am not amazed that things exist. The what is reality argument you are trolling for here, has been handed back to you with bits and pieces of your ass for awhile now.

You want to have that argument........debate Haregeist the next time he offers. Coward.

Consistency? Haha, because you have somehow verified it is consistent outside of your own subjective experience of the matter, right?

How is responding to every question about God with: "God is imaginary" not objectively consistent?

That is anyone who sees my answer would say...hmm he is being consistent with his answer, or at the vary least, more consistent that the millions of theists each justifying the uncomfortable God questions with there own varied, imaginitave and creative answers?

Logical? Kiko already pointed out how flawed the statement is, if God is defined as all that exists.

When dealing with a non empirical concept like God, any answer will do, you just have to dream it up.

Kiko dreamed up a good one there.
You were obviously unable to dream up one as good.
Someone else might dream up a different answer.

My answer will stay consistently the same...God is imaginary.

I believe the statement I used my creative thought process to think up is better: "God/Reality is perfect". See any problems with it?

Sure I do, you have nothing to suggest God exists, that God exists and is the same thing reality is, or that reality or God are perfect.

Pretty much the whole stupid fortune cookie statement, I see problems with.

I already told you, if it includes the things mentioned, "growing up" isn't for me.

Then you will be like one of Peter Pan's lost boys. It will be jolly good fun for you little fella, and considering you exist in your own little imaginary world anyway, it wont be a stretch for you.

An atheist may have a ritual. It may indeed remind the atheist of a time they were theist.

Atheists dont have rituals to remind them of when they became an atheist. That is to say that there does not exist an atheist body who tells all atheists to do X to become an atheist.

To become a member of a church you may have to be babtized or participate in communion, this is the ritualistic shit I was referring to that atheists lack.

Your like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and starts asking people whats going on. Now that I have explained it to you, you gonna sit and watch the movie, or allow your childish wanderlust to draw your attention away again?

Not as easily as the hate which flows from your angry lips, like disgusting farts escaping a sleeping trucker.

So it takes longer for dumb shit to start in your tiny brain and make its way out, than it does for my hate to flow from my angry lips?

LOL. Okay I can live with that.

Rather than debate against my point...

You said "God is imaginary" is logically the best answer for any question about God. You provided your reasons for why (your subjective experience of consistency).

"Reality is imaginary" must be the best answer for any question about reality as well, if we assume your reasoning is correct.

I do not believe your reasoning is correct:

How is responding to every question about God with: "God is imaginary" not objectively consistent?

That is anyone who sees my answer would say...hmm he is being consistent with his answer, or at the vary least, more consistent that the millions of theists each justifying the uncomfortable God questions with there own varied, imaginitave and creative answers?

Your experience of the millions of theists and their answers is subjective to you. Therefore you have no idea if it is really an objective answer, or just your subjective one.

If we were to apply your reasoning to a situation where we asked a million adults a series of questions about what they thought about existence and reality, each justifying the uncomfortable reality/existence questions with their own varied, imaginative and creative answers, would we not conclude that reality and existence are imaginary?

Sure I do, you have nothing to suggest God exists, that God exists and is the same thing reality is, or that reality or God are perfect.

Nope, I have nothing. I believe that goes beyond this "does-God-exist" issue ... I believe I am totally uncertain about anything.

I used my creative thought process while thinking up that answer. Should that bother me? The answer appears to be more logical then your answer (everything that exists, does not exist):

God/Reality is perfect. Or ... Everything that exists is complete. Or ... everything that exists is everything that exists.

I believe that "perfect", when used without any limitations all on its own (limitations meaning a singularity, a perfect day, the perfect cake etc), means the same as God/reality. So you could simplify the sentence even further by saying "God/Reality is". Or, even more by just saying "God/Reality".

I'm not saying this means God exists. Just that this answer is more logical then your own. It can answer all the questions. And that doesn't even mean anything.

All this here fightin' is givin' me a headache.

/southern accent

I think the pseudo abstract thinking of gnostics and the like is all fine and dandy, infact I find the ideas challenging and interesting. All the ideas of perception from the simple "what if my green doesn't look liek the green you see?" to the more extreme "what if the reality I see is completely different than what you see as reality?" The brain strain (tee hee rhyme) those questions can pose are nice. But they are just that, mind games. But they are also the perfect shield for theists. His or her mind can not be changed, they believe in it because it keeps their beliefs nice and safe, since the "abstract" thinking can not be beaten with logic. So with the shield of anti-logic, theists can thwart questions posed against them.

They can slip out at times to draw you in, then jump back behind and laugh as you try to break through. Then think themselves witty with their anti-logic trickery.

But they are just that, mind games.

How so? How can you be certain of anything?

Are you sure thats not the real game being played here? Tricking yourself into believing you understand anything? Holding the little bits of reality carefully labeled "My life" under a magnifying glass while ignoring the rest of reality all around you, screaming for your attention?

How so? How can you be certain of anything?

Are you sure thats not the real game being played here? Tricking yourself into believing you understand anything? Holding the little bits of reality carefully labeled "My life" under a magnifying glass while ignoring the rest of reality all around you, screaming for your attention?

See that shit right there >:| you did that just do mess with me.

>.<

See that shit right there >:| you did that just do mess with me.

>.<

See that shit right there? Firm belief in the uselessness of thinking about anything you do not understand and a pathological obsession with people.

You'll completely ignore your inability to understand existence and reality and replace the object of your frustration with something to do with people, society, and in this case, my bringing these things to your attention.

Atheists dont have rituals to remind them of when they became an atheist.


Why then do you find it necessary to try and prove all theists wrong? Why do you post on My God if it only depresses you? You say that all theists are illogical, that may be, but it seems more illogical to me that you spend so much time trying to convert people to atheism if you get no satisfaction out of it..

^

1. I don't see where he ever said he "gets no satisfaction out of it". He said, in what you just quoted, that atheists don't "have rituals to remind them of when they became an atheist". That doesn't equal "I get no satisfaction".


2. Why do mathematicians spend their lives telling people 2+2 =4? Probably because they value truth over untruth, and because they would undoubtedly be affected negatively by living in a society where something as ridiculous as (lets say) 2+2 = -546 is the prevailing thought.

See that shit right there? Firm belief in the uselessness of thinking about anything you do not understand and a pathological obsession with people.

You'll completely ignore your inability to understand existence and reality and replace the object of your frustration with something to do with people, society, and in this case, my bringing these things to your attention.

I clearly stated that it is interesting to think about. But in the end, would tracending the reality I have established for myself really improve me as a person? I feel, if I created the reality I percieve, I have created it to suit my needs and wants. Perhaps it is a safety blanket.

But tranceding reality would not benifet me. I am happy. Sure shit goes wrong once in a while, but I only better myself as a person by fixing mistakes, rather than preventing them and never being able to experience it.

And as I have stated, I find it intersting and any info/links/books on the subject I would enjoy and appreciate. Knowldege is power and all that shiz.

^
I was implying that his “ritual” was to try and prove theists wrong since he does it so religiously (no pun intended). Also I guess I wasn't very clear on this, but I figured that if BP is spending so much time trying to disprove theism he should get something out of it intellectually speaking. Yes, I can see the satisfaction of teaching people truth, but he always seems so angry when he is showing people his views. I guess I can’t see the appeal of spending hours of the day reading posts online, unless I’m learning something from it.

Transcending reality? Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not sure what issue you're talking about, but this is a great book (http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html).

The reading begins...

^
I was implying that his “ritual” was to try and prove theists wrong since he does it so religiously (no pun intended). Also I guess I wasn't very clear on this, but I figured that if BP is spending so much time trying to disprove theism he should get something out of it intellectually speaking. Yes, I can see the satisfaction of teaching people truth, but he always seems so angry when he is showing people his views. I guess I can’t see the appeal of spending hours of the day reading posts online, unless I’m learning something from it.

I don't see how that changes much at all. He still didn't say he get's no satisfaction, and you're still assuming things about why he posts, and what het "gets out of" posting or engaging with theists.

"they don't u"... ? You couldn't even finish your thought? Apparently you can't even muster enough strength to produce the bullshit you were going to say! :p
It was 1:30 in the morning and I had just found a new (and highly effective :)) route for TMA-2! You... you wouldn't understand. :(

Nothing you said in this unfinished paragraph refutes a single thing I said.

Except that naked singularities will never be visible because the event horizons can only disappear per the mechanism I stated, and the laws of physics prevent that. Let me restate that again:

Scientists will never be able to observe singularities.
They may be able to deduce their nature from the laws of physics and such, but will never observe them. What one looks like (and several aspects of its nature) will forever be a mystery.

Well I would have to say a "specific subset of Christians" and I would have to because I can't say that I've met every Christian everywhere. You can't either, thus you must also be talking about about a specific subset.

So yes I, much like you, am saying that the Christians I have had a the "pleasure" (not the quotation marks... lol!) to discuss things with have used the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" as a way of ending our discussion because they've reached a contradiction or a difficult point and don't which to discuss it further.
How do you know that the Christians you discuss things with don't truly believe that some topic is a mystery? Does the conversation end as soon as they claim they can't explain it or use the mystery clause? This is what you imply when you claim that some Christians use it to end conversation.

That doesn't explain a thing, but reeks of desperate rationalization.

The possibility of coming up with an explanation using "extrapolation and subjective reference alone" doesn't refute the possibility of not using "extrapolation and subjective reference alone" to come up with an explanation. The evidence can still bear it out.
If your interpretation of the world rested on a book, do you think that book would have all the answers? Of course not, so you'd have to use "extrapolation and subjective reference" rather than concrete evidence.

So it remains:

Find me a definitive "answer" that has been reached regarding a topic on which the excuse "god works in mysterious ways" was used. In other words, please show me where Christians (or theists if you want) have previously said "god works in mysterious ways" and then, following subsequent research, reached a definitive answer.
I can't find you a definitive answer because of the reasons I've posted above. I can, however, give you a selection of possible answers with no root in evidence, but rather in logic and in the meaning of the evidence. It's a lot like the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis and other competing theories on singularities.

I'll get to the crux of the matter:

You said that neither group claims to know everything and were claiming both sides where doing the same thing. I'm explaining to you, just like BP did before me, that they are not doing the same thing. They are not doing the same thing because Scientists simply say "I don't know" where as what we're discussing is those theists that say "God works in mysterious ways". The two are not equivalent. One ("I don't know") allows all possibilities. The other ("God works in mysterious ways") does not; it allows only theistic (and only their god) to be the solution to the problem.
Hold on a second here... you think science allows all possibilities? In that case, do you think there's a possibility that science could prove divine cause of a phenomenon? The point is that science too works on assumptions.

They are not the same. The theists when he says "God works in mysterious ways" is already claiming that their God is behind the problem. They are saying "Im not wrong, this isn't a contradiction, my god is behind this for some reason". That is not the same.
That isn't the same as saying "but science will find out because empiricism must still be at least as valid an assumption as theism"?

P.S. I would like for you to read AF's post. She said what I was trying to say in a much more intelligent and eloquent manner.

Maybe later; I notice I touched on many of the points already.

Except that naked singularities will never be visible because the event horizons can only disappear per the mechanism I stated, and the laws of physics prevent that. Let me restate that again:

Scientists will never be able to observe singularities.
They may be able to deduce their nature from the laws of physics and such, but will never observe them. What one looks like (and several aspects of its nature) will forever be a mystery.

Let me restate this again: You cannot state that for certain, in the future. You can only state that for certain, now. You have no way of knowing it we will be able to in the future, or if our current cosmological understanding - which already Scientists believe has some flaws - will change what we know think is impossible to something that is possible or even easy.

Everything in Science is potentially falsifiable, even "The Laws of Nature".


How do you know that the Christians you discuss things with don't truly believe that some topic is a mystery? Does the conversation end as soon as they claim they can't explain it or use the mystery clause? This is what you imply when you claim that some Christians use it to end conversation.


Yes, the conversation or at least any meaningful input from their side regarding the topic they trotted out "God says in mysterious ways" for, ends or at least changes to another topic. They cannot justify what they were arguing for, they trot out the excuse, and then cease to want to discuss things further i.e. they believe their excuse is enough to explain any problem.

If your interpretation of the world rested on a book, do you think that book would have all the answers? Of course not, so you'd have to use "extrapolation and subjective reference" rather than concrete evidence.

Or choose not to base yourself on that silly book...

Your argument is ridiculous. If they are setting themselves restrictions on purpose, then that's their fault, it sure as hell isn't mine. That's a problem in their worldview, not mine.

By your logic, if my interpretation of Calculus rested on a Dr. Seuss book, there would be nothing wrong with me using "extrapolation and subjective reference" (whathever the fuck you mean by that) to reach any inane mathematical conclusion I want!


I can't find you a definitive answer because of the reasons I've posted above. I can, however, give you a selection of possible answers with no root in evidence, but rather in logic and in the meaning of the evidence. It's a lot like the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis and other competing theories on singularities.

The reasons you posted above are not reasons at all.

If you cannot give me a definite answer (or as close to it as we humans can get) then you are not doing the equivalent of Science. Again, the whole point was to call bullshit against your claim that the theist that uses the excuse in question, an a Scientist are the same. They are not.


Hold on a second here... you think science allows all possibilities? In that case, do you think there's a possibility that science could prove divine cause of a phenomenon? The point is that science too works on assumptions.

If you can provide a way that Science could test the hypothesis through the Scientific method, then sure. Your (or my) inability to provide such a way does not prove that such a way is impossible.

Science working on assumptions cannot possibly be the point because nobody questioned that Science involves certain assumptions. What we questioned was the ridiculous idea that "God works in mysterious ways" is the equivalent of a Scientist saying that he currently cannot explain X phenomenon. They are not.


That isn't the same as saying "but science will find out because empiricism must still be at least as valid an assumption as theism"?

No, the Scientist doesn't say that when he says "I don't know". He says "I don't have a answer to that right now but I'll do my best to find out".

Not only does the Christian, in my experience, use the excuse to stop the discussion but even if we consider those that you say do not (which I'm willing to bet you made up for the sake of argument) their "best" is still nothing close to the Scientist's best! They are not comparable.

No, the Scientist doesn't say that when he says "I don't know". He says "I don't have a answer to that right now but I'll do my best to find out".

Not only does the Christian, in my experience, use the excuse to stop the discussion but even if we consider those that you say do not (which I'm willing to bet you made up for the sake of argument) their "best" is still nothing close to the Scientist's best! They are not comparable.

I didn't make that up. I discuss theology (in real life that is; the Internet offers such fast delivery that I really can't pass up on such an opportunity) only with well-informed Christians, most of whom have some kind of degree in a religious field. I rarely discuss religion in the public square unless it is with such Christians. In fact, come to think of it, I haven't had any Christian in real life use "It's a mystery" as a conversation-ender. As I said earlier, it usually followed up with "but I'll do some research and get back to you". I think if there's one conclusion we can reach here it's that some Christians use it as an excuse to end the conversation and others don't.

As much as I'd love to discuss this with you and BP and the rest of the gang, I'm going to have to keep it brief and back to the original point (was it?).

"Reality is imaginary" must be the best answer for any question about reality as well, if we assume your reasoning is correct.

I do not believe your reasoning is correct:

If you claim "reality is imaginary" to every question about reality, then yes, it would be objectively consistent.

My only claim was that my answer to any question about God is consistent. Does not mean it is the correct answer (God could certainly exist), just means it is an objectively consistent answer.

Your claim that it is subjectively consistent answer, lacks ANY evidence to make such a claim, STILL.

God/Reality is perfect. Or ... Everything that exists is complete. Or ... everything that exists is everything that exists.

I believe that "perfect", when used without any limitations all on its own (limitations meaning a singularity, a perfect day, the perfect cake etc), means the same as God/reality. So you could simplify the sentence even further by saying "God/Reality is". Or, even more by just saying "God/Reality".

Awesome.

The problems I mentioned in the last post that I have with your "God/Reality is perfect" horseshit still stand.

You have nothing to suggest God exists, that God exists and is the same thing reality is, or that reality or God are perfect.

I will repeat this so that you can understand the problems I personally have with your claim...

You have nothing to suggest God exists, that God exists and is the same thing reality is, or that reality or God are perfect.

I am almost tempted to repeat it a third time...but I am going to act on a little faith here Obbe. I am going to have faith that your are not stupid enough to fail to understand the problems I have with your claim...and how it is impossible for you to back it up with anything.

^
I was implying that his “ritual” was to try and prove theists wrong since he does it so religiously (no pun intended)..

My behavior is not a ritual that reminds me of the moment I became an atheist. I do not engage in my behavior in a ritualistic fashion.

Also I guess I wasn't very clear on this, but I figured that if BP is spending so much time trying to disprove theism he should get something out of it intellectually speaking. Yes, I can see the satisfaction of teaching people truth, but he always seems so angry when he is showing people his views.

I don't try to disprove theism. Theism exists. I simply try to point out how fucking retarded it is. It surprisingly requires little effort to do that.

What does take effort is the constant shuffling through dumbshit posts by cunts like the one which I was just responding to, Obbe. As you can see...he does not have a prayer in the world of backing up his fuckhead claims, and he doesn't even know it.

This actually makes me laugh at times. Just b/c I properly identify a person as being a complete fucktard, or a cunt, doesn't even mean I am angry, just observant.

Does a person have to have a calm demeanor in order to glean something intellectual from a debate?

I guess I can’t see the appeal of spending hours of the day reading posts online, unless I’m learning something from it.

I am at work right now. I have 8 hours to kill. I am bored.

I have learned plenty here on totse, and in this forum. Such as: what a syllogism is, how logic is defined, various forms of improper argumentation (strawman, ad hominem) etc.

I have learned what the prominent theistic arguments are: Pascal's Wager, Prime Mover, Intelligent Design arguments, Founded in Christian Roots arguments etc.

As you can see, you have presumed much. I would like to note that I haven't been a total prick to you, but I will most likely be were you to assume once more that I do not glean anything intellectual here on My God.

As I said earlier, it usually followed up with "but I'll do some research and get back to you". I think if there's one conclusion we can reach here it's that some Christians use it as an excuse to end the conversation and others don't.

As much as I'd love to discuss this with you and BP and the rest of the gang, I'm going to have to keep it brief and back to the original point (was it?).

Back to the original point... yet you devote what 70% of your post to a throw-away comment I made? Weird.

The original point was that "God works in mysterious" ways is not the equivalent of what a Scientists does when he says "I don't know". I would say even your own erudite Christians you allude to do not prove this wrong. You've yet to show any definitive "answer" they've found! You just said they say they are going to research the issue!

Does not mean it is the correct answer (God could certainly exist), just means it is an objectively consistent answer.

Your experience of the millions of theists and their answers is subjective to you. Therefore you have no idea if it is really an objective answer, or just your subjective one.

You do not know if it is an objective answer or if it just seems that way, subjectively, to you.

You have nothing to suggest God exists, that God exists and is the same thing reality is, or that reality or God are perfect.

I am almost tempted to repeat it a third time...but I am going to act on a little faith here Obbe. I am going to have faith that your are not stupid enough to fail to understand the problems I have with your claim...and how it is impossible for you to back it up with anything.

I'm not saying this means God exists. Just that this answer is more logical then your own. It can answer all the questions. And that doesn't even mean anything.

I am not claiming any reasons why I believe what I wrote, at least not in this thread. I am only claiming that my answer appears to be more logical then your own.

I don't know why you think I don't understand the so called 'problems' with my claim that my answer is more logical ...I said that doesn't mean anything. Instead, I think you think I'm saying something I am not.

You do not know if it is an objective answer or if it just seems that way, subjectively, to you.

I am not saying it is an objective answer. I have said (AND I AM RIGHT ON THIS) that if a person responds to a series of questions with the same answer then they are being consistent and there is nothing subjective about that.

I am now going to say fuck you after every post in this thread. Three pages from now you make a case that suggests me saying fuck you after every post is not being consistent.

You SHOULD be able to do this easily, since me doing that would be subjectively and not objectively consistent. Good luck.

Fuck you.

I am not claiming any reasons why I believe what I wrote, at least not in this thread. I am only claiming that my answer appears to be more logical then your own.

How is claiming "god/reality is perfect" more logical than saying "I don't know" when their exists no evidence.

PLEASE pull some Obbeshit out of your ass to answer this puzzle.

Fuck you.

I don't know why you think I don't understand the so called 'problems' with my claim that my answer is more logical ...I said that doesn't mean anything. Instead, I think you think I'm saying something I am not.

You asked me if I had a problem with your claim. I told what problems I had with it. Try to keep up.

Again, show how your bullshit is more logical than claiming you dont know in the absence of evidence.

Fuck you.

I am not saying it is an objective answer.

My only claim was that my answer to any question about God is consistent. Does not mean it is the correct answer (God could certainly exist), just means it is an objectively consistent answer.

:confused: Alright then... :confused:

I have said (AND I AM RIGHT ON THIS) that if a person responds to a series of questions with the same answer then they are being consistent and there is nothing subjective about that.

They may be consistent, but your experience of this person answering with the same answer to your line of questioning is subjective to your perception.

Don't just tell me you are right. Explain to me how it is not entirely subjective to your perception.

I am now going to say fuck you after every post in this thread.

Because thats how "mature adults" deal with their frustration, or because you find slanging obscenities at me is necessary to drive home your point?

Three pages from now you make a case that suggests me saying fuck you after every post is not being consistent.

You SHOULD be able to do this easily, since me doing that would be subjectively and not objectively consistent. Good luck.

Fuck you.

Again, it would be consistent within my subjective experience of the situation. I would not know reality is objectively like that.

Eat shit and die, you cum gargling cunt. ;):D

How is claiming "god/reality is perfect" more logical than saying "I don't know" when their exists no evidence.

Wait, wait, wait ... what what your answer again?

Was it "I don't know" ... or was it ... "God is imaginary"?

;)

"I don't know" is the most honest answer, but if we were to attempt to logically deduce one my answer is better then yours (that God is imaginary) because:

1) Your answer is illogical (everything that exists does not exist). I do not have to prove that God is equal to everything that exists here, because your reasoning that your answer would be the most logical already can apply to questions about reality and existence. If we were to accept your reasoning, we would conclude reality and existence are only imaginary, or do not exist.

2) Being objectively consistent has nothing to do with it, because your experience is subjective and therefore you do not know if it is objective in reality. If we were to assume the our subjective experiences were objectively correct, then my answer can answer all those question just as consistently as yours.

3) My answer makes sense:

God/Reality is perfect. Or ... Everything that exists is complete. Or ... everything that exists is everything that exists.

I believe that "perfect", when used without any limitations all on its own (limitations meaning a singularity, a perfect day, the perfect cake etc), means the same as God/reality. So you could simplify the sentence even further by saying "God/Reality is". Or, even more by just saying "God/Reality".

"What exists is what exists" is more logical then "what exists does not exist."

PLEASE pull some Obbeshit out of your ass to answer this puzzle.

Fuck you.

Nice man. Hey that reminds me, its after midnight and now ...

ITS OBBES BIRTHDAY TODAY, MYGOD!!!

My 20th birthday if you all want to know! August 9th, 1988, year of the dragon, a little tiny Obbe came to this world crying and afraid all covered in goo. At least now I'm clean and dry.

You asked me if I had a problem with your claim. I told what problems I had with it. Try to keep up.

Again, show how your bullshit is more logical than claiming you dont know in the absence of evidence.

Fuck you.

Claiming you do not know? When the fuck did that become your argument?

From your OP:

Atheists have one very simple answer to any difficult question about God, such as why he will not heal amputees, and the great thing about this answer is, it is both universal (can answer every question one has about God) and logical.

What is this perfect answer.......

God is imaginary.

Do you need to be reminded your answer is "God is imaginary"? That is what I am saying my answer is more logical then. :mad:

Oh yeah, shove it all up your ass! :D

ITS OBBES BIRTHDAY TODAY, MYGOD!!!

My 20th birthday if you all want to know! August 9th, 1988, year of the dragon, a little tiny Obbe came to this world crying and afraid all covered in goo. At least now I'm clean and dry.


How can you be certain that you were born, were covered in goo, and this isn't all an illusion?

How do you know you are clean and dry right now?

;)

Happy (6 hour belated-but-better-late-than-never) Birthday, Obbe.

How can you be certain that you were born, were covered in goo, and this isn't all an illusion?

How do you know you are clean and dry right now?

;)

Happy (6 hour belated-but-better-late-than-never) Birthday, Obbe.

I am totally uncertain.

Thanks Femme.

The "I dont know" argument was a different one I was having with Nshanin. Feel free to replace "God is imaginary" or even X.

We are now arguing if someone can have an objectively consistent answer.

Lets find out....

------

Consistent: marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction <a consistent style in painting> b: marked by agreement
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistent


Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

-----

Me using certain words, in certain order is a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.

To claim that a certain answer that is consistent is subjectively consistent, you will have to show how a person using certain words in certain order is not a truth that is true everywhere; independent of human though or feelings. That is to say mind-independent.

Good luck with that, and...

-----

How old are you now Obbe? 14? 13?

How is stating that "God is imaginary" and that this is an objectively consistent answer the same thing as stating that "I don't know" or X? The first statement appears to imply certainty.

------

Exactly how would I know that the reality I may attempt to describe with words are representing a true objective reality that is independent of human thought or feelings, when my experience of that reality is entirely subjective to my perception? Which by the way appears to be riddled with human thought and emotion (which, again, would only be my subjective perception of it).

I do not have to show anything. My experience is subjective to my perception, and I may not be certain it is objectively consistent with anything. I may not even be certain of that statement!!

I may not be certain that my subjective perception is objective, and comparing my perception with another persons may not verify whether of not it is since that experience would be a part of my subjective perception. Even if you cannot realize that your perception cannot be verified to be objective, I may provide you with the references to a couple studies that appear to indicate reality is a collective hallucination; that is to say, your experience of reality is more influenced by society then your personal perception of it. Tell me what you think that.

Of course, I would rather you just realize that these studies themselves may not be known to be objectively correct, because your experience of them would all be a part of your subjective experience.

-----

Sorry I took so long to reply. I appear to have been having a fun weekend celebrating my 20th birthday.

Although, I cannot be totally certain. ;)

How is stating that "God is imaginary" and that this is an objectively consistent answer the same thing as stating that "I don't know" or X? The first statement appears to imply certainty.

They are not the same thing...

I said feel free to replace it with X because we have been arguing whether or not the same repeated answer to a question is objectively consistent.

----

I have provided you with definitions of the terms used to describe objectively consistent. I have shown how my answer is objectively consistent in accordance with the defintions.

Me using certain words, in certain order is a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. This makes it objectively consistent.

You have still failed to refute this by indicating everything relies upon your subjective perception. Thus, according to you nothing can be objective. Your theory lacks any real substance whatsoever, and I dismiss it as your usual nonsensical rhetoric used in an attempt to not be wrong and save a little face.

I will not continue any further in this discussion until you admit and realize your "everything is an illusion" is a baseless assertion, and in any intelligent discourse a person has the right to dismiss it.

You cannot always hide behind nonsense Obbe. Your getting to be big boy now, you should know this.

Does this mean that you concede that my answer for any question about reality or God is more logical then your own?

----

Sorry that I am unable to say this clearer:

My experience of you using certain words, in a certain order is subjective to my perception.

Explain to me, if you are able, how you would verify my using certain words in a certain order to be an objectively true event independent of human thought or feelings.

How are you able to verify any part of reality to be objective outside of your subjective perception??

Does this mean that you concede that my answer for any question about reality or God is more logical then your own?

No, the most logical answer about something that is not known...is I don't know. I stand by that.

---

Sorry that I am unable to say this clearer:

My experience of you using certain words, in a certain order is subjective to my perception.

No. It is not subjective to your perception. You can read the letters I used to form the words. You can tell them to be words. You can see they are in a certain order.

THIS IS INDEPENDANT OF YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS.

Thus, objective.

How are you able to verify any part of reality to be objective outside of your subjective perception??

I am not entering into your foolish, everything is illusion nonsense, and I will not allow you to use it here to defend your position. You have no evidence to suggest that nothing can be objective...you make that claim...you have the burden...back it up or admit you cannot and concede the point to me. You have been defeated in this. Accept it.

I am not entering into your foolish, everything is illusion nonsense, and I will not allow you to use it here to defend your position. You have no evidence to suggest that nothing can be objective...you make that claim...you have the burden...back it up or admit you cannot and concede the point to me. You have been defeated in this. Accept it.

You are wise not to fall into his trap, a trap he has derailed many a thread with. You see, if you show someone that none of their arguments hold up, it does not follow that what they are arguing for isn’t true, because it is possible that it is true and they simply haven’t found a sufficient proof of its factuality yet. Therefore, if you want to show that what they are trying to prove is in fact not true, rather than that there is so far no reason to believe it, in which case showing that their arguments are invalid or unsound suffices, then you need to provide arguments for why it isn’t true. In Obbe’s case, he doesn’t seem to ever do this. When someone asks him to prove that we cannot know anything, he sophistically shifts the burden of proof with a question: how do you know that it is possible that we can know anything? It is almost as if he seems to think that the other person’s inability to answer -- if they are unable to answer; sometimes they manage to prove that we can know something, or that there is an objective order, but Obbe simply claims not to understand them when they do! -- is proof of his position, but, for reasons that I have just explained, it is not.

^---You scare Obbe off everytime you show up. I am humbled by your skill at getting rid of Obbe.

I picture the Obbe troll hissing at you like Gollum and scurrying under a rock. It is truly amazing.

Could someone explain to me the major problem with Obbe's post?

I mean, it seems to me to be common sense to accept that my perceptions may not be objectively true, In fact there are many instances in MY daily life where I think I see/hear things that aren't there. If I believed I had a completely objective world-view then my life would be filled with superstition.

Other examples of apparently non-objective perceptions and beliefs lay centered in special hospitals scattered across the world; could any of us take a walk in a mental hospital and decide that human perception is objective?

It seems to me a fact that human perception is subjective, and yes, I'm guessing that we can have objective knowledge, but beond our own perception we really can not verify that. You could say that I could verify it with people, but there arise problems even there; majority opinion is still that, opinion, the world once seemed to be round etc. a lot of people agreeing on one thing is not objective proof of anything.

You can say that I can test things empirically, but once again, even here things get a little complicated; for example several posters often post things that they believe to be true, scientific studies etc, only to have another poster shoot them down. Despite this may posters still believe that whet they believe is objectively true.

In fact the only way I can think of expressing truth is mathmatically and deductively.

Now, I don't exactly believe that everything is an illusion, but can someone explain why it is so wrong to believe that our perception may not be objectively true?

The main problem I find is that he himself doesn't seem to follow the nonsense he spews. He picks and chooses when to apply this ridiculous solipcism of his. He'll de-rail a thread insisting that we cannot know anything for certain and then a second later in another thread he's making claims as if he knew for sure.

It reeks of bullshit. It reeks of something he says just to sound enlightened on the Internet.

Could someone explain to me the major problem with Obbe's post?

Rust hit it on the head...I would like to add some perspective on the thread here as well.

If the only way you can claim something is not objective is by invoking abstract shit, that completely and utterly lacks any evidence whatsoever, you fail.

It is that simple here and the major problem in Obbe's posts everywhere.

It is the same as if you and I are arguing about how gravity is an objective concept here on Earth, and one of us claims that superman disobeys this, so it is now subjective.

It is something children do. It is something Obbe does consistently.

If the only way you can claim something is not objective is by invoking abstract shit, that completely and utterly lacks any evidence whatsoever, you fail.

Isn't it up to the empiricist to prove that objective truth exists?