Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sordid]

Sordid, what's your point.

I'm talking to a man who is not to be reasoned with, so I try not to make any so as not to offend him.

[Bauglir]

If it's invisible you have no evidence. I do have evidence there is no visible dragon in my garage.

Nope, still not evidence. You may be hallucinating an empty garage while in reality there's a perfectly visible dragon right in front of you.

No, it's evidence. It's not proof. It's evidence. There is a difference.

[Siquo]

I included the word wiser, and human construct. And I believe you're none the wiser than our forefathers, nor less human.

Then you have redefined the meaning of that word to suit your own views.

No, I expanded the God's traits with the OTHER words that were in the sentence.

And I don't need any to believe in him

Actually yes, you do. Otherwise you're believing something for no reason, which is just stupid.

We were talking about evidence, so I'd be believing in him without evidence. Which is about the definition of belief: accepting something as true without evidence. I have a reason that I mentioned numerous times in this topic. No need to use words like "stupid" here. We're all trying hard to keep this thread unlocked.

Um, a subjective objective meaning is just as much nonsense as black white or round square.

No. There's just no absolute absolute, so all absolutes are subjective absolutes. If you absolutely believe otherwise, that's your absolute reality. Yes, that is right, we don't share a reality. You may believe we do, I believe we don't, still belief vs belief. Hitting me in the face won't change that, you may be an illusion as well as the pain. There is no evidence for a reality. That is why science assumes there is, so it can work from there.

....eeeexcept when that 'other' happens to be God.

Meh, I don't really care what he thinks of me, since I have no way of knowing. The purpose-story is not about self-worth, it's about purpose. And I don't get my self-worth from purpose either.



And offending me by calling me stupid is a whole lot worse than by making a point . No really, I'd love to hear your point. What do YOU believe in, Sordid? What is your worldview, your paradigm, your stance on reality and the universe?

[dreiche2]

Sordid, what's your point.

I'm talking to a man who is not to be reasoned with, so I try not to make any so as not to offend him.

Ah, I didn't know that you're just playing games with Siquo. Please let me know next time so I don't bother actually having a discussion with you...

[Sordid]

No, I expanded the God's traits with the OTHER words that were in the sentence.

You are a master of special pleading and moving goalposts, I'll give you that.. "Knowledge puts you above morality." "Our knowledge is increasing, so we're going above morality." "No, because our wisdom isn't." Whatever.

We were talking about evidence, so I'd be believing in him without evidence. Which is about the definition of belief: accepting something as true without evidence.

Actually that's faith.

I have a reason that I mentioned numerous times in this topic. No need to use words like "stupid" here. We're all trying hard to keep this thread unlocked.

So suddenly you do believe in reasons and reasoning? I thought you said that was reserved only for science. Or are you saying science has the ability to assess the existence of God?

No. There's just no absolute absolute, so all absolutes are subjective absolutes.

You do realize this is the same thing as Obi-Wan's line "only a sith deals in absolutes", right? "There's no absolute absolute" is itself an absolute, and therefore self-contradictory.

Meh, I don't really care what he thinks of me, since I have no way of knowing. The purpose-story is not about self-worth, it's about purpose. And I don't get my self-worth from purpose either.

Really? I thought you were going on about how lousy it was going around without a purpose. Sure sounded like you weren't happy about that.

And offending me by calling me stupid is a whole lot worse than by making a point .

Re-read what I said. I didn't say you were stupid, I said believing things without a reason is. And as you pointed out, you do have a reason.

No really, I'd love to hear your point. What do YOU believe in, Sordid? What is your worldview, your paradigm, your stance on reality and the universe?

Do you think I'd be engaging in this discussion if I had a definitive answer to that question?

[Siquo]

Ah, I didn't know that you're just playing games with Siquo. Please let me know next time so I don't bother actually having a discussion with you...

QFT.

I'm just in the habit of taking everyone seriously, however strange they may be. That makes me an easy joke-target, but I can live with that. The benefits outweigh that tremendously.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I try not to take anything seriously.

[Grakelin]

Moving aside from the flamebashing, I saw some posts just before discussing the cookie analogy, in which a God can't exist because he isn't helping us out. The problem with this is that we're thinking in human, personal terms. We need to look at it from the position of a higher being. The reason we don't get our cookies is because getting our cookies and never getting fat would make us complacent. Our lives, the people we are, aren't defined by the good times we have so much as the bad ones.

[Siquo]

Oh, you should try it.

I once worked as a volunteer for a children's telephone line (it's free and untraceable, for whenever children need someone to talk to). Children would often call with prank calls first, to test it out. When they realise that no matter how stupid they behave, they're always taken seriously, they suddenly open up and tell you what's really on their mind.

Children are not that different from adults, it works in real life as well.


@Grakelin:
That is one explanation. Another could be that you cannot enjoy happiness without knowing sorrow. There might be numerous others that we cannot conceive. I try not to assume too much about what God would want, that only leads to the excesses that we all dislike so much in religions.

[Zironic]

I'm atheist by choice, after finding major flaws in organized religion. I'd rather believe nothing then become a tool for politics and violence. I think it's disgusting how people are losing their individuality and just spouting their church's politics as their own.

[Siquo]

True, but you can believe in a God without adhering to an organised religion. Has the entire concept been tainted for you?

[Areyar]

Once you realize you have been led to believe in lies, you tend to reasses many of your assumptions.

[Il Palazzo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ

A panel discussion with Dawkins, Tyson and two other, less visible and eloquent personas. Mostly about science and religion.
Quite relevant to the discussion Sordid and Siquo have had a while ago.
Not at all irrelevant to the thread in general.
If you have an hour to spare, that is.

[Naresomez]

I'm atheist by choice, after finding major flaws in organized religion. I'd rather believe nothing then become a tool for politics and violence. I think it's disgusting how people are losing their individuality and just spouting their church's politics as their own.

Agreed.

Also, in my opinion, even if there was a god, I really don't think it's worth "worshiping" or "revering"... It'd just be a bystander, standing by the petre dish, watching the bacterium slaughter each other...

[Grek]

The reason we don't get our cookies is because getting our cookies and never getting fat would make us complacent.

That is one explanation. Another could be that you cannot enjoy happiness without knowing sorrow.

Both of these answers rely on rejecting the omnipotence of the Divine. If the Almighty wished it to be so, we could be happy forever without once knowing sorrow or ever becoming coplacent. By definition, the answer to any formulation of "Could so-and-so be true if the Almighty wanted it to be that way?" is true, regardless of what the situation described is. If we accept either of these two answers as true, we must either say that God is not all-powerful and it is beyond the power of the Divine to make us happy without also giving us reason to be sad OR say that the Almighty does not wish us to not know of sadness and that the Divine specifically wants birth defects and diseases and so forth to exist.

I try not to assume too much about what God would want, that only leads to the excesses that we all dislike so much in religions.

I find that a refusal to carefully consider the nature of the Divine is what leads to the excesses of most religions. Espically the so-called "Catholic" Church and it's various ofstarts.