Poll

13 votes (18.3%)
54 votes (76.05%)
4 votes (5.63%)

71 members have voted

DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 177
  • Posts: 10112
December 30th, 2010 at 8:51:28 AM permalink
Not to be a KillJoy, but I think the God / No God tangent should be split off to a new topic.

So here: Do you beleive in God?
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
December 30th, 2010 at 9:02:47 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

So it makes me wonder why there's a reaction now. If you've already assigned all sorts of motive and background to me and trying to make this about me by "turning it around" for the sake of dodging the question, that's okay, but it would just be more honest to say something like, "I'm dodging the question" or "It's none of your business, can we go back to talking about blackjack now?" and not assign all those "reasons" to try to discredit me as a "source."



Don't engage in projection. It's unbecoming.

If you're not jewish or Christian, I apologize. In the West when somenoe says "God," 99 times out of 100 he refers to the Biblical, Judeo-Christian God.

I am not dodging the question. All sorts of cultures have believed at one time or anotehr in all sorts of deities and gods, and this includes the Biblical God. If you believe in one, why do you? Why not in the others? What makes your god so special his existence is not to be questioned?

Quote:

FWIW, the question I meant to pursue is not whether or not you believe in a God or in a particular God (you mentioned Judeo-Christian), but whether or not you're open-minded to the existence of a God at all.



I am not "open" to the existence of any god or deity because there is NO evidence for such things. Just like I'm not "open" to the existence of ghosts, goblins, pixies, or the validity of Tarot or astrology. because there is no evidence of any kind to support any of it.

Quote:

If you're not, that's okay, just say it: no matter how much or what evidence is presented, I *WILL NOT* ever believe in God. Don't hide behind some quasi-intellectual, impossible-to-meet, ambiguous standard of "any kind of unambiguous, solid, measureable evidence ..."



I resent that remark and I should demand an apology.

Thomas Jefferson once said he'd sooner believe a Yankee professor would lie, than stones would fall from the sky. He was wrong, because stones do fall from the sky. but he was right in demanding more evidence than a simple eye-witness testimony, because he was presented with an extraordinary claim.

I would accept real evidence. An argument is not evidence. An account of miracles by people 2,000+ years dead is not evidence. I don't believe in Ares or Achilles simply because there is a book that tells of their actions. An admission of ignorance is not evidence.

Evidence is material and can be measured at least qualitatively. You know what evidence is. Show me yours.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
December 30th, 2010 at 9:33:41 AM permalink
Let's try a different way ...

One of the questions I originally asked was, "if unambiguously shown this evidence, would you immediately fall to your knees?"

Your answer was, "No. The religion I was raised in does not require prostration."

I liked that, that was honest and unambiguous. I guess I just had hoped to get a similarly honest and unambiguous answer to the other question. If that's not going to happen, that's fine, it's just a stupid internet forum and probably not worth pursuing any further.

As to the other points, yes, I know what evidence is. I also believe that people who cling to a dearly-held belief will reject evidence to the contrary in order to hold to their beliefs. In this sense, evidence doesn't matter. The condition of the heart matters.

I've already gone into what I believe and why, I'm just too lazy to go back and find it. I do recall you participated in that discussion. But restating it here would, I think, be an exercise in futility. I think that, despite me saying clearly and unambiguously that I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of a God, but am trying to figure out whether you're open to it, you don't believe that. I think that because you still assign motive and belief to me.

Quote: Nareed

If you believe in one, why do you? Why not in the others? What makes your god so special his existence is not to be questioned?



Quote: Nareed

You know what evidence is. Show me yours.



I don't think comments like that come without assigning motive and belief. Like you say,

Quote: Nareed

Don't engage in projection, it's unbecoming.



Finally, I think doing that is a way to dodge the question via "discrediting the source." Here's what a dodge looks like to me:

Quote: Nareed

I am not "open" to the existence of any god or deity because there is NO evidence for such things.



OK, so you're not open because there's no evidence. But ...

Quote: Nareed

I would accept real evidence.



Telling us there's no evidence but you would accept real evidence only *sounds* intellectual. You've already told us there's no evidence. Then, when I ask what "real evidence" is to you, I don't get what it is, but a few examples of what it isn't:

Quote: Nareed

An argument is not evidence. An account of miracles by people 2,000+ years dead is not evidence. I don't believe in Ares or Achilles simply because there is a book that tells of their actions. An admission of ignorance is not evidence.



Suppose I gave you evidence. You say you would accept it, but how do I know? You've already said there's no evidence, and you won't tell me what you think is "real evidence." I'm chasing a ghost! In other words, it's a dodge.

If you're not convince-able, that's fine, just say it. Don't pretend to be intellectual or in some sense remotely open-minded about the issue, because everything points to the probability that you're not: 1) you affirmatively state there's no evidence, 2) you won't tell us what "real evidence" is, 3) you assign belief and motive to me, 4) you have tried twice to make it about me when I've already disclosed that, and 5) you affirmatively state you're not open to it.

If you're not open, I would say that means you're closed. Again, that's okay, just ...

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Don't hide behind some quasi-intellectual, impossible-to-meet, ambiguous standard of "any kind of unambiguous, solid, measureable evidence ..."

Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
December 30th, 2010 at 10:23:33 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Telling us there's no evidence but you would accept real evidence only *sounds* intellectual. You've already told us there's no evidence. Then, when I ask what "real evidence" is to you, I don't get what it is, but a few examples of what it isn't:



When I say there is no evidence I mean no evidence has been presented. I don't mean there can't be any.

I don't say what evidence I'd accept because I don't know what evidence may exist. I'm telling you arguments and alleged eye-witness accounts of uncertain provenance do NOT constitute evidence. If we were talking about String Theory, or magnetic monopoles, I know what the evidence would be like. When it comes to God, I've no idea.

I will ask you, once, to please stop attacking my intelelctual integrity and to stop putting words in my mouth (which is also called projection). I will not ask a second time.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
December 30th, 2010 at 10:57:44 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

When I say there is no evidence I mean no evidence has been presented. I don't mean there can't be any.

I don't say what evidence I'd accept because I don't know what evidence may exist. I'm telling you arguments and alleged eye-witness accounts of uncertain provenance do NOT constitute evidence. If we were talking about String Theory, or magnetic monopoles, I know what the evidence would be like. When it comes to God, I've no idea.



Of course, arguments aren't evidence. Those are just ways of presenting and debating evidence. Any argument you hear boils down to just that. If you hold a dearly-held belief and are not open to change, it wouldn't surprise me that any amount of argument wouldn't change that.

As for the statement that eyewitness accounts aren't evidence, I would say that they are. Eyewitness accounts, even of uncertain provenance are often entered into evidence, even today. And I daresay that most of what we know of history is based on eyewitness accounts.

It is good to have a healthy skepticism, but it is not good to have an absolute one. Again, it comes to the topic to which the evidence applies and the pre-assignment of motive ("uncertain provenance") to the eyewitness giving the testimony. I would guess that you don't assign "uncertain provenance" to ALL eyewitness testimony and history you read. I would further guess that you largely assign "uncertain provenance" to any accounts of history that don't align with what you already believe: in this example, "I see there's no evidence, so any eyewitness testimony from 2,000 years ago is NOT evidence but instead is of uncertain provenance."

These guesses could be wrong, but I don't think they are. I don't believe that you, as a functional human being, disregard ALL eyewitness testimony in the same way you pre-disregard that from 2,000 years ago ... or more specifically, eyewitness accounts of miracles from 2,000 years ago. Again, I don't know, but if, say, someone who witnessed the "miracle" of the big bang wrote it down and it was somehow preserved over the last 13 billion or so years, you would not treat it with similar disregard.

(I say "miracle" of the big bang because, to that eyewitness, the appearance of something out of nothing would be a "miracle.")

The reason why can only be guessed, but my guess would be because it aligns with what you already believe. Even though much closer to current times, the 2,000 year old eyewitness testimony is disregarded.

This is an example of why I believe that, sometimes, evidence doesn't matter, and that pretending it does is a dodge.

Quote: Nareed

I will ask you, once, to please stop attacking my intelelctual integrity and to stop putting words in my mouth (which is also called projection). I will not ask a second time.



I'm not sure what this means or what consequences you think challenging you will rain down on me since I've pursued it pretty hard. If it's time to stop, I'm okay with that. I would say, though, that pointing out what I think is an area of closed-mindedness in you that you think isn't closed should not be construed as an attack on your integrity. None of us acts perfectly, and none of us thinks perfectly. But not being perfect is far different than having no integrity. I don't think your thinking lacks integrity. I think you highly value open-mindedness and have a hard time seeing that you are closed-minded on something. But what I think doesn't matter.

Also FWIW, I don't think being closed-minded on something is necessarily bad. After all, I'm closed-minded on a flat earth, a geocentric universe, and the concept of "sometimes evidence doesn't matter". But I'm not closed to the possible existence of a God.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
December 30th, 2010 at 11:43:04 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

As for the statement that eyewitness accounts aren't evidence, I would say that they are. Eyewitness accounts, even of uncertain provenance are often entered into evidence, even today. And I daresay that most of what we know of history is based on eyewitness accounts.


However, for most of human history, eyewitness accounts provided "evidence" that the Earth was flat and, later, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Fully-explained heliocentrism is slightly less than 500 years old, and it was almost heresy when Copernicus published it because it directly contradicted the bible.

So, as with many other things, you must pay heed to the observer and not merely that which is observed. If the observer has no possible explanation of what he's observed, nor comprehension of its underpinnings, he's probably not going to make a very good witness. History has shown that humans often make up a bunch of voodoo to explain things they don't comprehend, like the sun being driven across the sky by a guy in a chariot pulled by four flying horses. In pre-Hellenistic times, everyone "knew" that's how sunrise happened.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke, 1961
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
December 30th, 2010 at 12:01:32 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

As for the statement that eyewitness accounts aren't evidence, I would say that they are. Eyewitness accounts, even of uncertain provenance are often entered into evidence, even today. And I daresay that most of what we know of history is based on eyewitness accounts.



In history there are multiple accounts from multiple sources. When it comes to religion there is one account and one source. So with religion thEre is no corroboration. History is also based on documents written at the time, artifacts made and used at the time, etc.

If all we knew of Napoleon was what some French Imperial fanatic wrote, without corroborating testimony from other sources, including other French sources, what credence woul you give his story?

Quote:

These guesses could be wrong, but I don't think they are. I don't believe that you, as a functional human being, disregard ALL eyewitness testimony in the same way you pre-disregard that from 2,000 years ago ... or more specifically, eyewitness accounts of miracles from 2,000 years ago.



Aside from there being only one scource, the state of scientific knowledge of the time was extremely low. The Greeks and Romans, at least, encouraged inquiry and philosophy. So maybe a coupe of weeks worth of severe rains are interpreted as a universal flood. Or take the story of the tower of Babel. God manages to look stupid by fearing men could reach heaven. Otherwise why hasn't He struck down airplanes and space vehicles?

Quote:

The reason why can only be guessed, but my guess would be because it aligns with what you already believe. Even though much closer to current times, the 2,000 year old eyewitness testimony is disregarded.



Are you incapable of accepting I believe that for which there is evidence?

You want to talk about the Big Bang? Ok. there is indirect evidence that points to it: the universe's expansion, the background microwave radiation, and other things. This suggests something like the Big bang took palce, perhaps, several billions of years ago. but there are many open questions, from the size of the universe, to the composition of matter, to the formation of galaxies, to lots of other things. So I can accept it pending further evidence.

Quote:

I'm not sure what this means or what consequences you think challenging you will rain down on me since I've pursued it pretty hard. If it's time to stop, I'm okay with that. I would say, though, that pointing out what I think is an area of closed-mindedness in you that you think isn't closed should not be construed as an attack on your integrity.



I don't have an open mind. An open mind is a like a trash disposal that blindly accepts anything fed its way. A closed mind is one too tired of thinking that won't accept anything.

I have an active mind. I think critically about what I see, hear, sense, read, etc. I don't blindly accept any claim too far outside the norm that knowledge and experience have taught me. I certainly don't accept the existence of God just because a book claims he exists, as there are several such books making the same claims for other gods. And I certainly don't base my life on such claims.

As to consecuqnces, the ones available to any civilized person. What did you expect?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11368
December 30th, 2010 at 5:52:46 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Hmm. So what cellular processes don't work on gay men? Because that's basic biology.

I found such ignorance of basic facts to be wrong.



Show me how two gays can have a child, the reason for sex in nature.

That is the basic fact of it all.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
December 30th, 2010 at 6:39:26 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Show me how two gays can have a child, the reason for sex in nature.



Show me how an infertile couple can. Why, the same way:

1) adoption
2) host mother with or without in-vitro fertilization.

Gee! I make them sound almost human!

Quote:

That is the basic fact of it all.



No. Sex is a consequence of cellular activity.

BTW, straight sex as practiced today is unnatural. Most people use some form of contraception. If straight couples had sex the way "nature intended," women would menstruate only a handful of times in their lifetimes, because the rest of the time they'd be pregnant or menopausal.

Given the fortunes made by the makers of tampons, well, you get my drift.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
December 30th, 2010 at 7:40:00 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Show me how an infertile couple can.



I'm pretty sure you know that this is a kibbitz. But since you brought it up, let's explore it a little.

An infertile couple can't have children because something has gone wrong with the sexual reproduction process (starting with attraction, whatever that may look like for peacocks or dogs or other lower life forms) as prescribed by nature/evolution/God/whatever.

I wasn't ready to throw all homosexuals under that bus. If you were, I would suggest that you tap the brakes on that.

But like I said, I think you know it's a kibbitz, meant to confuse and obfuscate. I don't think you believe that homosexuality and an infertile couple are the same thing in any way other than they can't conceive and bear children.

  • Jump to: