Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

No, I said that there are no divine qualities THERE, as in within the list of "huge, complicated and beautiful". I did not claim that there is NOTHING that could be called divine.

And I have repeatedly stated that I remain open to the possibility of invisible badgers and their ilk, but until I see proof for them I will not believe in them.

[comic boy]

Ahhh! I finally get it and you are so right of course. You guys wont hear another peep out of me on this thread.

Sorry for any inconvenience that I may have caused.

As I suspected you got nothing and lack the humility to admit the fact.....some Christian

[Metsfanmax]

I've been purely reductionist, lets look at what we can know for sure, not claim anything beyond that, and if we can prove anything from that I'll believe it. If we can't I won't. I havent added any invisible badgers to any of my premises

What do we know for sure?

[jonesthecurl]

Well, according to the invisible badgers, we know for sure there are no invisible badgers.

[crispybits]

Metsfanmax - most of everything on this website:

www.wikipedia.com

plus a few other things. Care to be more specific?

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfanmax - most of everything on this website:

http://www.wikipedia.com

plus a few other things. Care to be more specific?

My comment regarded what it means to really know something to be true. And specifically, that the only things we can hope to be sure about, are specific events that have already happened. Anything else (e.g. scientific theories, predictions of the future) is either not known with certainty or is the product of humans trying to use reasoning to correlate events that they believe are similar. If the only thing you believe is things we know for sure, then you should not believe anything except that history happened.

Science itself is a belief system -- the belief that through the powers of our reasoning, we can learn fundamental truths about the way our universe works.

[crispybits]

Which is exactly why my arguments revolved around not extending time back further than the beginning of the universe, because we don't know if it did go back further than that.

The alternative to science as a belief system on that level is that we all just close our eyes and rock ourselves into permanent sleep. We have to assume that our perceptions and our interpretations of those perceptions match actual reality (forgetting the supernatural or divine for a moment, I'm talking about stuff we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch) or we have nothing at all. Maybe we are wrong and we're all hooked up to a Matrix computer or we're all the dreams of things we could never imagine even existing or whatever.

What I know is that my perception of reality seems pretty consistent with everyone else's perceptions of reality, which all seem pretty consistent over hundreds or thousands of years as far as I can tell. There is a LOT of evidence that this particular belief system serves us well. And the rest of science is built on the back of that using repeatable, verifiable steps that anyone can challenge.

Metaphysics, that's a belief system with NO evidence. Which is why this argument will most likely never be settled. But the theists bring forward things that are measurable by science and say that it IS proof that they win the debate. I'm not claiming I win the debate, I would never dare be that arrogant, I'm just showing them why they don't.

[PLAYER57832]

Metaphysics, that's a belief system with NO evidence. Which is why this argument will most likely never be settled. But the theists bring forward things that are measurable by science and say that it IS proof that they win the debate. I'm not claiming I win the debate, I would never dare be that arrogant, I'm just showing them why they don't.

The problem is you assume a dichotomy that just doesn't exist. Its not science OR religion.. most people who have religious beliefs in no way reject science. Its just that we find answers in places NOT approachable by science.

The thing is that all science begins with belief. It is followed up, confirmed by observation, but without the original idea or the ability to think "outside the box" to new things, then science never progresses.

Pasteur was almost certainly not the first to see mold inhibit growth of bacteria, etc.. but he was willing to expand his mind and think about possibilities. Sometimes thinking about possibilities falls into philosophy, sometimes mere questions and sometimes religion. The key is not to say "science or religion". The key is to understand which answers which question.. and to allow freedom in those areas where there is no definitive answer, which is just about everything outside of science.

[crispybits]

It's great that you find answers to the metaphysical stuff in areas not approachable by science. Hell I do too. Half (maybe not half but you get the idea) of my actual understanding of life, the universe and everything is stuff that isn't scientifically based. But I never try and offer that as proof of anything, it's just my own personal beliefs based on my own personal experiences, and I certainly never try and claim any authority over anyone else based on any of that either.

That's the only problem I have with those that proclaim God, not that there is or isnt a God, but that by doing so a lot of the time they are either hustling or they are an innocent person brainwashed into believing someone else's hustle (sometimes centuries after the initial hustle went down). And that's why I find fault with proofs for God, not because I want to disprove God, that's just as impossible as proving him would be, but because in some small way maybe I'm contributing to weakening these hustles.

As I said in a PM to someone from this thread very recently "We can never know and anyone who says otherwise is selling something." Religion is the most effective form of slavery, becuase it needs no chains, no prisons, no whips. Not physical ones anyway. And it commands complete loyalty and subservience to it's will. And it's hereditary too, parents will pass it on to their children and the children onto their children. Our loving father, who made us sick and commands us to be well, lest we displease him and suffer eternal torment. It really is truly effective - and absolutely terrifying!

[jonesthecurl]

So Viceroy's gone with a pout
Just because everyone pointed out
That it really is odd
to just say "Therefore God"
When the rest of your arguments nowt.

[2dimes]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=182493

[PLAYER57832]

It's great that you find answers to the metaphysical stuff in areas not approachable by science. Hell I do too. Half (maybe not half but you get the idea) of my actual understanding of life, the universe and everything is stuff that isn't scientifically based. But I never try and offer that as proof of anything, it's just my own personal beliefs based on my own personal experiences, and I certainly never try and claim any authority over anyone else based on any of that either.

That's the only problem I have with those that proclaim God, not that there is or isnt a God, but that by doing so a lot of the time they are either hustling or they are an innocent person brainwashed into believing someone else's hustle (sometimes centuries after the initial hustle went down). And that's why I find fault with proofs for God, not because I want to disprove God, that's just as impossible as proving him would be, but because in some small way maybe I'm contributing to weakening these hustles.

All you are saying is that you don't agree, which is fine. However, on what authority do you condemn people who disagree? Also, on what authority can you disabuse evidence that you cannot see, have not experienced.

There is a line here. However, its ironic that often those who claim freedom from religion are actually embracing a very narrow ideology... just one that rejects God and specific religious belief. For my part, and that of many, many Christians, we don't say we can prove our beliefs. We say they are our beliefs and that for very specific and personal reasons we do believe.

As I said in a PM to someone from this thread very recently "We can never know and anyone who says otherwise is selling something." Religion is the most effective form of slavery, becuase it needs no chains, no prisons, no whips. Not physical ones anyway. And it commands complete loyalty and subservience to it's will. And it's hereditary too, parents will pass it on to their children and the children onto their children. Our loving father, who made us sick and commands us to be well, lest we displease him and suffer eternal torment. It really is truly effective - and absolutely terrifying!

Ah, see, here now you go well beyond any claim of honesty and objectivity into a straight out attack on people who just happen to disagree with you. I am not sure why you feel so threatened by religion, but no good scientist will utterly reject that which he/she cannot disprove. You cannot disprove most modern religious belief, so stop pretending condemnation of such is some kind of enlightenment. Its really just bigotry of ideas with which you disagree.

[crispybits]

I don't reject God. I have a faith in something, closest word I know for it is God but it doesn't match what is in any of the books.

My opinion is that religion is evil. Religious people not necessarily, but religion itself is. Because it gives some men claims over other mens' souls, and that is something no man should have over another. And the only way I know to attack that is to falsify the claim to authority they make.

That's not an attack on any people, that's an attack on an ideology, a philosophy, an idea. I don't reject it because I don't believe in it, I believe in it just fine, and I believe it is wrong. Very, very effective, and wrong. I don't say that makes me better or worse than anyone else, but I'll be damned (pun intended) if I'll shut up and be quiet because some people take my disagreeing with them as me attacking them, especially when I believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are being brainwashed and contributing to damaging society by perpetuating the most dangerous idea man ever had (that being religion, man speaking for God, not God himself)

[PLAYER57832]

I don't reject God. I have a faith in something, closest word I know for it is God but it doesn't match what is in any of the books.

My opinion is that religion is evil. Religious people not necessarily, but religion itself is. Because it gives some men claims over other mens' souls, and that is something no man should have over another. And the only way I know to attack that is to falsify the claim to authority they make.

That's not an attack on any people, that's an attack on an ideology, a philosophy, an idea. I don't reject it because I don't believe in it, I believe in it just fine, and I believe it is wrong. Very, very effective, and wrong. I don't say that makes me better or worse than anyone else, but I'll be damned (pun intended) if I'll shut up and be quiet because some people take my disagreeing with them as me attacking them, especially when I believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are being brainwashed and contributing to damaging society by perpetuating the most dangerous idea man ever had (that being religion, man speaking for God, not God himself)

No, when you phrase it as you do, it IS an attack on people, its an attack on very core beliefs that people hold, which is attacking them.

I don't mind debating, am happy to do it. I am not offended by people who disagree. However, for someone to come out and talk about evidence and proof and then outright condemn a whole realm of ideas simply because he doesn't agree... is showing a serious limitation in thinking. You can claim many things, but to make statements like that and claim high intelligence.. is well, you are mirroring the thing you claim to reject. That is you are taking an idea and utterly rejecting those who disagree, claiming effectively that they lack sense and intelligence, just as many with firm beliefs will do to you.

I simply say you are a complete hypocrite.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't mind debating, am happy to do it. I am not offended by people who disagree. However, for someone to come out and talk about evidence and proof and then outright condemn a whole realm of ideas simply because he doesn't agree... is showing a serious limitation in thinking. You can claim many things, but to make statements like that and claim high intelligence.. is well, you are mirroring the thing you claim to reject. That is you are taking an idea and utterly rejecting those who disagree, claiming effectively that they lack sense and intelligence, just as many with firm beliefs will do to you.

I simply say you are a complete hypocrite.

I agree with this, but only to a limited extent. crispybits was right to criticize the religious people like Viceroy who claim that they can justify their views in the realm of science and logic, when that is patently absurd (just as I assume the "faith" that crispybits has is not grounded in any sort of logical reasoning). By their own construction, religious folk believe in something that is on a totally different intellectual plane. When one comes across someone who refuses to engage their beliefs in the framework of science or rationality*, it is absurd to try to use rationality to convince them of the falsehood of their beliefs. So the mistake occurs on both sides; the religious folk err, in assuming that they can use logic to convince non-believers of their position, and the atheist folk, in assuming that because religious folk attempt to use logic to prove their position, that logic can be used to dissuade them of their beliefs.

The only position that logic and rationality* supports is that we live a life without externally defined purpose, floating in a cosmic ocean without being told how to live. That may be depressing to some people, who feel the need to have a greater purpose. But it's never been about logic.

*To be precise, one rational defense of religion is that for some reason it innately makes you more satisfied to believe. But there are lots of natural things that are also often bad, like our inclination to be violent, so it's not really a response in the realm of the rational.

[notyou2]

I once saw a potato chip shaped exactly like the virgin Mary's vagina. I know it was her's because you could see the intact hymen.

[2dimes]

I've never seen one of those. How do you know her name?

[GreecePwns]

I don't reject God. I have a faith in something, closest word I know for it is God but it doesn't match what is in any of the books.

My opinion is that religion is evil. Religious people not necessarily, but religion itself is. Because it gives some men claims over other mens' souls, and that is something no man should have over another. And the only way I know to attack that is to falsify the claim to authority they make.

That's not an attack on any people, that's an attack on an ideology, a philosophy, an idea. I don't reject it because I don't believe in it, I believe in it just fine, and I believe it is wrong. Very, very effective, and wrong. I don't say that makes me better or worse than anyone else, but I'll be damned (pun intended) if I'll shut up and be quiet because some people take my disagreeing with them as me attacking them, especially when I believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are being brainwashed and contributing to damaging society by perpetuating the most dangerous idea man ever had (that being religion, man speaking for God, not God himself)

No, when you phrase it as you do, it IS an attack on people, its an attack on very core beliefs that people hold, which is attacking them.

I don't mind debating, am happy to do it. I am not offended by people who disagree. However, for someone to come out and talk about evidence and proof and then outright condemn a whole realm of ideas simply because he doesn't agree... is showing a serious limitation in thinking. You can claim many things, but to make statements like that and claim high intelligence.. is well, you are mirroring the thing you claim to reject. That is you are taking an idea and utterly rejecting those who disagree, claiming effectively that they lack sense and intelligence, just as many with firm beliefs will do to you.

I simply say you are a complete hypocrite.

An attack on a person's core beliefs is not a personal attack. It's an attack on the belief. That the person wants to cling to a belief so badly is their problem (and yes, it's a problem when it's something offered up with no unfalsifiable claims and circular reasoning, with little rational to show for it).

As I've gone over with you before, putting the burden of proof on those who claim things outside the natural world (to claim God definitively exists or doesn't exist) is the rational thing to do. We haven't observed it, so why should we assume it exists or doesn't? And if we assume it exists, why pick the Bible or any other explanation over any other one? What makes for the best God story (or non-story)?

In the debate between complete theism or atheism, the theists once again find themselves with the burden of proof on themselves, because once again, their explanation for the world is based on a total ignorance of scientific facts. And no, claiming to something based on evidence is not nearly the same as the clinging I mention in the beginning of this post (which has to do with irrational belief).

Surely you saw the pseudo-science being put forth in the pages before this one, right?

[chang50]

An attack on a person's core beliefs is not a personal attack. It's an attack on the belief. That the person wants to cling to a belief so badly is their problem (and yes, it's a problem when it's something offered up with no unfalsifiable claims and circular reasoning, with little rational to show for it).

This is so true,how can attacking mere ideas be a personal attack,all my core opinions and ideas are open to attack,are some theists so emotionally attached to their core beliefs that they become inseperable from their very being?If so this is pathetically sad..but it might explain a lot.

[crispybits]

I don't reject God. I have a faith in something, closest word I know for it is God but it doesn't match what is in any of the books.

My opinion is that religion is evil. Religious people not necessarily, but religion itself is. Because it gives some men claims over other mens' souls, and that is something no man should have over another. And the only way I know to attack that is to falsify the claim to authority they make.

That's not an attack on any people, that's an attack on an ideology, a philosophy, an idea. I don't reject it because I don't believe in it, I believe in it just fine, and I believe it is wrong. Very, very effective, and wrong. I don't say that makes me better or worse than anyone else, but I'll be damned (pun intended) if I'll shut up and be quiet because some people take my disagreeing with them as me attacking them, especially when I believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are being brainwashed and contributing to damaging society by perpetuating the most dangerous idea man ever had (that being religion, man speaking for God, not God himself)

No, when you phrase it as you do, it IS an attack on people, its an attack on very core beliefs that people hold, which is attacking them.

I don't mind debating, am happy to do it. I am not offended by people who disagree. However, for someone to come out and talk about evidence and proof and then outright condemn a whole realm of ideas simply because he doesn't agree... is showing a serious limitation in thinking. You can claim many things, but to make statements like that and claim high intelligence.. is well, you are mirroring the thing you claim to reject. That is you are taking an idea and utterly rejecting those who disagree, claiming effectively that they lack sense and intelligence, just as many with firm beliefs will do to you.

I simply say you are a complete hypocrite.

I would be a complete hypocrite if I said that based on the irrational, unprovable sections of my understanding of life, the universe and everything, that you should alter the way you live your life. I have never done that. I have even said to theists on this thread that their faith is a good thing and I hope they cherish it. That faith, that belief in a higher power based on no evidence, is not a problem to me. When it makes claims that I should alter my self to fit with the same structure as them, that is when it becomes a problem (that is when it becomes a religion). And when I ask "why should I?" and I am presented with the kind of "evidence" that has been presented in this thread then yes I will reject it.

I find Christian teachings insulting. That we have no way of knowing right and wrong ourselves and that we should give ourselves up to the authority of a book written by disciples of a desert nomad 2000 years ago in order to find that moral certainty. Christian ideology strips men of their conscience, and replaces it with a book that among other things condones slavery and murder based on people holding different beliefs. You say that these sections are misunderstood or are allegories for something else or whatever and for that reason aren't to be followed literally, but if it really is the word of God then that's assuming something pretty huge right there, that you know God's mind and you're allowed to disregard sections of his rules because they don't fit modern moral standards any more. When you can answer why you disregard the rules on these points, then I have the same answer for why I disregard the whole thing. Either it is the word of God and should be followed 100% to the letter, or it isnt and it can be edited to make it acceptable.

But I don't find people preaching that insult as a personal attack. Those who believe in the bible aren't trying to insult me. I understand that. It doesn't mean I think the message is correct, but I don't take it as a personal attack, it's a disagreement on core beliefs. That you take offence to me attacking your ideas is your problem. That you jump to direct personal insults like more than a few theists on this thread have done in one way or another by calling me a hypocrite makes you the one being hypocritical. THAT is a personal attack, clear and simple. You're not attacking my ideas with that statement, you're attacking me.

The mental reactions under stress of many religious people (including on this thread) I perceive as being very similar to the mental reactions under stress of domestic abuse victims. Your idea makes everything your fault, and God is perfect and blameless, and you must suffer anything he throws at you because you are not worthy to be in his presence without this complete mental and physical subservience to his will. Just like a battered wife thinks it's all her fault, that he's really not a violent man and she pushes him to it, and the only way she is worthy of his continued love is to do exactly what he says all day every day. I believe that you are a victim of brainwashing, and the morally correct thing to do when you believe someone has been brainwashed is to deny the claims of the brainwasher and show why that brainwasher does not have the authority he claims. Not to attack the character of the brainwashed (because the brainwasher has done enough of that in the first place), but to attack the false claims the brainwasher has made to try and force the whole mental house of cards built on them to guarantee servitude fall down.

[Metsfanmax]

crispybits, there are lots of people who are much smarter than you that believe in religion. Have they all been brainwashed? If so, what's to say you haven't been brainwashed into being unable to see the true nature of God?

Lol.

[crispybits]

That may be so Metsfanmax - why don't you show me the central pillars of my brainwashing that are incorrect claims to unprovable athority.

Oh but that's right, you're all for declaring things we cannot know inadmissible, just like (if you actually bothered to think before constantly trying to start arguments with me) you know I am. So we're saying the same thing, that claiming authority over someone based on things there is no way to know is flawed.

Now forget we're talking about religion here. Lets say we're talking sports. I say that the Miami Dolphins are the best sports team in history or that ever will be in the future and you HAVE to support them genuinely and wholeheartedly, or I'll cause you pain. You are open-minded about this, and ask me to tell you WHY the Miami Dolphins are the best sports team in history and that ever will be in the future and not the Chicago Bulls, or Real Madrid, or any other sports team from anywhere in the world at any point in the past or the future. And I just say "because they are."

Now you can either take that circular logic as justification for believing something, or you might decide to pretend to go along because I've threatened to cause you pain until you can get away from me. But I doubt you would ever support the conclusion that the Miami Dolphins definitely are what I said, because you deny authority claims based on unknowable things.

Now are my acts moral? Is my threat to cause you pain if you don't believe what I tell you to believe moral? If I was to place you in a room regularly and drone on at you about the Miami Dolphins and how they are so brilliant and nothing will ever surpass them, and remind you that I will cause you pain if you fail to wholeheartedly and genuinely believe this concept would that be moral?

If you can't do that about a football team without being immoral, why can you do it about God? What is it about reading from the Bible that makes it demonstrably and qualatively different from reading from a sports results almanack? In fact the sports results almanack is likely to have a hell of a lot more literal and verifiable truth in it.

Therefore, religion is evil. And I never made a single claim to any unprovable authority.

[Gillipig]

crispybits, there are lots of people who are much smarter than you that believe in religion. Have they all been brainwashed? If so, what's to say you haven't been brainwashed into being unable to see the true nature of God?

Lol.

Which god? The one your parents believe in perhaps? Must be a coincidence, right ?




CC news; Metsfanmax has been brainwashed through a practice known as religious indoctrination! Unfortunately Metsfanmax is not the only one who's been abused by his parents in this way, many other children go through the same brainwashing, starting from a very young age. Head of Morality and Jokes, Doctor Gillipig has expressed his condolences towards metsfanmax but also asked of him to try to make the best of the situation, and not be stupid. Experts argue whether Gillipig's comment was offensive, especially since Metsfanmax is known for having a fragile mind.
And now to sports....

[crispybits]

By the way, just as an aside, could you please show me the scientific resarch that demonstrates that higher intelligence provides a greater resistance to brainwashing. Because I can't find it with google and so I think that sounds like an incorrect claim to authority there.

(all the links I could find confused intelligence (IQ) with intelligence (information) so google wasn't helping me much I admit. The only thing I did find was Dr Phil saying that it made no difference, but I'm not sure I'd ever claim him as an authority)

That's not me saying I'm superior by dint of greater resistance, just that I was lucky that my parents didn't brainwash me and taught me to make my own mind up about things. I went to church for a couple of years (inlcuding about 3 months closely associating with a happy clappy born again group) off my own back and overall I found their methods and their message repugnant. I got lucky. I could so easily have fallen into the trap because it is a very easy one to fall into.

[Metsfanmax]

crispybits: when is the last time a Christian ever threatened to harm you because of their beliefs?

Gillipig: One of my parents is Christian and the other is Jewish, and I am neither...