Author Topic: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.  (Read 11617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #116 on: September 29, 2011, 12:42:27 PM »
It is an age old opening opening move of an equivocation gambit.

I know that, but if opponent refuses to provide definition of the object of discussion then everything is absolutely pointless.
it turns into  chat that can't lead anywhere.

But it is a definition. The problem is that definition is better filled by another word: The Universe. The word "god" has other meanings. Once you accept the sloppy definition, the person arguing for god will add or subtract attributes as it fits whatever best suits them.

If the Gambitor defines god as everything, everything obviously exists. Atheists then not believing in "god" are stupid as the universe actually exists.

Which springboards into more and more gnostic definitions of god, as much as the theist can get away with. It is really a tiresome old ruse of goalpost shifting through equivacation.

I just want to point out to YY how often it is used, and while it might fool a rank novice, it isn't clever....nor honest.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #117 on: September 29, 2011, 03:56:53 PM »
According to that definition he is right, his "god" exists, problem solved you cant argues anymore.

now we replace every word "God" with his definition in another statements  and see if they make any sense.
if not then he is required  to accept that statement is nonsense or adjust definition, in which case we repast process.

in result we either get usable definition of god ,which probably disproves itself  logically, either we invalidate other statements about god and theist turns into deist.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #118 on: September 29, 2011, 04:47:38 PM »
I feel an urge to repost this, since YY's definition of God is being discussed:

Well, if I believe that God is everything, the proof is that there is anything.

That cannot work because it defeats the purpose of your use of the word "God". Anything=anything. It does not logically follow that anything=God.

You are begging the question. That is a fallacy. Check out this link:

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

Quote
Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #119 on: September 29, 2011, 04:49:30 PM »
YY then admitted (or at least admitted that he may be) begging the question:

You are begging the question. That is a fallacy.

This is where we have disconnect. You are looking for a measurable answer. Although my answer may be begging the question, the answer is really the sentiment behind the meaning of the "allness" and how it impacts my life. My answer may need to include a dissertation to explain why God=everything is not just what it seems at face value.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 05:09:48 PM by curiousgirl »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #120 on: September 29, 2011, 06:26:00 PM »

Agreed

Then why make the Stawman in the first place? The only reason can be because you intend to be intentionally dishonest.


Given - the majority of the world believes in some sort of God. Also given - there is no proof of the existence of God. Thus, the majority of the world is special pleading. And, I'm not asking for any consideration. I'm simply sharing what I believe. I've said it many times before, take it or leave it. I don't have any expectation that you or anyone else will agree.

And as I have asked you to answer several times now, why? Why share your beliefs with people for whom they have absolutely no relevance?

Why walk into a forum based on rational discussion, hold up your hand and declare to everyone "I can't back up what I say, I have no evidence, nor interest in rational discourse, but I want to talk to you all about the world of candies and puppy-dog shaped clouds where flowers smile that exists only in my head". The only point basically seems to be to troll and waste everyones time, since you admit no interest in rational conversation.


Then please do something about the tea party.

Well first off, I don't even inhabit the same nation. I realize that this can sometimes be a shock for some Americans, but there are actually people who exist in other countries.

Second of all if I (hypothetically) were located in America, what makes you think that I'm not doing anything about the tea party?

Third, since I am actively opposing irrationality and belief without evidence (of which religion is the largest perpetrator), I am doing something about the tea party as well. Because this is exactly what the tea party is using and what makes them as potentially dangerous as they are. It is simply that instead of fighting them in specific, I am concerning myself with the source.

So basically, what you just said was rather pointless and idiotic.



Which one? The one about knowing standards of proof? Or the statements saying I'm indistinguishable from someone who is mentally ill. Why don't you respond to that first and then I'll respond to your question (but repost which question you want me to answer in specific). Here's a reminder . . .

Respond to it? What exactly am I supposed to respond to? I told you that your beliefs were indistinguishable from insanity. I explained it twice, laid out the reasons and the facts for it, none of which you actually responded to, or made any attempt to argue against. So I don't think you're in a position to be requiring me to respond to anything, just to get you to answer questions that were asked at the beginning, and should in fact have been answered a while ago.

So how am I supposed to respond to pointing out the fact that you're indistinguishable from a person who is mentally ill beyond what I already have? Why don't you respond to what I've already said several times? You were the one who tried to criticize me for sounding like a broken record. If you actually discussed points made then we could move on and I wouldn't have to say them multiple times. Or is this just to try and hide your own inability to respond to it with anything meaningful? As I said, I noticed that you never actually argued the point. Just tried to direct attention away from it. So let me make it easy for you.

If you have no evidence (which you have admitted to), no logic to your beliefs, and they hold no basis in reality; then what makes your beliefs any different from those of a crazy person?

And why should anyone care about anything that you have to say?

No, but it's something I'm trying to get you to work with. I understand that we cannot, so we've met an impass. Which is fine, there are a lot of other things to discuss.

To whit, the question that you've been avoiding still remains relevant.

Why? For what purpose are you here to talk? You keep saying that you want to share your ideas with us, but to what end? Nothing you say at this point has any actual meaning.

See here's the thing. Essentially you're asking us all to play a game of "let's pretend" with you. Without evidence, logic, or a basis in reason, everything you have to say is nothing more than something that you made up because you liked the sound of it. As I've pointed out before, nothing you say is different from the ramblings of a lunatic or the fantasies dreamed up by a child. You're basically asking us to do the same, but to what end? There is no possibility of a meaningful discussion taking place in this manner.

It's the equivalent of two kids sitting around on the playground arguing about whether a Marflag would defeat a Fizzbin in mortal combat. It serves no purpose other than to talk purely just to hear ones own voice.

If all you wanted was a superfluous bullshit session (which seems to be the case), why come here to do it? Do you not have actual friends that you can partake in casual conversation with? This is a discussion forum; that is to say a place to discuss and debate things. This is why there are forum rules that say that you have to back up your claims and provide evidence. Because otherwise there could be no actual discussion that takes place. We actually have a section of the forum for random bullshit, but this isn't it.

Notice how many of the posts are directed around getting you to narrow down your definitions and what you believe, while many others are pointing out the irrelevance of what you are saying. This is because you are trying to discuss things without the tools to do it.

Even if we wanted to, we can't play "let's pretend" with you without knowing what we're supposed to be pretending.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline MMcNeely

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #121 on: September 29, 2011, 09:00:22 PM »
Let's pretend? Oh yeah, I used to love that game when I was a Baptist.  I hate it now... too bad it took me 15 years to grow out of.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #122 on: September 29, 2011, 10:37:21 PM »

It's the equivalent of two kids sitting around on the playground arguing about whether a Marflag would defeat a Fizzbin in mortal combat. It serves no purpose other than to talk purely just to hear ones own voice.

Something that I wanted to add to this.

When I was first composing this analogy I had wanted to compare it to two children arguing over who would win in a fight, Spiderman or Wolverine. I had wanted to use that as a comparison because it seemed to be one that would be more recognizable to most people as we've all had these conversations as kids (especially the nerdier ones). However after I wrote it I realized that the analogy didn't work.

Even in a discussion of a battle between Spiderman and Wolverine there are still logical and evidentiary comparisons that can be made, despite it's almost subjective nature due to their status as fictional characters. We have a fairly good idea of their powers and capabilities. Their degree of physical strength and general set of skills. We have records of their battles and the types of opponents that they've faced before as well as their win/loss ratio. Sure, it ultimately still mostly boils down to making things up, but at least there is still some basis for establishing a valid argument.

So I went with two kids arguing over made up words since, after all, YY is using a made-up theology. It fit much better.

The reason I bring this up is because I wanted to make it clear (to YY especially) that the conversation he is trying to have us engage him in is actually more pointless and stupid than whether Spiderman and Wolverine would win in a fight.

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #123 on: September 30, 2011, 07:04:58 AM »
Let's pretend? Oh yeah, I used to love that game when I was a Baptist.  I hate it now... too bad it took me 15 years to grow out of.

Oh I didn't grow up out of it, but I do understand that when the Cyberpunk 2020, Starwars D6, Shadowrun, or D&D are closed, the time for lets pretend is over.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #124 on: October 01, 2011, 12:51:56 AM »
Why don't you think you'd be capable of empathy without it?

Not so much that I'm incapable without it, but more that life's routines get in the way. I know that there are some who can keep themselves constantly motivated or keep their eye on the ball. I'm not one of them. My problem is that life is comfortable if I just keep working and paying the bills. If I don't actively focus on things like looking for the win-win, reminding myself that we are all one, looking for ways to inspire myself to inspire others, bring out the best in myself and others, I can easily fall into the rut of mediocrity. I can give in to the ego and lash back at the name callers who aren't asking legitimate questions (like you do), but merely hear the key word from the theist and go off with their bullet proof arguments.  I can forget to live life doing what I'm passionate about and just get to the next weekend.

Like I said, I'm not perfect and I benefit from knowing that although we are one, the individualized forms of self are trying their best to reach their highest good. Sometimes, this means that we have conflicting ideas, we share them, sometimes with passion, and we learn. Sometimes the routine of life gets in the way and I forget to strive for my highest good.


Also, if you aren't a Christian, why is church one of your "roadsigns"? What purpose does it serve if you don't share the same beliefs?

I don't go to Christian Church. We still call the place we hold services church. And, as I previously stated, when I don't go to church for long stretches of time, I find the routine of life taking over. Going to church re-energizes me. It's like if you were to go to a Real Estate seminar and you hear Trump and Kiyosaki speak. You get all this new insight and strategy and want to get out there and put your new knowledge into action. You have a list of things to do and start out gung ho on day 1. After day 10 or 14, you're getting a little laxed on returning phone calls and by day 40, you've basically put that on the back burner. Plus, by going on a weekly basis, I sometimes pick up new techniques or hear something phrased in a different way that allows me a deeper understanding of the idea.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #125 on: October 01, 2011, 02:00:03 AM »
And as I have asked you to answer several times now, why? Why share your beliefs with people for whom they have absolutely no relevance?

And I have said so before also. I may not have said this directly to you, but I'll say it again. If you take your emotion and ego out of this conversation, you may learn something.


Well first off, I don't even inhabit the same nation. I realize that this can sometimes be a shock for some Americans, but there are actually people who exist in other countries.


First, that was just a joke. Second, you jump to the incorrect assumption that I think you live in the US and then go on to say that you don't and what you would do if you DID live in the US. And why get so offended when you're reading a US based message board when someone might incorrectly assume they're talking to Americans? Put your flag on your avatar or something if it offends you so much.


So basically, what you just said was rather pointless and idiotic.

Ego check.


Respond to it? What exactly am I supposed to respond to? I told you that your beliefs were indistinguishable from insanity. I explained it twice, laid out the reasons and the facts for it, none of which you actually responded to, or made any attempt to argue against.

What is there to respond to? You are correct. According to the static definitions, you can go ahead and classify my arguments that way. I'm not going to argue with something you've already got made up in your mind. I'm wasting time trying to convince you that there are argubly other forms of proof and I've moved on. Why beat a dead horse? You're not seeing my pov.


And why should anyone care about anything that you have to say?

This is why you should care about what I'm saying -- you might learn something. I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but the lesson might not be obvious so I'll paint a picture.

Maybe, you'll learn how one particular theist thinks. Maybe, if you listen with an unbiased ear and hear what this theist is trying to say, you'll figure him out. Maybe you'll discover what makes him tick. Let's even go so far as to say that you see how this theist sees you, the atheist. You discover the arguments that make sense to him and those that don't and refine your game plan on this new found knowledge. You might discover that theists don't respond well to statistics, data, or proof and those things may actually drive a bigger wedge between the two sides. You might find new ways to talk to theists to try to convince them to re-examine their faith in a positive light, which VERY few of you are currently doing. Maybe then, your deonversion record will be a little higher than a guestimate of maybe 1 true convert in all the theist attempts.

I've learned that I need to convince atheists with proof. I almost need to argue as if I were a lawyer, except that lawyers can have a human jury which takes into account factors beyond scientific proof and sometimes come to a conclusion using emotion, and probably just as often come to incorrect conclusions with concrete data.

Then again, this may not be your goal. Maybe the goal of the WWGHA message boards is for atheists to perform mental masturbation.

And you're calling me insane? I've been here about 15 times in the past 5 years and hear the same old tired arguments.

Quote
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” ~~ Albert Einstein

Just kidding. I've only been here twice before.



If you have no evidence (which you have admitted to), no logic to your beliefs, and they hold no basis in reality; then what makes your beliefs any different from those of a crazy person?

But I have a very logical premise although you may not agree.


If all you wanted was a superfluous bullshit session (which seems to be the case), why come here to do it? Do you not have actual friends that you can partake in casual conversation with? This is a discussion forum; that is to say a place to discuss and debate things. This is why there are forum rules that say that you have to back up your claims and provide evidence. Because otherwise there could be no actual discussion that takes place. We actually have a section of the forum for random bullshit, but this isn't it.

First, why waste your time writing up this long thought out post if I'm not welcome in your sandbox? Secondly, I'm writing here because the title of the entire thread has my NAME in it! How more direct can that be? Someone asked me a DIRECT question in the title of this thread, and it obviously wasn't you.


Notice how many of the posts are directed around getting you to narrow down your definitions and what you believe, while many others are pointing out the irrelevance of what you are saying. This is because you are trying to discuss things without the tools to do it.

No, it's because nitpiks can't get past "where's the evidence?".



PS - thank you for your post. I'm being honest here. I have a better understanding why people are frustrated with my answers. I'll try to answer their future quesitons keeping that in mind, although I can't change too many words without altering meaning. So seriously, as I have invited you to do, I have taken a cue from your detailed response and see where we come at an impass.

The reason I bring this up is because I wanted to make it clear (to YY especially) that the conversation he is trying to have us engage him in is actually more pointless and stupid than whether Spiderman and Wolverine would win in a fight.

ego check

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2676
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #126 on: October 01, 2011, 03:26:13 AM »
It's like if you were to go to a Real Estate seminar and you hear Trump and Kiyosaki speak. You get all this new insight and strategy...

I reckon I'd do pretty well without any strategy if I started with $6million of my Dad's money in 1962. If I'd spent it on call girls, I'd still be richer than Trump is now. Kiyosaki has such a tenuous grasp of what money is, so I wonder how he gets such a following. Both of them teach you that marketing your own bullshit is the way to go.

http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #127 on: October 02, 2011, 04:50:36 PM »
And I have said so before also. I may not have said this directly to you, but I'll say it again. If you take your emotion and ego out of this conversation, you may learn something.

I already know how to play "let's pretend". I don't need you to teach me that.

The problem is your ego. You're the one coming here and saying that their ideas are worth any sort of consideration, even though you have given no reason to consider them other than "you might learn something".



First, that was just a joke. Second, you jump to the incorrect assumption that I think you live in the US and then go on to say that you don't and what you would do if you DID live in the US. And why get so offended when you're reading a US based message board when someone might incorrectly assume they're talking to Americans? Put your flag on your avatar or something if it offends you so much.

It says my country on my profile page,as  it does for all of us. As for it being a joke, I doubt that since there was nothing even potentially humourous about it that would allow it to qualify as even a bad one. It was most likely simply a case of you attempting to be a douche, as seems to be your typical MO.

As for being offended, I wasn't. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of what you said.

Ego check.

I don't have to. There is no ego involved in calling something that is pointless and stupid, pointless and stupid.

Also saying "ego check" does not constitute an argument against the accusation made. There was no reason to even say such a thing. So essentially, you responded to the accusation of your words being pointless and stupid with something that was equally so. Congratulations.

What is there to respond to? You are correct. According to the static definitions, you can go ahead and classify my arguments that way. I'm not going to argue with something you've already got made up in your mind. I'm wasting time trying to convince you that there are argubly other forms of proof and I've moved on. Why beat a dead horse? You're not seeing my pov.

It's so much easier to make fallacy than it is to actually discuss and argue a point, isn't it?

It's not something I've made up in my mind. It's how the words are used. You see we humans use words to communicate. We are able to do this because the words that we use have meanings which we have learned to recognize. If you randomly change the meanings of words then effective communication has become impossible. Take note of how pretty much every person in this thread has made comment on your ideas being either vague, nonsensical, nuts, or similiar term at some point so far. This is because you're changing words from the way they are being used and then attempting to make arguments. If you can't even communicate your ideas in a manner that is possible to understand then no one can actually "learn" anything from you can they?

Aside: Is anyone else on this forum saddened by the fact that I have to explain the basics of human language and communication to a grown person, or is it just me?

For example, "other forms of proof". Such as what? Proof has a defined meaning. There are certain standards as to what constitutes proof, which we have already established that you cannot meet. So no, there are no "other forms of proof" unless you've changed the meaning of the word. In which case, we can't communicate with you because we don't know the definition of "proof" that you're using because it is not "proof" as defined by the rest of humanity. Furthermore since this definition of "proof" is completely in your head then the definition effectively changes to suit your whim. In which case everything can possibly be considered "proof", and consequently renders the entire concept of "proof" meaningless.

You see, I am seeing your point of view, it's stupid, but I do see it. What you have failed to answer at all is why your point of view has any value in a discussion. All you say is that if I take my ego out of the equation I might learn something. Except that my ego isn't in this equation and you have yet to show that it is. From what we can see it seems to be your ego that is the issue as you're the one who is trying to make the english language twist itself to his wishes because he can't make his arguments using the way the language actually works.

As for learning, you have nothing to teach. You can't even communicate your ideas in an effective manner. You don't even have a desire too, as evidenced by this last part in particular.

From the beginning of this I have stated that what you have to say is meaningless and indistinuishable from mentall illness (which is a fact), but here's the thing. I've also asked you to justify why I should think otherwise over and over again. I've given you every opportunity to change my mind about this. I have outright asked you to give me some reason to accept what you have to say as anything other than ramblings. Instead you wrote me off as having "static definitions" and have said that you're "wasting time" trying to convince me. Something that you can't actually know because not once have you put any effort into trying to convince me of anything. So yes, I do remain unconviced. You keep saying that I should learn something, but you won't put in any effort to try and teach. Then you blame me and my "ego" when I was the one expending all of the effort.

You are the one that has been rigid and unwilling to be accepting. I simply stated the facts and then asked you to present your case. I gave you the chance to change my mind and to maybe teach me something. I also gave you the opportunity to maybe learn something (which is how it should be in a proper discussion) and you did not take that either. Again, it seems to be your ego that is getting in the way here.

This is why you should care about what I'm saying -- you might learn something. I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but the lesson might not be obvious so I'll paint a picture.

Again, you make no effort to teach anything. Also saying that you're not trying to be arrogant rings very hollow when your entire position is based on it.

Maybe, you'll learn how one particular theist thinks. Maybe, if you listen with an unbiased ear and hear what this theist is trying to say, you'll figure him out.

This is a base assumption on your part, though. You're simply assuming that I have some sort of bias. You're also assuming that I don't or can't figure you out. As opposed to the possibility that I do understand and have figured you out, and just think you to be wrong.

You discover the arguments that make sense to him and those that don't and refine your game plan on this new found knowledge. You might discover that theists don't respond well to statistics, data, or proof and those things may actually drive a bigger wedge between the two sides.

Then that wedge needs to be driven even deeper. Statistics, data, and proof are the very issue here. What makes sense to you does not matter. What matters is what is true. There's nowhere that it was promised to you that reality was contractually obligated to make sense. This is why we use those bits of data, so that we can make sense of things. If someone doesn't respond to data and proof, then no argument about reality is ever going to make sense to them.

I'm going to try to explain this one more time, and perhaps you can actually put your ego out of the way for just once and understand this.

Those statistics, data and proof are the only way that we humans have ever found which allows us to accurately recognize the difference between fantasy and reality. This is the problem that occurs with religion. Once you leave these behind (which is what religion must do) then there is no way to tell the two apart.

This is why there are tens of thousands of religions at this moment (nevermind the enormous number that have existed throughout history). This is why even within the same religion everyone has different ideas of their theism. Why everyone who claims to experience god always seems to experience a different god then the others. A god who (coincidentally) always agrees with what they want to be true. Because religion can never offer truth. It can only ever offer opinion.

If one religion says to love your neighbour, another says to kill anyone who does not follow your god, and a third says to dance naked through the streets spreading butter on your crotch every sunday there is no way of knowing which one is right because they all have the same evidence behind them and the same basis in reality. If the love your neighbours theists want to argue against the butter-crotch theists how do they do it? Any religious argument that they use to support their case can equally be used against them by the other side. They would have to go outside of their religious faith to actually make a case for themselves (rendering their faith basically useless).

When you get right down to it, this is the center of pretty much every bad thing that has ever occurred because of religion (the wars, Inquisitions, the racism, etc.). Religions inability to actually give us the truth about our world.

This might have been ok when we humans were in our infancy, limited to living our lives in the same few square miles of earth for most of our existence and hitting rocks with bigger rocks so that we can smaller rocks, but it doesn't work so good now. The world that we live in is global and we now have the ability to wipe out our entire species ten times over very quickly. There are problems now that affect more than just the little corner that one happens to live in, but the entire planet and our race. It's time for us to all get on the same page in regards to what reality is. We can't afford to have idiots running around starting pissing mathes to demonstrate who's made-up deity has the more magnificent "godhood". We need to come together, not be driven apart because someone's made up book doesn't like people who aren't part of the right clique. We should not be having dipshits who read a two thousand year old book having arguments with scientists who have spent hundreds of years of research over how life was created and evolved. Or how the universe was first formed.

That theists don't like statistics and data, is not some great revelation. We know that theists don't like those things and that they don't rely on those things. That's because those are the very things which call their beliefs into question (rather convenient wouldn't you say). However just because someone does not like something does not mean it isn't true. This is the point, to get to the truth whatever it might be. Theists had most of human history to do it their way, and what we got were millennia of war, ignorance, and a raft of morals that are shameful to us as a species. Religion has never produced anything positive that could not also have been gained without it.

Proof and data has gotten us to the moon. Not to mention cures, help for amputees (which god has never even tried to aid), computers, mapping of the human genone,etc.

This is why atheists use those things. Because they work, and they have improved our lives and our species more than anything else. Morality made greater leaps through philosophy and logic than it ever did because of theism. We know that theists don't respond well to them. However the alternative would be to start making things up like they do. Which would defeat the whole point and take us back into being a more primitive people, not forward. At some point our species is going to have to decide whether we're going to accept reality or not. That's what drives the wedge between atheists and theists, one group wants to understand reality (whether it means there's a god or not), while the other side insists that there is a god and tries to bend reality around that.

This brings us back to another thing as well. Your "you might discover" bit.

I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating in this case. YY, you are not some brilliantly unique theist/pantheist/whatever that is here to impart some great insight to us so that we can unlock the secrets of the religious mind. You're the same as many other believers that come through here all claiming that they were touched in their special godplace by the divine hand and have a wonderful perspective to share with us. Nothing you have said is original or particularly enlightening. It's all been said before a thousand and one times, and (not actually meaning offense this time) said much better by others. Believe it or not, we actually know theists/pantheists in real life. They actually walk among us in the world.

We do understand, many of the people here were in your (or a similiar) position. Understanding your position, however, does not mean that someone accpepts it as valid. This is what I have been asking you over and over, and you still don't answer. Why should we accept what you say as anything other than moronic rambling?

Your position is understood. It is just that, like any other theist position it is vague, poorly thought-out, relies on fallacy, redefining words for seemingly no reason other than you don't like the real meanings, and is no more valid than something made up.

You are being questioned as to why one should change that analysis in regards to your position. Why should your words be treated differently than any other theists words. All of which are largely dismissed as irrelevant.

Also your whole speech still rings hollow when you've still made no actual effort to teach what you claim you are trying to get me to learn.


I've learned that I need to convince atheists with proof. I almost need to argue as if I were a lawyer,

Not like a lawyer. Just like an intelligent human being. Words are how we communicate and they have meanings. In any sort of scholarly activity precision with your words is important so that you convey your meaning properly and efficiently. Just moving a single comma can change the meaning of an entire sentence. In casual conversation it's not quite so important, but in conversations regarding important subjects it is.

If scientists used the word "theory" as freely as laymen do, it would screw things up quickly and royally. The same holds true for any other field of research and scholarly discussion, including debate. As far as I am aware, no human can read anothers mind, so the words you use need to be clear in conveying your information. This is why atheists seem to obsess over words that might not seem to be worth obessing over.

In example, many theists will try to re-define atheism as claiming that he god not exist. Whereas atheists will usually quickly point out that the word does not mean that, it means a lack of belief in a god.

This may seem merely semantic but it isn't. One is a rational statement while the other is not. Since you cannot (with some exceptions) prove non-existence then it would be illogical to state that there is no such thing as a god. Although you may be able to state such a thing about specific gods, if they are either contradictory in nature or conflict with observable reality. It also means that atheists have ruled out the possibility of a good ever being able to exist or ever having existed (which is also irrational without evidence to support it) The idea that there is not some sort of god out there is always a possibility. One which atheists admit to. One of the key principles that makes science work is that a scientist always leaves open the possibility that he can be proven wrong.

A lack of belief in gods however, is a completely reasonable position to take as there is no evidence to support the claim that any god exists. Lacking evidence, in fact, the only rational claim a person can make is that they reject the claim and don't believe it until evidence is provided.

The proper usage of the word is important, both for understanding the position actually being taken by atheists, and also so that we can understand how these things apply to the discussion. Since this is a subject that is of high importance and will probably only become more important as time goes on, we need to communicate properly and know what we are talking about.

except that lawyers can have a human jury which takes into account factors beyond scientific proof and sometimes come to a conclusion using emotion, and probably just as often come to incorrect conclusions with concrete data.

If the data was concrete, then the reason for the false conclusion was the jury itself failed to look at the data properly. This is a very bad analogy.


And you're calling me insane?

At no point did I call you insane. I said that your beliefs were indistinguishable from insanity. There is a difference.

I've been here about 15 times in the past 5 years and hear the same old tired arguments.

Quote
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” ~~ Albert Einstein

As I mentioned before, I can only play the strings that I'm given. Since it's the ones who believe in a god that have the burden of proof I can only respond to the arguments that they use. Unfortunately they've been using the same twelve or so arguments for thousands of years. Just as their arguments have been failing for thousands of years. This is why they still have to fall back on faith.

Just kidding. I've only been here twice before.

Again, pointless and stupid.


But I have a very logical premise although you may not agree.

Seeing as how I had previously pointed out that you have no logic to your beliefs and you have just implicitly agreed to that, it seems that you don't have a logical premise (whatever your premise is since you didn't bother to state it).

More to the point though, once again I notice that you made no case for the logic of your premise. Simply asserted it. So again, no actual effort on your part to further any sort of discussion despite your repeated goal for us to learn something or to understand your position.

First, why waste your time writing up this long thought out post if I'm not welcome in your sandbox? Secondly, I'm writing here because the title of the entire thread has my NAME in it! How more direct can that be? Someone asked me a DIRECT question in the title of this thread, and it obviously wasn't you.

Because it was a valid question. You say you want to be understood. It was a rather pertinent question towards understanding you, don't you think? Why would you post in a forum when you clearly have no intention of following the rules that you agreed to when you signed up, or in participating in the manner in which the forum was intended. Not to mention in one where what you say is so clearly not going to be taken seriously.

Why come to a discussion/debate forum with no intention of doing either? It's a valid question, much in the same way it would be valid if I we were at a baseball game (which I have no interest in) and you asked me why I was there.

You're the one saying he wants to be understood.

Also, none of this actually addresses anything that was said in what you quoted. So I'm wondering why you bothered except in an attempt to create another diversion.

No, it's because nitpiks can't get past "where's the evidence?".

Again, you give no reason to. Nor have you attempted to give any reason to other than the fact that you think your ideas are worthy of some sort of special consideration that would not be given to other, similiar ideas.

Let me put it this way. If I wanted to talk to you about the underpants gnomes that live in my dresser drawer and eat holes in the fabric, would you give what I said serious consideration?

ego check

Again, the pointless "ego check" comment to substitute for your lack of ability to hold a conversation like an adult.

Consider our posts so far in this thread. In everything I have said I have justified my position, given reasons for my conclusions that I can support. Then I have turned around and given you the opportunity to openly make a case to show me wrong on this forum. Becasue there is always that possibility.

Yet you can't seem to do this. Every point I make is responded to with your "ego check" ad hominem, a red herring (or some other evasion attempt), and claims that I am somehow fundamentally incapable or unwilling to see your point, even though you have not even tried to make it. Instead of following the rules of the forum (evidence,etc.), you assert that they should instead bow to accomodate you. You seem to think that you're somehow not required to be held to the same standards that everyone else (theist and atheist) here is. That a two-word dismissive is the way to deal with valid and thought-out posts. You've even redefined parts of the english language just to accomodate what you want to believe and what you want to claim.

Now, this is not to say that I do not have a streak of arrogance in me (I've never once denied that fact), especially when I'm dealing with idiots and intellectually dishonest liars. I freely admit and accept this. However, what I have never done is allow that to interfere with my reasoning abilities or my ability to engage in a discussion. I have always been fully capable of accepting new ideas when there is a valid reason to actually accept them. I am completely capable of understanding the viewpoints of other people, even if I think these viewpoints are idiotic. This is because one can  contemplate an idea without actually subscribing to it. As I do with non-logical beliefs such as yours. I understand your ideas, however they are still monumentally stupid and you have made no effort to demonstrate otherwise. So there is no ego involved in labelling your beliefs as useless and idiotic. I have shown why this is so and you have made no case to the contrary.

So the continued claim of "ego check" or "leave your ego out of the equation" is more than a little outright offensive. Now offensive I can handle and don't really care too much about. However what does encourage the bile to rise up in my throat is that it is also hypocritical and dishonest, and you do it so easily and with so little shame.

If you're going to accuse others of ego and bias, being a whiny, self-entitled, judgemental little shit-stain is most likely not the best way to portray yourself.  Attacking someone as a response does not invalidate the points that they make, it merely makes you seem like a petulant child who needs to attack others so that they don't notice the weakness of his ideas. The same holds true for the red herrings and all of your other fallacies.

As I said, you're not much different from most of the theists that come here.


"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #128 on: October 03, 2011, 10:27:27 AM »
Quote
How can one tell the difference from a "self-evident truth" and a delusion?
An example, Velks. I assume that you have an image of the Mona Lisa in your memory banks; please retrieve it and hold it in your mind and look at it. OK?

While you're doing that, you can state this self-evident truth: "I am looking at an image of the Mona Lisa in my mind". Agreed?

It makes no sense for someone else to propose that this truth is incorrect and that you are deluded in your perception - as if your mind had possibly retrieved an image of The Last Supper instead, and you were mistakenly seeing it as the Mona Lisa.

And note that you cannot prove the truth of your statement to anyone else, because only you have access to the evidence.
I understand your point but the way brain research is going, we might be able to do just what you are saying.   

If I say that I see God in my mind, is this a self-evident truth or a delusion? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #129 on: October 03, 2011, 03:32:26 PM »
http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

Very interesting stuff. You'd think if this guy wanted to be taken more seriously, he'd invest in a better website and put up a better video. That just irks me when people use the zoom all the time.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #130 on: October 03, 2011, 04:25:43 PM »
As I said, you're not much different from most of the theists that come here.

I'll eventually respond to your post, but first, I'm going to break it down into sections.

You seem to be very defensive about the ego checks. I don't know how you can say that I'm letting ego get in my way. I haven't said anything to you ego-related. I understand if you say that I'm an idiot (ok you have) or something like that if I don't agree with what you're writing, but when I disagree, it's not because of ego. I call you out on your ego-trip because you're constantly berating me for something you don't understand. I know it makes you feel better or superior to do so.

Anyway, I'll get back to you in parts so you don't have to wait so long.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #131 on: October 03, 2011, 05:09:57 PM »
For Alzael:

Discussion on "other forms of proof".

Your stance - statistics, data, evidence, and proof are always necessary when discussing ANYTHING, less their response be "pointless and stupid".

My response - I'd agree if we were talking about building a bridge, making a jet engine, constructing a house, making a case against a murderer, and a long list of other things. But, this is not the case for ALL discussions. Once you apply a black and white canvas, you don't allow for any gray area. What if there are answers that lie in the gray area that you don't allow due to your rigid classifications? Well for one, it makes it a lot easier for YOU to be correct, and thus, I concede that point. You need statistics, data, evidence, and proof to continue. I've already said that I won't be able to offer those things in the way that you'd like, so there you go. But let's try to continue. But, even after conceding that point and trying to move on, you revert back to square one, call me names, don't continue, and ask why I'm posting on this message board. That's why you need an ego check. Others on this board continue past this point.

And, the reason that some theists disregard statistics, data, evidence and proof is that there are other ways to interpret statistics, data, evidence, and "proof". Here are some examples.

subjective:
Anxiety when flying on Airplanes - Statistics, data, evidence and proof (SDEP) clearly indicate that flying is much safer than driving. Then why do most people feel more anxiety when flying than driving?
Incorrect diagnoses - SDEP can be the same, yet different diagnoses can be made
relationships - need I say more?

objective:
Football games - If I gave you all of the statistics of 100 football games and didn't reveal the score, would you be able to tell me who won?
Gore vs. Bush - According to SDEP, Gore got more votes. Why did Bush win?
Toyota recalls - SDEP indicates that Toyotas are safe and reliable, yet an entire smear campaign was effectively run to the tune of a recalling of the cars in question and millions in expense.

So, when discussing an intangible like "God", your requirement for SDEP will more likely fall into the gray area than the black and white. If you don't allow for gray, there's no sense going any further. But, it hardly warrants insults like calling someone stupid.


Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #132 on: October 03, 2011, 05:45:49 PM »
Take note of how pretty much every person in this thread has made comment on your ideas being either vague, nonsensical, nuts, or similiar term at some point so far.

Did those who thought my ideas vague ask for clarification? If they thought that my ideas were nonsensical, nuts, or whatever else (judgements btw), they either didn't agree, didn't understand, or dismissed.


You're also assuming that I don't or can't figure you out. As opposed to the possibility that I do understand and have figured you out, and just think you to be wrong.

Based on your responses, you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

Here's an example:

Then that wedge needs to be driven even deeper. Statistics, data, and proof are the very issue here. What makes sense to you does not matter. What matters is what is true. There's nowhere that it was promised to you that reality was contractually obligated to make sense. This is why we use those bits of data, so that we can make sense of things. If someone doesn't respond to data and proof, then no argument about reality is ever going to make sense to them.

I'm trying to say that the point of no sale when atheists and theists talk is when the atheist demands SDEP - which is really not something I'm trying to say to support an argument of mine or not. I'm merely trying to explain why theists can believe without needing SDEP. Instead of taking this note and filing it away, your ego comes into play and you say that what I, YY, thinks makes sense doesn't matter. I was speaking for (some) theists and you thought I was speaking for myself? Understanding the theist is the key to communicating with them.

Why do you care? You are right and they are wrong right? If they don't have SDEP, then we don't need to discuss any further right?

Here's why. Take this next statement of yours.

Those statistics, data and proof are the only way that we humans have ever found which allows us to accurately recognize the difference between fantasy and reality. This is the problem that occurs with religion. Once you leave these behind (which is what religion must do) then there is no way to tell the two apart.

You may or not be correct, but requiring the same of others (when they don't care that you require this) may leave you with unfulfilled expectations. You say that without SDEP, theists are living in fantasy and not reality. Well, their fantasy world is YOUR same reality. Let's say God tells a church memeber to take a thousand fliers and put them under the windshields of cars in the parking lot. You are parked in this parking lot. The theists "fantasy" world just collided with your reality.



If one religion says to love your neighbour, another says to kill anyone who does not follow your god, and a third says to dance naked through the streets spreading butter on your crotch every sunday there is no way of knowing which one is right because they all have the same evidence behind them and the same basis in reality. If the love your neighbours theists want to argue against the butter-crotch theists how do they do it? Any religious argument that they use to support their case can equally be used against them by the other side. They would have to go outside of their religious faith to actually make a case for themselves (rendering their faith basically useless).

So, what you're saying is one religion speaks the language of (A), another the language of (B), and yet, another, the language (C). You speak (D). AB and C might never speak, but if you want to communicate with any of them, you can't keep speaking D to them! You have to learn A, B, and/or C!  Believe me, not many of them will try to learn D.







Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #133 on: October 03, 2011, 05:48:07 PM »
When you get right down to it, this is the center of pretty much every bad thing that has ever occurred because of religion (the wars, Inquisitions, the racism, etc.). Religions inability to actually give us the truth about our world.

I entirely disagree. All of the bad things that have happened were due to bad people using religion to carry out their atrocities. If you say this is true of religion, you should also say this is true of Democracy.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6562
  • Darwins +507/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #134 on: October 03, 2011, 06:13:10 PM »
I entirely disagree. All of the bad things that have happened were due to bad people using religion to carry out their atrocities. If you say this is true of religion, you should also say this is true of Democracy.
Actually, you would have a hard time disagreeing. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, The Norse, the Roman and the Greeks, the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Akkadians,  the religions of the Khans and Egyptians, the animist religions of tribal people all speak of great victories at war under their gods.

Eventually, you have to come to the opinion that people are responsible for everything but that as they are responsible for religion, it is reigion’s fault. The warriors are not bad people, they are just people. This is what humans are like, and their gods agree with them.

No one went into battle saying, “The gods are against us, they will show their wrath.” They all went saying, “The gods are on our side.”

No god ever said, “No, don’t bother with them. I don’t really care that they don’t worship me.”

and look to the religious influence of aggressor countries.

The thing about using religion is that using it is all that you can do with religion.

Oh, and your bit about Democracy… you really should read some history, Democracy is very recent. 1838 was the first time in the world that universal suffrageWiki was granted. So, prior to that there were no Democracies but there were plenty of wars.

I notice that you are very free with unresearched “facts” and points, as if nobody will pick you up. This is probably indicative of your approach to your own belief system – you assume things and don’t seem to ask questions or demand any proof, or even evidence.
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #135 on: October 03, 2011, 08:00:57 PM »
Eventually, you have to come to the opinion that people are responsible for everything but that as they are responsible for religion, it is reigion’s fault.

If you're trying to say that these wars would not have happened if there were no such thing as religion, I'd agree entirely. But, when you produce the mere fact that said wars happened as evidence that religion is the cause of the atrocity, I disagree. I also think that's an incorrect use of evidence equal to "the Columbine massacre happened because of the trenchcoat mafia".


No one went into battle saying, “The gods are against us, they will show their wrath.” They all went saying, “The gods are on our side.”

No god ever said, “No, don’t bother with them. I don’t really care that they don’t worship me.”

This isn't evidence either, so you're just as guilty as me.


and look to the religious influence of aggressor countries.

Isn't it probable that the religious are controlled better? Doesn't it make sense that the religious masses will go to war much more quickly? And then, doesn't it make sense that the leaders of these countries know and rely on this fact and are then able to utilize the masses at will "In the name of God"?


Oh, and your bit about Democracy… you really should read some history, Democracy is very recent.


If you can say that people will go to war "in the name of religion (a set of beliefs), you should also be able to say that people will also go to war "in the name of democracy". You could also say that people will go to war in the name of Labor Day or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I wasn't trying to say that more or less war is attributable to religion or democracy.



Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #136 on: October 03, 2011, 08:02:22 PM »
Excellent repartee Graybeard!

 :)
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #137 on: October 04, 2011, 08:38:08 AM »
When you get right down to it, this is the center of pretty much every bad thing that has ever occurred because of religion (the wars, Inquisitions, the racism, etc.). Religions inability to actually give us the truth about our world.

I entirely disagree. All of the bad things that have happened were due to bad people using religion to carry out their atrocities. If you say this is true of religion, you should also say this is true of Democracy.

hmmm, so does this make religion just as much of a human invention as democracy?  Religion is based on an idea that there is some magical entity/force that somehow influences the world.  Since we don't have any evidence of this at all, it really does seem that religion is just more nonsense, and is used and is *for* causing harm as well as regulating behavior. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #138 on: October 04, 2011, 09:23:59 AM »
hmmm, so does this make religion just as much of a human invention as democracy?  Religion is based on an idea that there is some magical entity/force that somehow influences the world.  Since we don't have any evidence of this at all, it really does seem that religion is just more nonsense, and is used and is *for* causing harm as well as regulating behavior.

I believe religion is just as much a human invention as democracy. And in it's most superficial understanding, yes, religion is what you describe, but theists would disagree that it's nonsense. It is my belief that the largest religions of the world are used FOR regulating behavior. The harm caused is a side effect of individuals or small groups using religion for their personal gain.

There are probably many people in positions of power who don't even believe in their particular brand of religion or who may be non-believers posing as "Christians" in order to strategically motivate the masses. The opposite is true whereby no politician in their right mind would say outright that they are Muslim (in the US) or atheist. That would be political suicide.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #139 on: October 04, 2011, 09:36:37 AM »
I believe religion is just as much a human invention as democracy. And in it's most superficial understanding, yes, religion is what you describe, but theists would disagree that it's nonsense. It is my belief that the largest religions of the world are used FOR regulating behavior. The harm caused is a side effect of individuals or small groups using religion for their personal gain.
Hmmm, I’m sensing a attempt to redefine religion.  Religion is religion and I don’t agree that there is some magical “deeper understanding” to it since there is no evidence for it.  Religion is the worship of some supernatural force in the context of this forum.  That’s it.

I dont’ care what theists disagree about since reality shows them to be wrong.  As for your claim that harm is only a “side effect”, why not say that any beneficial effect is a “side effect” and that harm is the intent of these religions.  We see genocide commanded by various gods because the gods *want* it.  The Christian god wants all other gods ignored, and anyone who doesn’t believe in it killed. Same with the Jewish god and the Muslim god.  The Aztec gods wanted blood sacrifice.  Laws for behavior apply to their “chosen people” but everyone else is a candidate for the slaughterhouse.
Quote
There are probably many people in positions of power who don't even believe in their particular brand of religion or who may be non-believers posing as "Christians" in order to strategically motivate the masses. The opposite is true whereby no politician in their right mind would say outright that they are Muslim (in the US) or atheist. That would be political suicide.
  That may be true, but from what I’ve seen, theists simply make up their own religions and gods and consider that to be true and go on their merry way.  It becomes a no true Scotsman argument when you want to say “but those people dont’ “really” believe like I do”. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #140 on: October 04, 2011, 11:40:04 AM »
My response - I'd agree if we were talking about building a bridge, making a jet engine, constructing a house, making a case against a murderer, and a long list of other things. But, this is not the case for ALL discussions.

   I disagree[1]. Religious and supernatural claims are the only ones that people give special undeserved liberties to when it comes to "proof".


subjective:

   First, what you speak of below aren't really in the realm of "subjective". An informed opinion or diagnosis and certain fears would be considered objective. "Blue is pretty" would be subjective, yet even there one can gather information, rely on data and statistics - you just can't "disprove" true subjective statements.

Quote
Anxiety when flying on Airplanes - Statistics, data, evidence and proof (SDEP) clearly indicate that flying is much safer than driving. Then why do most people feel more anxiety when flying than driving?

   Unfamiliarity (as people on average tend not to fly very often), combined with a lack of control (passengers in a car are at least within reach of the steering wheel). You are ignoring data to try and make this point.

Quote
Incorrect diagnoses - SDEP can be the same, yet different diagnoses can be made

   This is most certainly not subjective. Mistakes are made, possible necessary tests are overlooked, most likely because there is nothing pointing to it being necessary in the first place. A diagnosis is nothing but data and statistics. Or your doctor is irrational and you should probably stop seeing him.

   Again, ignoring data does not help your case.

Quote
relationships - need I say more?

   There is data here. How does the other person treat you? Do you enjoy the same things? All data points. Brain chemistry. More data. Ignoring this data is irrational.

---

   Before I continue with your "objective" ones, I should point out that true subjective discussions would not use data. Irrational discussions would not use data either. Neither requires, (or accepts) "proof". So I must ask; do you consider talking about religion to be subjective? If so, you effectively admit all religion is nothing but SPAG - which does not bode well for the theist viewpoint. Would you instead say it is irrational? ... I don't think I need to explain why that option would be harmfull.

Quote
Football games - If I gave you all of the statistics of 100 football games and didn't reveal the score, would you be able to tell me who won?

   I could give you probabilities based on those statistics. If you gave me enough statistics about the teams, theirs players, and even some trivial things that affect their mental states, as well as data like which stadium, the weather, and injuries, I could predict with an even smaller margin of error. Sports is all about statistics and data. This does not help your case.

Quote
Gore vs. Bush - According to SDEP, Gore got more votes. Why did Bush win?

   Again, you ignore data - the electoral colleges are not the populace at large, but representatives of their state, and the numbers can add up weird across states. Simple information (data) you overlook. Stop doing that.

Quote
Toyota recalls - SDEP indicates that Toyotas are safe and reliable, yet an entire smear campaign was effectively run to the tune of a recalling of the cars in question and millions in expense.

   In other words, the public was fed false data. Its like you're trying to fail here.

Quote
But, it hardly warrants insults like calling someone stupid.

   I agree, however, it does warrant insults like calling someone irrational.
 1. Sort-of. See break in the middle for clarification.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Alendar

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #141 on: October 04, 2011, 05:09:18 PM »
If the Gambitor defines god as everything, everything obviously exists. Atheists then not believing in "god" are stupid as the universe actually exists.

I have not seen this argument technique before, thank you for pointing it out.  It seems like this is too primitive by itself to be dangerous to accept.  For instance:

Premise #1: The Universe Exists
Premise #2: God is the Universe
Conclusion: God Exists

The second premise seems fallacious.  Why do they believe that the Universe is God?  Do they see properties that align providentially?

I would ask them to list examples.  A few I can see:

A: God is Omnipresent
B: The Universe is Omnipresent
Therefore, God is the Universe

There are a few other places where they would align.  I don't see how God created Himself in six days.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #142 on: October 04, 2011, 05:15:00 PM »
I dont’ care what theists disagree about since reality shows them to be wrong.  As for your claim that harm is only a “side effect”, why not say that any beneficial effect is a “side effect” and that harm is the intent of these religions.  We see genocide commanded by various gods because the gods *want* it.  The Christian god wants all other gods ignored, and anyone who doesn’t believe in it killed. Same with the Jewish god and the Muslim god.  The Aztec gods wanted blood sacrifice.  Laws for behavior apply to their “chosen people” but everyone else is a candidate for the slaughterhouse.

If you can prove that holy books have more instances of hatred than love, then I'd agree with your point. If you can't show that, then you are merely projecting your atheist bias.


That may be true, but from what I’ve seen, theists simply make up their own religions and gods and consider that to be true and go on their merry way.  It becomes a no true Scotsman argument when you want to say “but those people dont’ “really” believe like I do”.

Personally, I don't care what other people believe or not. I hope that in the future, other religions will find that it's not in their best interest to do so either. But then again, their mind control methods are working, so why fix it if it ain't broke?

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #143 on: October 04, 2011, 05:41:41 PM »
   First, what you speak of below aren't really in the realm of "subjective". An informed opinion or diagnosis and certain fears would be considered objective. "Blue is pretty" would be subjective, yet even there one can gather information, rely on data and statistics - you just can't "disprove" true subjective statements.

I can agree to call everything objective. My intent was to say that there is absolute SDEP and yet, there are multiple conclusions, unfounded fears, or totally incorrect conclusions drawn in the face of absolute data. This "proves" that there are factors other than SDEP to take into account when humans are making decisions and creating beliefs.

  Unfamiliarity (as people on average tend not to fly very often), combined with a lack of control (passengers in a car are at least within reach of the steering wheel). You are ignoring data to try and make this point.

You'd have to site statistics else your response is more anecdotal than actual. Are there statistics saying that people who fly more often (and what would that number be) are NOT afraid to fly? And you have absolutely no control of the car if you're in the back seat, so that argument doesn't make sense.



   This is most certainly not subjective. Mistakes are made, possible necessary tests are overlooked, most likely because there is nothing pointing to it being necessary in the first place. A diagnosis is nothing but data and statistics. Or your doctor is irrational and you should probably stop seeing him.

In the light of absolute SDEP, physicians can come to different conclusions as to the cause of the symptoms. My argument is that SDEP in this case is not black and white.


[
]relationships - need I say more?

   There is data here. How does the other person treat you? Do you enjoy the same things? All data points. Brain chemistry. More data. Ignoring this data is irrational.

My point was more to the effect that in light of negative SDEP (mainly abuse), there are people out there who remain with their sig other. You see it ALL the time! Why? Are there other factors other than SDEP controlling the mind of the abused?


Before I continue with your "objective" ones, I should point out that true subjective discussions would not use data. Irrational discussions would not use data either. Neither requires, (or accepts) "proof". So I must ask; do you consider talking about religion to be subjective? If so, you effectively admit all religion is nothing but SPAG - which does not bode well for the theist viewpoint. Would you instead say it is irrational? ... I don't think I need to explain why that option would be harmfull.

I'm trying to prove a few of the ways objective data can either be misinterpreted, misused, ignored, and inconclusive. So, the answer is yes and no. Subjective yes, in the way objective data is either ignored or dismissed by theists (and with human cause as shown in these examples) and Objective yes if we want to calculate affected persons, how they were affected in their lives (measurable), the effect on community etc.

Quote
Football games - If I gave you all of the statistics of 100 football games and didn't reveal the score, would you be able to tell me who won?

   I could give you probabilities based on those statistics. If you gave me enough statistics about the teams, theirs players, and even some trivial things that affect their mental states, as well as data like which stadium, the weather, and injuries, I could predict with an even smaller margin of error. Sports is all about statistics and data. This does not help your case.

I can give you every bit of data you would ever think of to ask for and you could still be wrong. If your requirement of every conversation is to contain SDEP, you are essentially saying that the SDEP is undeniable and would lead you to be able to figure out who won. What if I picked the games? How much money would you be willing to bet? Would you even be able to postulate a guess at your correct guess percentage?


Quote
Gore vs. Bush - According to SDEP, Gore got more votes. Why did Bush win?

   Again, you ignore data - the electoral colleges are not the populace at large, but representatives of their state, and the numbers can add up weird across states. Simple information (data) you overlook. Stop doing that.

ok bad example. The example should have included the gray area of the hanging chads. Were they to have been allowed a recount, history might be different.


   In other words, the public was fed false data. Its like you're trying to fail here.

But were they? According to all of the tests, there were no mechanical failures. Yet, the damage to the company was immense and the name of Toyota was dragged through the mud. People must have had other information to make up their minds about the Toyota scenario that didn't correspond to the objective data provided.


Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #144 on: October 05, 2011, 08:13:08 AM »
If you can prove that holy books have more instances of hatred than love, then I'd agree with your point. If you can't show that, then you are merely projecting your atheist bias.
ROFL!  Oh my, YY,  you really think I can’t?  This seems to either indicate you are utterly ignorant of your bible, or you are desperately hoping I am and wouldn’t want to bother with this. We have the entire OT that is all about killing those who disbelieve in God.  The flood, Babel, the events in Exodus, killing men woman and children by God when they were questioning Moses (Numbers 16, always love the killing of the kids by your god), the wars all through the OT, the genocides of people (repeatedly since the authors can’t seem to remember that all of the “x” tribes were already killed in books long before),  the lovely challenge the altars and the annihilation of the priests who lost(funny how this god can’t do that again and show who the “true” believers are).  And then in the NT, we have the claims that all who dont’ believe will be damned, that the Christian god intentionally makes sure some people can’t believe and damns them just for fun and games, that those who don’t believe should be brought before JC/god and killed, and then, ah, the actions to come in Revelation.  We have a war where all unbelievers are killed.  Then JC reigns over the earth full of good happy believers but your god intentionally allows evil back into the world to corrupt even more people just for one more battle with God.  Why didn’t God just leave well enough alone?

Now, for the love that’s shown in the bible.  We have 1 Corinthians 13 which describes what love is.  And the Christian god fails at every turn.  This god is not patient or kind. It describes itself as jealous and boasts constantly.  It allows its most faithful servant to be harmed on a bet.  It is easily angered and keeps records of wrongs.  It works with evil and intentionally lies.  It does not always protect, trust, etc.  It has failed many times, with its many failed covenants, laws, etc, which is rather amazing for a god that is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. 

Christians often claim that God’s love is “unconditional” but there are conditions on top of conditions, the first of which is believe in me and obey no matter what, and that’s the “love” that is described in the OT and NT.  This is the adoration commanded of an abusive entity, e.g. “Love me or die.”   Christians try to claim that God so loved the world that he gave his only son in that we might have eternal life.  That might be true if there were any true sacrifice (not popping up from the supposed grave) *and* if this god hadn’t set up the requirements of a bloody death in the first place.  This is not love, this is a shadowplay attempting to claim that something was given when nothing was.   

You are of course welcome to disprove my evidence above.  Now, that I’ve shown that Christianity and its god have vastly more harm attributed to it in the bible than any “love”, how will you answer my question “why not say that any beneficial effect is a “side effect” and that harm is the intent of these religions?” 

Quote
Personally, I don't care what other people believe or not. I hope that in the future, other religions will find that it's not in their best interest to do so either. But then again, their mind control methods are working, so why fix it if it ain't broke?


Indeed. YY, you claimed that my definition of religion was lacking in someway, that it was “superficial”.  You haven’t clarified that.  You also haven’t shown why theists could be right in claiming that their religions are nonsense in that everything about them shows that they are human creations. 

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/