Author Topic: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.  (Read 13034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #232 on: October 14, 2011, 12:33:18 PM »
Just say "You're an idiot." It's much easier, very accurate, and simple enough for even him to understand.

You're an idiot.  Yes much easier.

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 #233 on: October 14, 2011, 12:36:21 PM »
No, you are not correct at all. I've done my part. I'm waiting on you to do the same. As it stands, me providing one more citation than you proves my point, and I've provide so very many more.

ROFL.  ;D  Seems that poor YY doesn't know where those things are in the bible. So, YY, do you need me to show you where every single bit is?  Really?  Is this your best response, "velkyn didn't show me everything with chapter and verse cited so now I'm going to claim that she didn't show me that the bible is full hate and has much more of that than love."   Golly, do you think that the events in Exodus might be indicating where they are in the bible (hint: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+1&version=NIV)?  I do love this, it seems, YY, that you are a person who subscribes to the "if I didn't read it and won't acknowledge it, it magically doesn't exist". 

This couldn't be more perfect, YY.  Thank you for demonstrating exactly what you continue to do and citing me so well.   

let me add links to more of my posts, where I do support everything I said I did: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447699.html#msg447699

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447902.html#msg447902

"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 #234 on: October 14, 2011, 12:49:17 PM »
First, Appeal to Authority.

Pretty good Authority

Second, not relevant and does not answer the issue in anyway.

This has EVERYTHING to do with what we're talking about. You are trying so hard to discredit me by saying that my beliefs are indistinguishable from a lunatic's. Ergo, if my (unsupported) beliefs are similar to those of one of the greatest thinker's of Human HISTORY's (unsupported) beliefs, wouldn't that give MY beliefs equal distinction to that of at least one other recognized Human? I've been accused of having independent, easy answer, goalpost moving beliefs and yet, they seem to match those of Dr. Einstein's? So yes, in your static definition, my belief's might be indistinguishable from those of a lunatic, but below, I will show you why they are not and I will also use Dr. Einstein as witness to my testimony. So yes, this is VERY relevant.


Third, he outright calls this belief a delusion. What you quoted was his saying that such a thing is bad and we should attempt to stop it. Which is the exact opposite of what you have been arguing. So no, you're not in the same company. You aren't even in the same bowling league.

In order for you to truly understand what you are typing in this last quoted area, you must define the words in red. Please define them for me so that we can continue this discussion. And please don't use the words of another person on this board and say "yah, that's pretty much what I meant". If it's not your words, we can't verify if that's really what you meant or if someone is assisting you by planting ideas.

# # # #

The reason my beliefs are distinguishable from those of a lunatic's is that they don't adhere to the definition of a lunatic.

First, let's agree that a belief is simply a thought that someone thinks over and over again until they believe it. Second, we have to recognize how these thoughts originate. On one hand, these thoughts originate in my mind and on the other, the thoughts originate in the lunatic's.

Again, we go back to the definition of a true lunatic.

1. an insane person.
2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.
3. Law . a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.

I have already outlined and give specific examples of why I am not a lunatic. Therefore, if these thoughts originate in my mind and I am not a lunatic, my belief's would not be indistinguishable from a lunatics.

Except of course if you're an atheist using the most static definition of the word "lunatic" and discounting the fact that Albert Einstein also wrote about beliefs that were unsupported by proof.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #235 on: October 14, 2011, 01:26:04 PM »
No, you are not correct at all. I've done my part. I'm waiting on you to do the same. As it stands, me providing one more citation than you proves my point, and I've provide so very many more.

ROFL.  ;D  Seems that poor YY doesn't know where those things are in the bible. So, YY, do you need me to show you where every single bit is?  Really?  Is this your best response, "velkyn didn't show me everything with chapter and verse cited so now I'm going to claim that she didn't show me that the bible is full hate and has much more of that than love."   Golly, do you think that the events in Exodus might be indicating where they are in the bible (hint: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+1&version=NIV)?  I do love this, it seems, YY, that you are a person who subscribes to the "if I didn't read it and won't acknowledge it, it magically doesn't exist". 

This couldn't be more perfect, YY.  Thank you for demonstrating exactly what you continue to do and citing me so well.   

let me add links to more of my posts, where I do support everything I said I did: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447699.html#msg447699

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20171.msg447902.html#msg447902

I've bolded the part that shows that you really don't see that what you did was pure interpretation. If you quote the actual scripture, maybe we'll see that you aren't putting your atheist bias on what you're citing.


Quote
We have the entire OT that is all about killing those who disbelieve in God.


Perfect example - you just slapped a judgement call on the entire OT.


Quote
The flood,

Quote
Babel,

Quote
the events in Exodus,

Quote
killing men woman and children by God when they were questioning Moses

Quote
(Numbers 16, always love the killing of the kids by your god),

Quote
the wars all through the OT,


Without quoting scripture, these may just be events that have nothing to do with your claims of evangelizing hate. Do you think Avatar is a movie of Hate of Love? Seeing that there is a war in the movie, you'd probably think it a movie of hate. Same thing you're doing here with the bible.


Quote
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. 

More of the same . . .  no scripture quotes so it really is your interpretation that allows you to cite these things as hate speech in the bible.


Quote
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?

no quotes . . .


Quote
How about the Qu’ran?  Lots of hate and killing for god there and very much based on the Bible and Torah. 

The Vedas? 

The Mahabarata?  All claim that those who do not follow “x” are less than “worthy” and deserve conversion, annihilation, etc. 

missing quotes . . . Sounds like you're interpreting again.


Quote
How many of them say how and when to kill someone for not agreeing with your religion?    Exodus 22.  Deut 13. Deut 17, Mark 6 (some versions remove the verse that has that any town that doesn’t accept JC will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah), and Jud 5 is always  good one for threats by a prophet that if you don’t belive god will destroy you. 

Finally, some references. FINALLY

So as you see, you really are just spouting your own interpretations with your own atheist bias unless you actually show the quoted scripture and how it supports your accusations of those passages being tennets of hatred.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2692
  • Darwins +77/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #236 on: October 14, 2011, 03:46:53 PM »
Without quoting scripture, these may just be events that have nothing to do with your claims of evangelizing hate. Do you think Avatar is a movie of Hate of Love? Seeing that there is a war in the movie, you'd probably think it a movie of hate. Same thing you're doing here with the bible.

Enjoying the conversation guys! I just wanted to add that perspective is a bitch. To wit, my wife refuses to acknowledge that George Orwell's 1984 is a tragic love story.

That is all.

Carry on.

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #237 on: October 14, 2011, 04:24:59 PM »
First, Appeal to Authority.

Pretty good Authority


No it isn't. That's why it's called a fallacy.

Even if I grant your assumption that Einstein did agree with you. It has nothing to do with you being right or not. You still require evidence. All it means is that Einsteins views were just as indistinguishable from being crazy as yours. It does nothing to help your case. It simply makes you look even less intelligent than you did before for trying to use it.

This has EVERYTHING to do with what we're talking about. You are trying so hard to discredit me by saying that my beliefs are indistinguishable from a lunatic's. Ergo, if my (unsupported) beliefs are similar to those of one of the greatest thinker's of Human HISTORY's (unsupported) beliefs, wouldn't that give MY beliefs equal distinction to that of at least one other recognized Human?

No. Without any evidence to support the belief, there is still no means of recognizing it from a delusion. And you still have not provided a means to tell the difference, nor even a semi-intelligible argumen as to why it should be otherwise. At best it means that you both share the delusion. But I've been over this one before.

Trying to claim "Einstein thought it too", has no relevance because it's an Appeal to Authority (ie. a logical fallacy).

So yes, in your static definition, my belief's might be indistinguishable from those of a lunatic, but below, I will show you why they are not and I will also use Dr. Einstein as witness to my testimony. So yes, this is VERY relevant.

No, it isn't. It's sadly very stupid. But let's roll with it then.


The reason my beliefs are distinguishable from those of a lunatic's is that they don't adhere to the definition of a lunatic

They only don't because you say they don't. You haven't provided any other reason to support this.

First, let's agree that a belief is simply a thought that someone thinks over and over again until they believe it. Second, we have to recognize how these thoughts originate. On one hand, these thoughts originate in my mind and on the other, the thoughts originate in the lunatic's.

Your definition of a belief is horrible. But ok, I'll humour you this time.


1. an insane person.

I'll get to this in a second.

I have already outlined and give specific examples of why I am not a lunatic. Therefore, if these thoughts originate in my mind and I am not a lunatic, my belief's would not be indistinguishable from a lunatics.

And I have already pointed out that you couldn't actually defend the examples. All of your examples simply came down to you saying that you're not a lunatic, simply because you say that you're not a lunatic.

I've already readily agreed that if the only evidence needed for something to be true is that you think it is true in your mind, then your beliefs are ok. However you still fail to illustrate how this differs from insanity.


Except of course if you're an atheist using the most static definition of the word "lunatic" and discounting the fact that Albert Einstein also wrote about beliefs that were unsupported by proof.

No, if you are someone using the words as they actually mean, as opposed to making up new definitions for them to justify my ideas.

As I said, what Albert Einstein said does not matter. Even if I grant you that you're right about your beliefs being similiar (which is frankly so stupid that it hurts) it does not actually give you any credibility or help your argument. It's a fallacy, and you can't hide behind Einstein to avoid actually answering the question. Einstein is not magically immune to having to prove and justify his ideas just because he was a great scientist in most other respects.

So the question still remains. Since the only way that we humans have to determine fantasy from reality, right from wrong, sanity and madness, is through the use of proof, evidence, and logic. How is anyone to tell the difference between your beliefs (which use none of these) and insanity?

You have to justify it, YY, not just say it.

You're an idiot.  Yes much easier.

Again, baseless assertion on your part. Show where this is justified.

You could easily end this. All you would have to do is provide just one method that allows for your beliefs to actually be verified as true. That would immediately shoot down my claims of it being indishtinguishable from mentall illness.

Instead we've got pages of you dodging, stonewalling, and whining like a petulant child who fails to get his way about how everyone else is letting their ego get in the way, or using static definitions, etc. Yet you have failed to provide even one single iota of reasoning as to why it should be otherwise.

All you do is behave as though everyone should accept what you say as not being nuts or stupid through some magical entitlement that seems to apply only to your own ideas. Either give some actual reasoning, or go and cower in a hole like the easily dismissable coward that you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be.

You're the one who joined a discussion forum. Discuss. Provide a reasoned argument and I wouldn't have any basis for treating you like an idiot. The fact that you fail to even respond to the right argument however, lends much credence to my claims.


"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 YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #238 on: October 14, 2011, 05:05:23 PM »
They only don't because you say they don't. You haven't provided any other reason to support this. . . .

And I have already pointed out that you couldn't actually defend the examples. All of your examples simply came down to you saying that you're not a lunatic, simply because you say that you're not a lunatic.


I've never been arrested. Quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

I have normal beliefs. My beliefs are with the majority in terms of being a theist. Again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic. You can move the goalposts and say that my theistic beliefs might not be that of other sects or religions. The bottom line is that normal means conforming to the standard or common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. It is "normal" for someone to believe in God more so than it would be to have someone who does not. If you want to claim that these beliefs are mine and mine alone, I showed you an example of someone else that you have heard of who believes like I do. I could name millions more, but you wouldn't take that as evidence.


My attitudes and behaviors are fine. I am well liked. Again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

I have almost 1000 friends on facebook. Yet again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic, although stated to add some humor. 

I drive safely, getting a moving violation maybe once every 5 years. Quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

I don't hold my son over the edges of balconies. I've broken one bone in my body about 20 years ago. I don't injure others.  More quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

I have a full time job with a large corporation and have been employed since I graduated from college. Very quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

I have no signs of mental derangement. I don't get depressed. I don't hear voices in my head.  Also quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

I've never been accused of making insane actions. Quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.


I've already readily agreed that if the only evidence needed for something to be true is that you think it is true in your mind, then your beliefs are ok. However you still fail to illustrate how this differs from insanity.

As just PROVEN, I am not a lunatic. You seem to be the one accusing me of having a mental illness and my beliefs of being indistinguishable from that of a lunatic. You go so far to support your claims as to say that Albert Einstein has beliefs indistinguishable from that of a lunatic. You then retreat to say that "what Albert Einstein said does not matter". Of course it doesn't when it doesn't support your claims.

Let's put this into perspective rather than have it be judged on an atheist-biased message board. If you are so sure that you are NOT using a static, unpopular definition of the word, I challenge you to submit this following sentence to 1000 random people to see if your claim is supported or not:

Quote
Albert Einstein has beliefs that are indistinguishable from that of a lunatic.

Should you accept this challenge, I will do my best to publish this far and wide enough to get 1000 responses. If you win, I will NEVER post on this message board again. If I win, you will publicly apologize to me and then never again post another message on the WWGHA message board.

Please let me know that you are not a "coward" and that you would not "dodge" this simple challenge.

OR, you can simply retreat again and give me reasons that YOU feel my beliefs are indistinguishable from that of a lunatic.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #239 on: October 14, 2011, 05:34:14 PM »
Hi Velkyn,

I kind of gave up on this thread and my attempt to support YY, mainly because I don't agree with a lot of what he's been subsequently saying, and this is his thread after all...

Also, I'm not sure where you're going with your (Socratic?) questions of me. The last one (way back in #128) was:
Quote
If I say that I see God in my mind, is this a self-evident truth or a delusion?
Knowing you to be an atheist, Velks, I'd say it was a lie.  ;D

And it would of course depend on what you (or anyone else) meant by 'God' in that sentence. (I'd also point out that I haven't used the word 'god' in this thread, and I don't intend to).

So... where do you want to go with this? Do you have another question for me? I don't mind answering questions about my pantheist worldview, but I'm not pushing it on anyone and I make no claims and I offer no 'proof' of anything.

If you ask me politely, I'll answer politely as best I can. But I don't want to be insulted or abused* (I don't come to this Forum to be abused - I can get that at home - baboom tish).

Gnu.

* And that would include being called a lunatic.

Alzael, I really don't understand why you're pursuing this point with YY. You're accusing him of being a lunatic (or, you're saying his beliefs are indistinguishable from those of a lunatic - which frankly, is much the same thing), and asking him to prove that he's not. As rhetorical strategies go, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Maybe I can help answer the question? As you may know, I've been a psychotherapist for over twenty years; it's part of my job to diagnose mental illnesses. Now obviously I don't have enough information about YY to make a formal diagnosis, but based on his words on this Forum, I see no evidence of any severe mental illness.

He obviously cannot prove his sanity himself (who can?). The only way to settle the question would be for him to submit himself to a formal psychiatric examination. Which is a somewhat unrealistic expectation, given that this is just a discussion on an internet forum. (May I see your own "Certificate of Sanity", Al?).

In my opinion, I think you should desist from this line of questioning, because it's not going anywhere.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 07:12:38 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 651
  • Darwins +75/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #240 on: October 14, 2011, 06:36:24 PM »
....However Jetson, the guys writing the bible were aware they were standing on a planet. Reference Job, The oldest book...and I quote...ch 26, verse 7 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space he suspends the earth over nothing". I think earth is reference to our planet...just sayin....God Bless You Guys!!!!!

In the context of a planet orbiting a star, what, exactly, do the words "over" and "suspends" mean? I can tell you one thing that they certainly do not mean, and that's that the author(s) of that quote had any concept of Earth as a planet. Seriously, in space, what does it mean to be "over" something (or even nothing)? And in what sense is the Earth "suspended"? You're grasping at straws, b2. No one with a proper concept of "planet" would have said that. The wording implies that the author had the mistaken idea that "down" has some kind of absolute meaning, rather than just "towards whatever massive object you're standing on". He may have had a concept of the Earth as a finite object, or possibly even as a sphere (some ancients did figure that out, there are some fairly easy to observe clues), but he also seems to have thought that the Earth might fall if not secured in some way.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +384/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #241 on: October 14, 2011, 09:01:39 PM »
I've never been arrested. Quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

I have normal beliefs. My beliefs are with the majority in terms of being a theist. Again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic. You can move the goalposts and say that my theistic beliefs might not be that of other sects or religions. The bottom line is that normal means conforming to the standard or common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. It is "normal" for someone to believe in God more so than it would be to have someone who does not. If you want to claim that these beliefs are mine and mine alone, I showed you an example of someone else that you have heard of who believes like I do. I could name millions more, but you wouldn't take that as evidence.


My attitudes and behaviors are fine. I am well liked. Again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

YY, we're not claiming that everything single aspect of you is insane.  We're claiming that *some* of your beliefs are insane.  Specifically, we're claiming that a belief in the existence of god is delusional.

Let me try something, because I'm starting to get pretty hazy on my understanding of what you believe.  Let's take some random stranger who is a wonderful citizen.  His name is George.  George has a pretty decent job, a stable social support network of friends, a wife, 3 kids, and a dog.  George has many beliefs, but among those beliefs, we'll examine 3 specific ones:

1) George believes mome raths exist.
2) George believes god exists.
3) George believes The Eiffel Tower exists.

Now, are any of those three beliefs insane?

We're claiming that 1 and 2 are insane, while 3 is not insane.  We have made this differentiation by means of evidence - we have evidence that The Eiffel Tower exists and conclude it is reasonable for George to believe that it exists.  We do not have evidence that mome raths exist, therefore it is *not* reasonable for George to believe that it exists.  And again, we're not saying that George's insane belief that god exists makes every single fiber of his being insane.  After all, we've got evidence that he is not totally insane - he's got a job, network of friends, wife, kids, dog, etc.  But that doesn't take away from our claim that his belief that god exists is insane.

Now.  Is George's belief that god exists insane?

You are claiming that evidence isn't necessary to categorize these beliefs between 'sane' and 'insane', and so we reconsider our positions on 1 and 3.

Is George's belief that mome raths exist insane?  Is George's belief that The Eiffel Tower exists insane?  How do you determine that?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #242 on: October 15, 2011, 03:23:03 AM »
Is George's belief that mome raths exist insane?  Is George's belief that The Eiffel Tower exists insane?  How do you determine that?

I see what you're getting at, but there's a clear difference in the way you explain the question vs. the broad paint brush that the other guy uses to imply that "my beliefs are indistinguishable from that of a lunatic".

Well, we all know that the Eiffel Tower exists.

Mome raths are fictional characters from literature?

So I believe, when it comes to that which has yet to be proven, that there are degrees of acceptance whereby the fewer who believe make the belief less sane.

When you really look at the definition of insane, lunatic, or any of their synonyms, the gist is that the insane one or lunatic or deranged person practices behaviors that ostracises themself from normal society. So I take it from those definitions that there's safety in numbers.

Example, I believe in God and so do 2/3 of the world. This cannot be an insane belief or else you'd have to claim that most of the world is insane which is opposite of the definition of normal.

If George believes in mome raths, you'd have to determine how many others in the world believe in mome raths. If that number is any less than 50%, you'd have an argument that George's belief in mome raths is insane.

This is why I'm saying to Alzael that my beliefs are like that of a lunatic when you take the literal meaning or static definition. If you apply some logic to the intent of the word, you can't say that a belief in God is insane.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #243 on: October 15, 2011, 03:35:41 AM »
Also jdawg70, let's take the opposite example. In your story, your theist is now an atheist. He thinks my theist needs to die and he has real reasons based on quantifiable data to support his belief. Your theist (atheist) believes my theist needs to die because they are representative of western evils, their suffering will lead to the greater good of my people, etc. 

Would you classify your theists (atheist) beliefs as sane or insane?

Technically by definition, your theists (atheist) beliefs should be considered sane correct? But in reality, those beliefs are TRULY indistinguishable from that of a lunatic. In fact, you are proving my point by making your theist interchangable with the atheist.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #244 on: October 15, 2011, 11:57:21 AM »

I've never been arrested. Quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

Except that you were never called a lunatic. Also it only applies as undeniable evidence if the term lunatic only meant someone who had been in jail.

I have normal beliefs. My beliefs are with the majority in terms of being a theist. Again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

It isn't quantifiable (but feel free to try to quantify it if you want).
You can move the goalposts and say that my theistic beliefs might not be that of other sects or religions. The bottom line is that normal means conforming to the standard or common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. It is "normal" for someone to believe in God more so than it would be to have someone who does not. If you want to claim that these beliefs are mine and mine alone, I showed you an example of someone else that you have heard of who believes like I do. I could name millions more, but you wouldn't take that as evidence.

Believing in a god does not make your beliefs “normal” as a theist. It makes you a theist. If you did not believe in a god then you would not be a theist in the first place.

As for  moving the goal posts, no posts have moved. You were asked to justify how your beliefs were “normal” for a theist when there are tens of millions who don't agree with you or think differently. Also still does not in anyway respond to the question asked.

My attitudes and behaviors are fine. I am well liked. Again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

You don't actually know what “quantifiable” means do you? Or did you change this definition too?

Also, it's still just you saying that you aren't a lunatic as opposed to doing anything to show it.

And still has no actual relevance.

I have almost 1000 friends on facebook. Yet again, quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic, although stated to add some humor. 

How does the fact that anyone likes you (especially since this is facebook, which means they don't really like you but just pushed a button on their computer) have anything to do with your mental health?

Still an assertion. Still irrelevant.

I drive safely, getting a moving violation maybe once every 5 years. Quantifiable undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

Assertion. Irrelevant. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I don't hold my son over the edges of balconies. I've broken one bone in my body about 20 years ago. I don't injure others.  More quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

It's not quantifiable. Don't use words that you don't know the meaning of. It still supports nothing. Except for my claims regarding your limited mental capacity.

I have a full time job with a large corporation and have been employed since I graduated from college. Very quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

No, it isn't. Not even remotely actually.

Assertion. Irrelevant. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I have no signs of mental derangement. I don't get depressed. I don't hear voices in my head.  Also quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

First, assertion. Second, learn what quantifiable means. Third Irrelevant.

Fourth, you hold beliefs without evidence or rational reason to do so. You actively try to change your perceptions of reality to accommodate what you want to be true and ignore objective reality. Those two aspects alone are potential signs of mental derangement.

I've never been accused of making insane actions. Quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.

You realize that saying the same stupid thing over and over does not make it true, right?



As just PROVEN, I am not a lunatic. You seem to be the one accusing me of having a mental illness and my beliefs of being indistinguishable from that of a lunatic. You go so far to support your claims as to say that Albert Einstein has beliefs indistinguishable from that of a lunatic. You then retreat to say that "what Albert Einstein said does not matter". Of course it doesn't when it doesn't support your claims.

You didn't prove anything, however that wasn't the issue.

At no point did I accuse you of having a mental illness.

As for Einstein, if we accept your assertion that his beliefs were similiar to yours, then yes. They are equally indistinguishable from fantasy.

No, what Einstein said does not matter. It's the evidence he provided to support what he said that matters. Of which there is none. A dumb idea does not become less dumb just because a smart person comes up with it. Einstein was a genius who produced a lot of good science, but it does not mean that every single thing he does or says is automatically pure brilliance. He was still wrong about some things. He was still perfectly capably of coming up with ridiculous notions.

Trying to lump yourself in with Einstein does not give you any credibility unless Einstein actually had something to back himself up. Which you still have yet to provide.

Let's put this into perspective rather than have it be judged on an atheist-biased message board. If you are so sure that you are NOT using a static, unpopular definition of the word, I challenge you to submit this following sentence to 1000 random people to see if your claim is supported or not:

"Albert Einstein has beliefs that are indistinguishable from that of a lunatic."

That sentence would be entirely out of context. Anyone who simply read it would have no notion of the context of the conversation that it is coming from. For the purposes of this we are operating on an assumption that your assertion about his beliefs are right. Anyone reading that sentence would first have to make the same assumption, and then understand the conversation.

Stated on its own and without context, the sentence is nothing more than an attack of Einstein, without any explanation to back it up.

But you knew that. That was what you wanted.


Should you accept this challenge, I will do my best to publish this far and wide enough to get 1000 responses. If you win, I will NEVER post on this message board again. If I win, you will publicly apologize to me and then never again post another message on the WWGHA message board. 

I'll agree to it when you come up with a sentence you want to post that isn't entirely loaded.

Please let me know that you are not a "coward" and that you would not "dodge" this simple challenge.

OR, you can simply retreat again and give me reasons that YOU feel my beliefs are indistinguishable from that of a lunatic.

Or, you could actually provide one piece of evidence against me. As I pointed out in the last post. The only thing that you have to do is provide one means in which I could use your beliefs to separate fantasy from reality. All you have to do is that one thing and you would instantly destroy every argument that I've made.

Lastly, as I pointed out, it is not just me. If your beliefs cannot be used to separate fantasy from reality, then you can't distinguish between them and a delusion.


Alzael, I really don't understand why you're pursuing this point with YY. You're accusing him of being a lunatic (or, you're saying his beliefs are indistinguishable from those of a lunatic - which frankly, is much the same thing), and asking him to prove that he's not. As rhetorical strategies go, it leaves a lot to be desired.

.......I'm going to assume that you haven't actually been reading this conversation at all and are just jumping in and making comments. If you have read the whole conversation, then I'm forced to wonder exactly why (in a thread about proof for his beliefs) asking the question of “how do you know that your beliefs are real?” is hard to understand.

Like I said, I'll assume that you haven't actually read any of this so I'll recap.

I did not accuse him of being a lunatic at any point. That's his Strawman which he's decided to roll with. I have asked him over and over how his beliefs can be separated from something totally made up. In total I've probably brought it up about fifteen times at least, which he's consistently refrained from responding to with anything resembling a reasonable point. Over the course of this I've rephrased the question several times. The only time he responded was when I used the word “lunatic” and he's simply latched onto this because it seems to be the only Strawman that he can even start to argue.

YY continues to mention that there are other types of “proof” that need to be considered, that atheists are letting their egos get in the way of considering alternate ideas, as well as that it close-minded not to consider these things. He changes the meanings of words to suit his beliefs so that he justify them and openly admits that he can't provide any objective evidence for anything that he says or believes.

So the question directed at him is very simple, “How then does anyone separate your beliefs from fantasy/insanity?”

I've explained it in great detail, elaborated on why we use objective evidence. Pointed out again and again why his ideas are no different from being made-up. However he continues to insist otherwise but refuses to in any way actually respond to the point. Everything he has done so far is a fallacy, typically a Strawman. He hasn't actually directly answered to the question. Even though it's extremely important in regards to the topic.



Maybe I can help answer the question? As you may know, I've been a psychotherapist for over twenty years; it's part of my job to diagnose mental illnesses. Now obviously I don't have enough information about YY to make a formal diagnosis, but based on his words on this Forum, I see no evidence of any severe mental illness.

Again, he was never accused of being a lunatic. That's simply the Strawman that he's created. You should really read the conversation before you jump in, Gnu. Please save your diagnosis for a conversation where it's warranted.


He obviously cannot prove his sanity himself (who can?). The only way to settle the question would be for him to submit himself to a formal psychiatric examination. Which is a somewhat unrealistic expectation, given that this is just a discussion on an internet forum. (May I see your own "Certificate of Sanity", Al?).

Irrelevant as he was never called insane. He was asked how one could tell the difference between his beliefs and the beliefs of someone who was mentally ill since his beliefs have left him no reliable means of separating fantasy from reality. He has tailored his beliefs to specifically to allow him to make up any justification for them that he wants and to avoid ever having to look at reality. He has redefined what words like “proof” mean so that he can justify these beliefs to himself.


I think you should desist from this line of questioning, because it's not going anywhere.

It only goes nowhere because he continually refuses to respond honestly. As I've said several times, all he needs to do is demonstrate one way in which his beliefs can actually allow him to differentiate reality from something that he made up. That would utterly wreck everything I've said. Instead, I get more Strawmen and dodging.

« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 12:00:46 PM by Alzael »
"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 Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #245 on: October 15, 2011, 12:19:11 PM »
This is why I'm saying to Alzael that my beliefs are like that of a lunatic when you take the literal meaning or static definition. If you apply some logic to the intent of the word, you can't say that a belief in God is insane.

But again, this is not the issue.  Just the Strawman you keep retreating to.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 12:35:54 PM by Alzael »
"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 RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #246 on: October 15, 2011, 01:05:11 PM »
This record has a really big scratch in it.  :-\

I don't think dude is a lunatic, or has particularly loony beliefs. He's just a pantheist. Pretty standard one. Everything is connected somehow, that connection is awe-inspiring and mysterious and humbling and seemingly magical, I want to call it God.

<shrug>

The only part that's weird is the very last part. Because capital-G God is just a proper name for *a* god. It's meant to indicate a singlular entity as in God, the One and Only!

But the root is just lower case g version -  a god. The universe and all the matter in it and the way particles and wavelengths interact with each other really can't be called a god. That's like calling an ecosystem a turtle. Or, I dunno, a really powerful pine tree. It just doesn't work.

On the same page, neither does capital "G" God. You're using the God the One and Only label unneccesarily... You've already classified the entirity of all existence and it's mechanics as something it's simply not by definition - a god (why not call it an ocean? Or a wizard? The universe is Wizard. Very nice.)... But by using the capital G God, you bring allllll the baggage of every other religion that's used the generic capital G God as the name for their anthropomorphic deitiy.

Not only that, but all you're really doing at the end of the day is giving the universe a name. Which is pretty weird, but not particuarly crazy. I mean, I named my car. So whatever.

And I suppose capital G God is a decently epic and giant-sized name for the universe, but I mean your so far removed from anything resembling an actual god, you might as well go with Marty or Junebug or Borris. The name is utterly meaningless, so why bother with it?

The only possible reasons I can think of are either that the person just isn't comfortable with abandoning the capital G God word altogether, that it gives people some kind of comfort to apply the ancient baggage-laden name to the mystery and wonder of the universe and therby keep a hold on some of that feel-good juice that comes from feeling like there's something out there running the show (even if it's ambivilant) and therefore we're in decent "hands' because all is as it should be...

Or the person just can't stomach the idea of calling themselves an atheist.

All understandable reasons. None particularly crazy. I just have to question the ultimate purpose of over-complicating things in this way when it's really not neccesary.

I dunno. I'm just spit ballin' here.
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +384/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #247 on: October 15, 2011, 01:29:46 PM »
Is George's belief that mome raths exist insane?  Is George's belief that The Eiffel Tower exists insane?  How do you determine that?

I see what you're getting at, but there's a clear difference in the way you explain the question vs. the broad paint brush that the other guy uses to imply that "my beliefs are indistinguishable from that of a lunatic".

Well, we all know that the Eiffel Tower exists.

Mome raths are fictional characters from literature?

So I believe, when it comes to that which has yet to be proven, that there are degrees of acceptance whereby the fewer who believe make the belief less sane.

When you really look at the definition of insane, lunatic, or any of their synonyms, the gist is that the insane one or lunatic or deranged person practices behaviors that ostracises themself from normal society. So I take it from those definitions that there's safety in numbers.

Example, I believe in God and so do 2/3 of the world. This cannot be an insane belief or else you'd have to claim that most of the world is insane which is opposite of the definition of normal.

If George believes in mome raths, you'd have to determine how many others in the world believe in mome raths. If that number is any less than 50%, you'd have an argument that George's belief in mome raths is insane.

This is why I'm saying to Alzael that my beliefs are like that of a lunatic when you take the literal meaning or static definition. If you apply some logic to the intent of the word, you can't say that a belief in God is insane.

Alright, now I've got a better handle of where you're coming from in regards to this lunacy/insanity/delusional issue.  You're talking about socially normal/abnormal.  And you are right, if by the definition of insanity is 'outside expected social norms'.  But look past the semantic issues here.  I don't think that Alzael really wants to accuse you of believing and behaving 'outside of expected social norms'.  He is going with the more strict definition of insanity.

Can we start rewording things here? Let me try to rephrase the claim you are arguing against (Alzael, again, if this rephrasing is *not* representative of your intent, I apologize):

Belief that god exists is indistinguishable from fantasy.

Now I think we got here initially because of the claim that your belief that god exists is indistinguishable from that of a delusional.  Perhaps we should start there.  You, YY, can be distinguished from a delusional.

I come up to both you and a delusional person in separate conversations.
You say, 'god exists'.
The delusional person says, 'Amzerithahuda exists'.

How do I evaluate the truth-value of these statements?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #248 on: October 15, 2011, 01:44:36 PM »

Alright, now I've got a better handle of where you're coming from in regards to this lunacy/insanity/delusional issue.  You're talking about socially normal/abnormal.  And you are right, if by the definition of insanity is 'outside expected social norms'.  But look past the semantic issues here.  I don't think that Alzael really wants to accuse you of believing and behaving 'outside of expected social norms'.  He is going with the more strict definition of insanity.

Can we start rewording things here? Let me try to rephrase the claim you are arguing against (Alzael, again, if this rephrasing is *not* representative of your intent, I apologize):

Belief that god exists is indistinguishable from fantasy.

Now I think we got here initially because of the claim that your belief that god exists is indistinguishable from that of a delusional.  Perhaps we should start there.  You, YY, can be distinguished from a delusional.

I come up to both you and a delusional person in separate conversations.
You say, 'god exists'.
The delusional person says, 'Amzerithahuda exists'.

How do I evaluate the truth-value of these statements?

Yes.That is a fairly simplified version of it. But it is not one that he wants to respond to. I've asked rephrased it many times so far. Including your version. However he ignores it and latches onto his Strawman that I called him a lunatic, rather than to respond to the actual argument.

"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.

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6726
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #249 on: October 15, 2011, 03:40:15 PM »
They only don't because you say they don't. You haven't provided any other reason to support this. . . .

And I have already pointed out that you couldn't actually defend the examples. All of your examples simply came down to you saying that you're not a lunatic, simply because you say that you're not a lunatic.


I've never been arrested. Quantifiable, undeniable evidence to support my claim of not being a lunatic.[…]
I've already readily agreed that if the only evidence needed for something to be true is that you think it is true in your mind, then your beliefs are ok. However you still fail to illustrate how this differs from insanity.

As just PROVEN, I am not a lunatic. […]
OR, you can simply retreat again and give me reasons that YOU feel my beliefs are indistinguishable from that of a lunatic.
YY, I think the problem here is one of deflection. Alzael makes the point that you have provided no proof, simply opinion, or “because that is what I believe.”

You give the impression that rather than answer the question/respond to the point, you choose to invent a slight and react to that.

Alzael is looking for answers. He does not say you are a lunatic, only that a belief in the supernatural without any evidence seems delusional as, for example, a belief in a flat earth might.

Clearly, you are persuaded of a spiritual realm. Could you please share with us, without going off at a tangent or assuming accusations, the evidence that led you to your belief?

GB Moderator

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #250 on: October 15, 2011, 07:43:29 PM »
GB, I hope you don't mind if I respond to your Moderator comment. Please delete this if you think it's inappropriate.

Quote
Alzael makes the point that you have provided no proof, simply opinion, or “because that is what I believe.”
And that's more or less what YY admitted in his first post on this thread:

Let me preface this by saying that this might not be "Proof" per say, but by your definition, spag. <snip> Personally, I believe that....

(And as CuriousGirl immediately replied: That alone kills the argument. Which it does. Yet the argument has persisted for 9 pages...).

Quote
You give the impression that rather than answer the question/respond to the point, you choose to invent a slight and react to that. Alzael is looking for answers. He does not say you are a lunatic,
I don't think YY has 'invented a slight'. Alzael raised the issue of mental illness and YY's sanity way back on page 2:

In that case everything you have to say is utterly meaningless, not to mention being functionally indistinguishable from delusion or mental illness. So why bother trying to talk to others about something that you can't separate from insanity?

To my eyes, the sentiment being expressed there is simply, "YY, I think you're insane". Alzael may insist that he means something more nuanced, but as I said to him in my last post, You're accusing him of being a lunatic (or, you're saying his beliefs are indistinguishable from those of a lunatic - which frankly, is much the same thing).

And Alzael has hammered away at that single point for the last seven pages. And YY has quite naturally tried to defend himself from the allegation. I would do the same in his shoes.

And as I also said to Alzael, trying to win an argument by ignoring the content of it and instead trying to demonstrate that your opponent is insane or delusional is a poor rhetorical strategy. As this thread demonstrates, it's a massive derail and a red herring.

I appreciate that he says he hasn't been doing that. But that's not how it reads to me.

And I'd ask, why bother introducing the concepts of mental illness and insanity into a discussion in the first place, if not to attack your opponent? As the saying goes, it adds heat but not light.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 07:52:27 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Joetruth2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #251 on: October 15, 2011, 07:58:35 PM »
So if a person believes in the "supernatural" because that person has had an experience that was real or imagined that is spiritual or supernatural in nature is that to be considered "proof" of the supernatural? Many claim to have had supernatural experiences does this mean that the supernatural exists? Many others have never had any such experience and therefore claim that nothing supernatural exists.

For instance, shortly after the death of my step father I was to travel from California to Phoenix, AZ  by car with my mother and wife. I rarely dream but the night before I had a vivid dream that we crashed. In the dream I was traveling 75MPH in the 70MPH zone I recognized the area as Arizona on interstate 10. I had made this trip several times as my mother lived in Phoenix. The car was struck on the right rear side from a white car driving in the right lane of the freeway. The accident caused our car to overturn and land on it's top. The other car was on fire and caused our car to burn. I could taste the smoke and feel the pressure of my weight choking me and could not free myself of the seat belt. I awoke from the dream and tried to sleep. The dream recurred not twice but three times like a message.

The next morning I related the dream to my wife and my mother. They seemed put off my this and somewhat afraid. We went on our way and stopped in Quartzsite, AZ for lunch and fuel. Leaving Quartzsite I was watching my speed and keeping it at 70MPH. I moved into the left lane and passed a truck. I was approaching a white compact car in the right lane and was about 500 feet from overtaking him when he suddenly did a 90 degree turn across the front of us and slammed into the guard rail at full speed. The car exploded in fire on impact.

We pulled over and I ran back as the driver managed to free himself from the wreck. He was an off duty LAPD and seemed OK. I know that had I been traveling at 73-75 MPH I would have been right beside him when his car failed. The dream had made me slow down and avoid the impact to the right rear of my car.

Say what you will o you of no faith but no one can ever change what happened and believe this it is not the first time I had a premonition of a disaster that was about to befall me.





Offline Joetruth2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #252 on: October 15, 2011, 08:08:14 PM »
By the way that last post does not prove the existance of God nor will it grow a limb. What it proves to ME is that things happen which can not be explained by normal human cognition.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-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 #253 on: October 15, 2011, 08:12:40 PM »
By the way that last post does not prove the existance of God nor will it grow a limb. What it proves to ME is that things happen which can not be explained by normal human cognition.

Other than confirmation bias
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 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 #254 on: October 15, 2011, 08:19:01 PM »
By the way that last post does not prove the existance of God nor will it grow a limb. What it proves to ME is that things happen which can not be explained by normal human cognition.

Welcome, Joe. I agree that there are things that humanity is currently unable to explain. I used to attribute those things to God's will, but I no longer do so, as I have yet to see proof of his existence.

I actually used to have dreams (beginning when I was 8, and ending when I was 21) where (Bible) God would speak to me. Now I realize that my mind could have manufactured the whole thing, because when I was a little girl, my very mentally ill mother used to lay a heavy trip on me about her being able to see the future through dreams from God. None of her "prophecies" ever came true.

I will admit that I cannot explain what happened to you. However, I am curious how you interpret your dream experience. Do you think God sent you a dream to save your life? If so, why only you and not everyone else when they are in danger?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Joetruth2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #255 on: October 15, 2011, 08:30:07 PM »
If I could explain that I would be able to control it. Indeed it has happened rarley to me. My take on it has nothing to do with God. I felt at the time it was a message from my dead father-in-law who was devoted to my mother and was warning me to save her. Now please do not expect me to prove my feelings they just are what they are. Logicaly, if they were for mom why did she not have the dream. perhaps because I was driving?

As for why on one else I do not know for a fact that others have not had similar occurances.

It happened to me before a big battle in Vietnam years ago I tried to stop the result but failed and a close friend died just inches from me as he did in the dream. I think I failed because I did not believe it to be possible and I did not convince my friend of the reality.

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 #256 on: October 15, 2011, 08:35:36 PM »
See, Joe, the problem is when you start trying to guess why the experiences happened. There's no way for you to know that your father-in-law was warning you, so I would advise skepticism until you have some sort of proof. It is much more intellectually honest to say that you cannot explain your experiences, rather than to make assumptions or guesses. Fair enough?

You could say it could have happened because of x, y or z, but to draw a conclusion would be illogical.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Joetruth2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #257 on: October 15, 2011, 08:40:08 PM »
You asked me to interprate did you not? Of course to do that I have to guess as there is NO logical explanation within human experience and I assure you I am human.

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 #258 on: October 15, 2011, 08:45:51 PM »
Yes, Joe, I asked you to interpret because I was wondering if you would guess. See, that is a common human tendency. Humans tend to try to explain things before they have any proof. I assure you, I am going somewhere with this. Are you a theist?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Joetruth2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #259 on: October 15, 2011, 09:03:15 PM »
That would be a guess.  Some days I consider God possible certainly in my youth. Other days I can't imagine God existing and leaving this mess unattended. What I do believe in is life, it exists. I believe in the things I have experienced. Like the dream(s) aforementioned. As for atheist or theist what does that matter to me. Believers are no threat to me. Non believers are no threat to me. I once held firm beliefs and those caused me to act contrary to  nature.
On the other hand I nearly lost my life in an accident I never saw coming so who knows? No one will ever convince me that just because one can not prove or even replicate extrasensory experiences they do not exist period. I can not close my mind to my own mind.

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 #260 on: October 15, 2011, 09:18:26 PM »
Joe, I agree that humans experience things that they cannot explain. I don't doubt that you experienced those dreams, just as I experienced my dreams. My point was that I hope you won't try to guess too much (especially about God or the supernatural), because that can change your entire life, and not necessarily for the best. All I am doing is giving some friendly advice not to attribute your dreams to any particular cause or source until you have a logical reason or some evidence to do so. I have guessed too much in the past and wound up far down the rabbit hole.

That being said, I wanted to address this:

So if a person believes in the "supernatural" because that person has had an experience that was real or imagined that is spiritual or supernatural in nature is that to be considered "proof" of the supernatural?

Due to the highly subjective nature of human beings (including myself) I would not consider personal supernatural experiences to be proof of the supernatural. Even though I had my own "supernatural" experiences, I don't take them as proof of the supernatural, because I would need objective proof that what I experienced was not just an experience in my mind, but reality.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan