Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 44750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1283
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #493 on: February 17, 2014, 09:18:36 AM »

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me.

That is why the law says "Thou shall not lie" .
If you are not a Christian people should not say to you that you are.

then why does EVERY EFFING theist parent who raises their children in their faith do this?  Are you saying all theist parents who raise their kids in their faith are liars and thus breaking said commandment?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +848/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #494 on: February 17, 2014, 02:20:13 PM »
Here is my guess.

Most adults have figured out how to make sense of the world by matching what is in their brains with what exists in the real world. And most people do a pretty good job of responding to the cues of the real world: staying out of the path of fast moving vehicles, wearing warm clothes when it is cold, not falling off cliffs, keeping away from open flames, walking around the pile of dog poop on the sidewalk, ducking the swinging fist, etc.

But then there is religion. Religion tells people that what they think they see in the real world and are aware of through their brains does not in fact exist--it is an illusion, or a practice run for the real thing. The true world, the important world, is full of powerful invisible beings and can only be detected through supernatural means.

This is, of course, crazy. No angels push you out of the path of speeding trucks. There is no god, no Satan, no invisible fist swinging at you that you must somehow detect and duck. But a majority of the adult population of the world is trying to believe in some version of this.[1]

Understandably, most people struggle with doubts about their religion, since it is clearly obvious that the claims of the religion are not factually true. They have to reconcile these contradictions all the time, and fight the cognitive dissonance that results. When they teach the same religion to their kids, they hope that the kids will grow up full of solid faith and not have to deal with the same painful cognitive struggles.

And, at first most parents think, with relief, they have succeeded. Many kids are very theologically compliant and agreeable-- religious notions make perfect sense to kids. Of course they love Jesus or Krishna and believe in him. Because little kids don't have critical thinking skills and live in a world of fantasy anyway. We know this-- comic books, Halloween, ghost stories, Harry Potter, Santa Claus and the entire Disney empire are all based on this fact!

The problem comes when, at age 6 or 8 or 10 or 12, the kid realizes there actually is a big difference between fantasy and reality. Then the invisible friends die, there is no more boogie man in the closet, the magical dragons fly away, Santa is an old guy at the mall, the comics become fun books to read for escape, Greek myths are just that, the cartoons are a diversion for Saturday morning. And Jesus disappears as well.

At about that same age, lots of kids also become interested in the real magic of science: dinosaurs, weather, planets and outer space, magnets, animals, rocks, bugs, plants, toy trains and airplanes ie how the world really works. Take an 8-year-old to the zoo, to a museum or just on a walk and try to keep up with the questions and observations--they are all scientists!

But religion is the special case, so the kids have to learn how important it is to lie and pretend that they have kept on believing that one set of fantasy ideas. Most will become struggling doubters, just like their parents. A few will break loose and shake off the "god delusion" usually after leaving their parent's home. Although as clearly made up, as fantastic and unreal as all the other myths and fairy tales, religion is supposed to remain true, because, why? Religion is just a scary bunch of stories and impossible rules.

At least the other fantasy stories are fun.  :P
 1. The rest of us think they are following stories made up by lunatics. We are correct.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #495 on: February 17, 2014, 07:00:26 PM »

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me.

That is why the law says "Thou shall not lie" .
If you are not a Christian people should not say to you that you are.

then why does EVERY EFFING theist parent who raises their children in their faith do this?  Are you saying all theist parents who raise their kids in their faith are liars and thus breaking said commandment?
That is your belief. I am not saying that at all. I am saying Theists teach their followers not to lie for a reason. So that they can know God.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 07:02:34 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #496 on: February 17, 2014, 07:19:01 PM »
Here is my guess.

The problem comes when, at age 6 or 8 or 10 or 12, the kid realizes there actually is a big difference between fantasy and reality. Then the invisible friends die, there is no more boogie man in the closet, the magical dragons fly away, Santa is an old guy at the mall, the comics become fun books to read for escape, Greek myths are just that, the cartoons are a diversion for Saturday morning. And Jesus disappears as well.

At about that same age, lots of kids also become interested in the real magic of science: dinosaurs, weather, planets and outer space, magnets, animals, rocks, bugs, plants, toy trains and airplanes ie how the world really works. Take an 8-year-old to the zoo, to a museum or just on a walk and try to keep up with the questions and observations--they are all scientists!

But religion is the special case, so the kids have to learn how important it is to lie and pretend that they have kept on believing that one set of fantasy ideas. Most will become struggling doubters, just like their parents. A few will break loose and shake off the "god delusion" usually after leaving their parent's home. Although as clearly made up, as fantastic and unreal as all the other myths and fairy tales, religion is supposed to remain true, because, why? Religion is just a scary bunch of stories and impossible rules.

At least the other fantasy stories are fun.  :P
At the heart of any religion there is the most humane of agendas. The question is "what has happened with that agenda over time" that the child humanity get confused and feel they have been misled. Corrupt parenting, corrupt teachers, corrupt politicians, corrupt financial institutes, and corrupt media. None of these in the environment is helping the child to know or realize the true agenda of the source of its teaching.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 07:21:04 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1238
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #497 on: February 18, 2014, 07:44:44 AM »
At the heart of any religion there is the most humane of agendas. The question is "what has happened with that agenda over time" that the child humanity get confused and feel they have been misled. Corrupt parenting, corrupt teachers, corrupt politicians, corrupt financial institutes, and corrupt media. None of these in the environment is helping the child to know or realize the true agenda of the source of its teaching.

It is interesting that most religions do have very similar themes. However rather than pointing to the existence of the divine to me at least these similarities point to the origins of religion being human. After all people are people the world over and have similar desires and needs no matter of where and when they are from.

Quote
He should treat all beings as he himself should be treated. The essence
of right conduct is not to injure anyone. (JAINISM -
from The Suta-Kritanga, about 550 BCE)

Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself.
(CONFUCIANISM - from The Analects of Confucius, about 500 BCE)

I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself.
(BUDDHISM - from The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BCE)

This is the sum of duty: Do nothing to others Which, if done to you,
could cause you pain. (HINDUISM - from The Mahabharata, about 150
BCE)

What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on
others. (ANCIENT GREECE - Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, about 90
CE)

Love your neighbour as yourself.(JUDAISM / CHRISTIANITY - Leviticus
19, in The Torah, about 400 BCE, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22 and
Mark 12, 1st Century CE)

What is harmful to yourself do not do to your fellow men. That is the
whole of the law…(JUDAISM - from Hillel: The Talmud, about 100 CE)

None of you truly believes, until he wishes for his brothers what he
wishes for himself. (ISLAM - a saying of The Prophet Muhammad, 7th
Century CE)

As you think of yourself, so think of others. (SIKHISM - from Guru
Granth Sahib, 1604 CE)

He should not wish for others what he does not wish for himself.
(BAHA'I from the writings of Baha'u'llah, about 1870 CE)

Be excellent to each other (BILL & TEDS EXCELLENT ADVENTURE - From Bill S. Preston Esquire, 1989 CE)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12206
  • Darwins +655/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #498 on: February 18, 2014, 10:43:13 AM »
Theists say "Thou shall not lie" you cannot say you know god if you don't if you are a theist.

? So?  There are other alternatives besides them lying and them knowing god.  It could be be they are simply mistaken, but do not know it. 


Actually they start of innocent...

? huh?  Have you never observed little children?  Kids start of as lying, egotistical, selfish savages, little better than dogs.  All that has to be beaten out of them before they can be considered decent human beings, and most of the time they do not progress beyond about age 6.  They just get bigger, but still behave like assholes.

... and pure.

What is people's hang up with purity?  People always think pure is better.  It usually isn't.  Pure iron is crap.  Pure gold is too soft to be very useful.  Pure water - deionized water - is not really that good for you.  I know people who will only own "purebred" dogs, which is stupid in too many ways to get into here. 

But what does it even mean to say an infant is "pure"?  Pure what? 

Only a theist has a pure intention for them.

Here we go with purity again.  And I would say theists goals are completely corrupt, since I see teaching children magical thinking is a terrible thing.

To remain pure and innocent and to know God. 

please.  You are talking crap here.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #499 on: February 18, 2014, 05:27:21 PM »
Theists say "Thou shall not lie" you cannot say you know god if you don't if you are a theist.

? So?  There are other alternatives besides them lying and them knowing god.  It could be be they are simply mistaken, but do not know it. 


Actually they start of innocent...

? huh?  Have you never observed little children?  Kids start of as lying, egotistical, selfish savages, little better than dogs.  All that has to be beaten out of them before they can be considered decent human beings, and most of the time they do not progress beyond about age 6.  They just get bigger, but still behave like assholes.

... and pure.

What is people's hang up with purity?  People always think pure is better.  It usually isn't.  Pure iron is crap.  Pure gold is too soft to be very useful.  Pure water - deionized water - is not really that good for you.  I know people who will only own "purebred" dogs, which is stupid in too many ways to get into here. 

But what does it even mean to say an infant is "pure"?  Pure what? 

Only a theist has a pure intention for them.

Here we go with purity again.  And I would say theists goals are completely corrupt, since I see teaching children magical thinking is a terrible thing.

To remain pure and innocent and to know God. 

please.  You are talking crap here.

Theists say all these things are about training the mind.

A mind built on truth has no beliefs. Something atheist are promoting.

Scientists are trying to do same thing using the scientific method but we know that is only for matter and not mind and conscious awareness.

Theist habe been addressing these issues regarding the self evident truths through positive humane interaction, conscious awareness  and purity of thought away from beliefs..

Pure or innocent as described by theists means the process of self observation by keeping an eye on one's own mind intent.
By living truthfully moment by moment - the follower (a true scientist of the self) learns "To thine own self be true" the method to the truth.

I agree the three year old is not innocent because most of its initial years has been exposed to a corrupting environment. 

Theists are talking about the tabula rasa state. "Unless one is born again" or freed from a mind filled with belief.

Theists want their disciples or be true followers to be self aware when they teach them - they implore their disciples to be pure in thoughts, words and deeds since the human mind has a negative corrupting agenda against truth and for belief of God but not helping one really know God. The theist is the knower and he helps those who are truth seekers for that single purpose.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +848/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #500 on: February 18, 2014, 11:22:41 PM »
I can't even figure out what he is trying to say. So I cannot respond. He has me stumped.  :-\
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #501 on: February 19, 2014, 04:25:50 AM »


Theists say all these things are about training the mind.

A mind built on truth has no beliefs. Something atheist are promoting.

Scientists are trying to do same thing using the scientific method but we know that is only for matter and not mind and conscious awareness.

Well, maybe. I suppose it depends what you think the mind is. For science the activity and the wiring of the neurons is what produces the mind and consciousness. The only way we know for a mind to exist is as a result of process in the brain. These processes can, of course, be studied and there's a lt a work in this area even the idea that a monkey can move another arm completely by brain power alone - and a little help from electrodes in its brain and corresponding circuitry in the arm to be moved. See here. So the mind and consciousness is certainly not necessarily beyond science.

Quote
Theist have been addressing these issues regarding the self evident truths through positive humane interaction, conscious awareness  and purity of thought away from beliefs..

Pure or innocent as described by theists means the process of self observation by keeping an eye on one's own mind intent.

Well, some have but most religions are more concerned with indoctrination and getting the members to follow the right set of rules for living (gosh, the bacon is EVIL!  :D)
By living truthfully moment by moment - the follower (a true scientist of the self) learns "To thine own self be true" the method to the truth.

Quote
I agree the three year old is not innocent because most of its initial years has been exposed to a corrupting environment.

Really? At 2 the child is only starting to work on theory of mind Wiki- so hasn't, by 3, had much chance to be corrupted  - on the basis which we agree the world surrounding a 3 years old is corrupting, which I don't necessarily.

Quote
Theists are talking about the tabula rasa state. "Unless one is born again" or freed from a mind filled with belief.

Theists want their disciples or be true followers to be self aware when they teach them - they implore their disciples to be pure in thoughts, words and deeds since the human mind has a negative corrupting agenda against truth and for belief of God but not helping one really know God. The theist is the knower and he helps those who are truth seekers for that single purpose.

I rather think we have to work on getting down to particular religions rather than the broad term, 'theist'. Indeed some religion no doubt do what you say, but the majority of religions in the west don't. As I mentioned above, the priority for the main religions in the west is to get the members to believe what they are told and to act as they are told on the promise of eternal live and sometimes virgins. I'm not sure there are so many 'seeker of truth' as you call them.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12206
  • Darwins +655/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #502 on: February 19, 2014, 10:06:37 AM »
jesuis, please learn to use the quoting function.  There is a link at the bottom of my post, in my signature, to the quoting tutorial.  It will help us understand you better. Please do it now.

Theists say all these things are about training the mind.

I do not understand how this has anything to do with my post.

A mind built on truth has no beliefs. Something atheist are promoting.

huh? 

Scientists are trying to do same thing using the scientific method but we know that is only for matter and not mind and conscious awareness.

huh? 
1, I do not understand how this relates to my post. 
2, science is trying to do what same thing?
3, science absolutely applies to mind and consciousness.  There are entire fields of study on it. 

Theist habe been addressing these issues regarding the self evident truths through positive humane interaction, conscious awareness  and purity of thought away from beliefs..

what are you talking about?  how does this relate to my post at all?

Pure or innocent as described by theists means the process of self observation by keeping an eye on one's own mind intent.

dude, are you on acid?  seriously.  nothing you have written so far has any kind of coherence.

By living truthfully moment by moment - the follower (a true scientist of the self) learns "To thine own self be true" the method to the truth.

Sorry, you are quoting Shakespeare and telling me it is science.  I seriously think you are trolling me.

Theists are talking about the tabula rasa state.

That is an outdated idea.  No wonder theists are talking about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

And it happens to be incorrect.
Quote
Psychologists and neurobiologists have shown evidence that the entire cerebral cortex is preprogrammed and organized to process sensory input, control motor actions, regulate emotion, and respond reflexively (under predetermined conditions).

The rest of what you said was completely incoherent an meaningless to me. 

If your next post makes as little sense as this one, I'm just not going to respond.  I have better things to do with my time.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #503 on: February 19, 2014, 11:21:21 AM »
A theist knows God.

As an atheist I have no belief.

Jesuis, I'm cross-posting this as I think it would help greatly if you summarised your position.

You claim to be an atheist - yet make definite statements like "a theist knows god".  All atheists I have ever encountered would say "a theist CLAIMS to know god", at strongest.

If you are an atheist, then your repeating statement such as "a theist knows god" are confusing at best, and may account for a lot of the resistance you are encountering.

Please can you clearly summarise your beliefs - or lack thereof - and explain the apparent dichotomy between the two posts of yours I have quoted?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12040
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #504 on: February 19, 2014, 09:30:48 PM »
He's a schizophrenic theist who believes he's the only true believer of god.

;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #505 on: February 20, 2014, 01:44:31 AM »
A theist knows God.

As an atheist I have no belief.

Jesuis, I'm cross-posting this as I think it would help greatly if you summarised your position.

You claim to be an atheist - yet make definite statements like "a theist knows god".  All atheists I have ever encountered would say "a theist CLAIMS to know god", at strongest.

If you are an atheist, then your repeating statement such as "a theist knows god" are confusing at best, and may account for a lot of the resistance you are encountering.

Please can you clearly summarise your beliefs - or lack thereof - and explain the apparent dichotomy between the two posts of yours I have quoted?

I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. 
Only Theists know God. These statements are true. We cannot prove beliefs.

1. Christians believe in the "Teachings of Jesus" who knows God. We cannot prove it but his truthful disciples can.
2. Muslims believe in the "Teachings of Muhammad" who also knows God. We cannot prove it but his true followers can.
3. Buddhists believe in the teachings of Buddha who know the path to enlightenment. We cannot prove it but his truthful followers can.
Do you understand?

Theists know God and atheists don't. That is a statement of truth or fact. Read the above logic.
 
What has you so baffled about the statement? It is really simple unless you have some other belief in your brain. Atheists do not believe. So are you really an atheist? 

Besides this is a thread on the probabilities of God's existence and I have posted two books to be considered for this debate.
Likewise as  these authors have given due respect to the people who teach that God exists and that there is a method to know God and that their True followers do find God. I cannot reject the evidence. Read the books.

Why are you going green on me when I have been respectful to the Theists and the atheists. I have respected everyone.
I still cannot understand this authority that some have to piss others off.

What is happening inside your brain that leads to all these questions. I am sure nothing I have said here you and other are understanding because my English is so shitty.
 
It seems like you have some sort of belief. Atheist do not have belief. When will you get that in your head.
I said I am an atheist - why don't you "believe" me. Not that you should be able to? You just have to accept that.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #506 on: February 20, 2014, 02:13:41 AM »
1. Christians believe in the "Teachings of Jesus" who knows God. We cannot prove it but his truthful disciples can.
2. Muslims believe in the "Teachings of Muhammad" who also knows God. We cannot prove it but his true followers can.
3. Buddhists believe in the teachings of Buddha who know the path to enlightenment. We cannot prove it but his truthful followers can.
Do you understand?

Theists know God and atheists don't. That is a statement of truth or fact. Read the above logic.
 
What has you so baffled about the statement? It is really simple unless you have some other belief in your brain. Atheists do not believe. So are you really an atheist? 

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.

If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #507 on: February 20, 2014, 08:29:37 AM »
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12040
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #508 on: February 20, 2014, 08:32:16 AM »
He's a schizophrenic theist who believes he's the only true believer of god.

;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1966
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #509 on: February 20, 2014, 09:33:46 AM »
What is happening inside your brain that leads to all these questions. I am sure nothing I have said here you and other are understanding because my English is so shitty.

What's your native language?  There used to be some polyglots around here...perhaps there still are?  Maybe they can help you out?
"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

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #510 on: February 20, 2014, 01:31:33 PM »
1. Christians believe in the "Teachings of Jesus" who knows God. We cannot prove it but his truthful disciples can.
2. Muslims believe in the "Teachings of Muhammad" who also knows God. We cannot prove it but his true followers can.
3. Buddhists believe in the teachings of Buddha who know the path to enlightenment. We cannot prove it but his truthful followers can.
Do you understand?

Theists know God and atheists don't. That is a statement of truth or fact. Read the above logic.
 
What has you so baffled about the statement? It is really simple unless you have some other belief in your brain. Atheists do not believe. So are you really an atheist? 

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.


If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.
That is confusing.
How do atheists "assume" there is a God and do nothing scientific about it - based on what?
Theists say to atheist to "assume" there is a God because he knows - he says to follow this method of self awareness - and if you did follow it truthfully you should know.

The statement "Theists know God and atheist don't." is more accurate and not confusing. Its objectives are clear.
Can we now put this thread back on track .. since the powers that be can derail a thread for the sake of going green? If I had such power I would have stopped this abuse of power.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #511 on: February 20, 2014, 01:36:52 PM »
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #512 on: February 20, 2014, 01:38:37 PM »
jesuis, please learn to use the quoting function.  There is a link at the bottom of my post, in my signature, to the quoting tutorial.  It will help us understand you better. Please do it now.

Thanks
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1966
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #513 on: February 20, 2014, 01:50:57 PM »
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!

Take a deep breath and re-read ParkingPlaces post.  There is a rather important two-letter word there that I think you're missing...

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.

If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.

Also - what's your native language?

Edit: forgot to include the quote to ParkingPlaces' post-of-interest.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 01:52:33 PM by jdawg70 »
"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

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #514 on: February 20, 2014, 02:14:11 PM »
That is confusing.
How do atheists "assume" there is a God and do nothing scientific about it - based on what?
Theists say to atheist to "assume" there is a God because he knows - he says to follow this method of self awareness - and if you did follow it truthfully you should know.

Here's the problem. The definition of god varies from religion to religion, so even though there is absolutely no concrete evidence that a god or gods do exist, we still have to play along with the many religions and their many excuses. If they would be so kind as to get together and come up with one definite and reliable definition of a god, those of us who don't think he exists could be more specific in our denial.

In other words, none of us have figured out a way to catch up with the many goal posts they keep moving. So we just generalize.

For the time being, the fact that science hasn't found anything for which the only explanation would be a supernatural power, I'll go with being, in my own head, 100% sure there are no gods, while publicly stating that my confidence factor is only 99.9999999999%. With numbers like that as the basis for my assumption, I'll use the word "assume".

And my self-awareness has nothing to do with it. Either there is a god/gods or there isn't, and my opinion doesn't mean squat within most aspects of reality. It is relevant to the person I experience as me and in my interactions with the social structure. Whether or not I believe in god does not affect the orbit of Mars, the timing of the next supernova or black hole physics. Self-wareness may allow me to draw conclusions, but I also get to decide the validity of my conclusions, and so whether I am right or wrong, I'll likely never know it. In the process, I've gone all circular on my a**, and I would be a fool to get too excited about my views of reality. Especially when there are others to think about. That I think I am right about the god thing is of little importance, other than to me, personally. If I were using it as an excuse to burn folks at the stake or something, then it would be important. But I'm not. So it really isn't that big a deal.

Quote
The statement "Theists know God and atheist don't." is more accurate and not confusing. Its objectives are clear.
Can we now put this thread back on track .. since the powers that be can derail a thread for the sake of going green? If I had such power I would have stopped this abuse of power.

The statement "Theists think that they know god and atheists don't think they know god" is fine. IF THERE IS NO GOD, NOBODY CAN KNOW HIM! No matter how hard they try. They can think they do, but they can't.  IF THERE IS A GOD, THEN WE ATHEISTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE WRONG, AND WHATEVER WE KNOW IS IN ERROR. AND WE CAN'T SAY THERE IS NO GOD BECAUSE THEISTS CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT WE CONSIDER THAT POSSIBILITY. AND BECAUSE WE'RE HUMAN, WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.

But we can't both be right. That is what I am telling you is wrong about your statement. And if everyone else who has responded feels more or less the same way, you have to consider the slight possibility that you're doing it wrong.

You remind me of an old adage from the Vietnam War. 

Quote
If everyone around you is running around in a panic, and you are remaining cool and calm, perhaps you have insufficient information,

In other words, if you think you're right and everyone else thinks you're wrong, you should at least consider the possibility that the others are right. Especially if you cannot find a way to clarify your position that meets with approval.

I'm not religious, so I have no capacity to respond meaningfully to nonsense. And the way you are stating your premise is nonsense to me. Your unwillingness to communicate in a useful manner is the source of our current problem with this thread.

I assume I haven't budged you an inch, but hey, at least I got to type in all caps for a bit. Thanks.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +848/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #515 on: February 20, 2014, 05:11:14 PM »
There seem to be three groups, as (ill-)(re-)defined by Jesuis:
 
1) theists-- apparently this category is made up only of prophets or mystics who know god personally; they have god's cell number, are Facebook friends with god, they hang out with god at the bowling alley, they can tell you god's zodiac sign, they have a beer with god on Friday nights. So there are not very many theists, according to Jesuis. Only a handful of folks like Jesus, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Muhammed, Moses, Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, and Mary Baker Eddy. [1]

2) followers of theists-- members of the various religious denominations who think that the theists of their particular cultural background are correct, although they themselves have no first-hand information about god or his shoe size. They are willing to listen for hours while their favorite  theist goes on and on about god's holy sleep apnea.

3) atheists--folks who, like the followers, don't have any first-hand info about gods. But unlike the followers, they don't believe the theist knows any gods, either.  Atheists are, in other words, ordinary rational thinkers.[2]

The possibility of there not being any gods to know (meaning that the situation of the atheists is the only reasonable one, because theists as he has defined them are simply nuckin' futs, and their followers are being misled by crazy people) has apparently not occurred to Jesuis.
 1. We are getting even fewer theists nowadays than ever before. It could be because we are nearing the endtimes. But it's probably because we have become better at diagnosing frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status..... and fraud.
 2. This is, presumably because no gods have chosen to show up and introduce themselves to anyone not suffering from frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status... or fraud.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #516 on: February 20, 2014, 05:16:34 PM »
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!

Take a deep breath and re-read ParkingPlaces post.  There is a rather important two-letter word there that I think you're missing...

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.

If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.

Also - what's your native language?

Edit: forgot to include the quote to ParkingPlaces' post-of-interest.
Sooohahhhh! Deep breath taken.
The thread is called the "Probabilities for Gods existence". It is not really about me nor belief in a God. Someone has hijacked the thread inputing assumptions and beliefs.

The books concerning this topic

1. The Case for God by Karen Armstrong
2 New Proofs for the existence of God by Robert J Spitzer.

I proposed these for debate if anyone want to debate the probabilities. I was not looking for a fight as some are.
 

As for me
Native Language = Broken English.
Profession: Expert fruit picker(not joking coconuts are hard to pick unless you have a certain skill and I am getting too old for this job). Still a slave and proud to serve.

As for the other thread - "Theists know and atheist don't" I am addressing those points when I am not slaving watching TV or reading a child's fable.

Humanity has a lot of work to do to create harmony -and  truth is the only goal for scientists to address to get rid of belief

According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6505
  • Darwins +848/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #517 on: February 20, 2014, 05:37:51 PM »
Oh, come on. Nobody's native language is Broken English. That would imply that you are the only person on the planet not fluent in your first language! Linguistics researchers are eagerly awaiting your call.  &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #518 on: February 20, 2014, 05:45:31 PM »
That is confusing.
How do atheists "assume" there is a God and do nothing scientific about it - based on what?
Theists say to atheist to "assume" there is a God because he knows - he says to follow this method of self awareness - and if you did follow it truthfully you should know.

Here's the problem. The definition of god varies from religion to religion, so even though there is absolutely no concrete evidence that a god or gods do exist, we still have to play along with the many religions and their many excuses. If they would be so kind as to get together and come up with one definite and reliable definition of a god, those of us who don't think he exists could be more specific in our denial.

In other words, none of us have figured out a way to catch up with the many goal posts they keep moving. So we just generalize.

For the time being, the fact that science hasn't found anything for which the only explanation would be a supernatural power, I'll go with being, in my own head, 100% sure there are no gods, while publicly stating that my confidence factor is only 99.9999999999%. With numbers like that as the basis for my assumption, I'll use the word "assume".

And my self-awareness has nothing to do with it. Either there is a god/gods or there isn't, and my opinion doesn't mean squat within most aspects of reality. It is relevant to the person I experience as me and in my interactions with the social structure. Whether or not I believe in god does not affect the orbit of Mars, the timing of the next supernova or black hole physics. Self-wareness may allow me to draw conclusions, but I also get to decide the validity of my conclusions, and so whether I am right or wrong, I'll likely never know it. In the process, I've gone all circular on my a**, and I would be a fool to get too excited about my views of reality. Especially when there are others to think about. That I think I am right about the god thing is of little importance, other than to me, personally. If I were using it as an excuse to burn folks at the stake or something, then it would be important. But I'm not. So it really isn't that big a deal.

Quote
The statement "Theists know God and atheist don't." is more accurate and not confusing. Its objectives are clear.
Can we now put this thread back on track .. since the powers that be can derail a thread for the sake of going green? If I had such power I would have stopped this abuse of power.

The statement "Theists think that they know god and atheists don't think they know god" is fine. IF THERE IS NO GOD, NOBODY CAN KNOW HIM! No matter how hard they try. They can think they do, but they can't.  IF THERE IS A GOD, THEN WE ATHEISTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE WRONG, AND WHATEVER WE KNOW IS IN ERROR. AND WE CAN'T SAY THERE IS NO GOD BECAUSE THEISTS CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT WE CONSIDER THAT POSSIBILITY. AND BECAUSE WE'RE HUMAN, WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.

But we can't both be right. That is what I am telling you is wrong about your statement. And if everyone else who has responded feels more or less the same way, you have to consider the slight possibility that you're doing it wrong.

You remind me of an old adage from the Vietnam War. 

Quote
If everyone around you is running around in a panic, and you are remaining cool and calm, perhaps you have insufficient information,

In other words, if you think you're right and everyone else thinks you're wrong, you should at least consider the possibility that the others are right. Especially if you cannot find a way to clarify your position that meets with approval.

I'm not religious, so I have no capacity to respond meaningfully to nonsense. And the way you are stating your premise is nonsense to me. Your unwillingness to communicate in a useful manner is the source of our current problem with this thread.

I assume I haven't budged you an inch, but hey, at least I got to type in all caps for a bit. Thanks.
If only you were an atheist you would see what is wrong with this --- Thinking - belief - assumptions and conclusions based on what. Where are your facts?

Here is a tribal leader's when we were younger.
Maybe you can understand something of his thinking..

"A scientists of old wanted to find out where the hearing was in a frog.
He placed a frog on his dissecting table slapped his hand on the table top and said JUMP.
The frog jumped. -- he notes its height and distance into his book
He proceeds to cut of one leg at a time repeating the process and the frog keeps trying but each time it getting lower and not as far.
After al te legs were gone he concluded that the frogs hearing was in its legs.
He gets his other peers to have a look at what he discovered and for many years this was a truth for them.
 
Thinking observing documenting and concluding with a peer review process is not all that is required for an idea to be true.
A truth when established remains true for all of time. The probability of God's existence is like the probability that the hearing is in the frogs legs. 

According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #519 on: February 20, 2014, 05:54:14 PM »
Oh, come on. Nobody's native language is Broken English. That would imply that you are the only person on the planet not fluent in your first language! Linguistics researchers are eagerly awaiting your call.  &)
My original language was banned by the slave masters generations ago out of fear that my ancestors would take up arms against them. I am being honest - I only have broken English.  But hey I like TV. Especially the science programmes.
Beside I think you are veering into belief again. 
I know myself and you do not know me.
I just asked my mate and she said it is a broken French Dutch English that we have inherited and "thats dat". She is not discussing it. She is always right.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12237
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #520 on: February 20, 2014, 05:55:20 PM »
My original language was banned by the slave masters generations ago out of fear that my ancestors would take up arms against them.

What language was that?

And what prevented you from properly learning English?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1966
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #521 on: February 20, 2014, 05:58:19 PM »
Sooohahhhh! Deep breath taken.
The thread is called the "Probabilities for Gods existence". It is not really about me nor belief in a God. Someone has hijacked the thread inputing assumptions and beliefs.

The books concerning this topic

1. The Case for God by Karen Armstrong
2 New Proofs for the existence of God by Robert J Spitzer.

I proposed these for debate if anyone want to debate the probabilities. I was not looking for a fight as some are.
 

As for me
Native Language = Broken English.
Profession: Expert fruit picker(not joking coconuts are hard to pick unless you have a certain skill and I am getting too old for this job). Still a slave and proud to serve.

As for the other thread - "Theists know and atheist don't" I am addressing those points when I am not slaving watching TV or reading a child's fable.

Humanity has a lot of work to do to create harmony -and  truth is the only goal for scientists to address to get rid of belief

I was merely trying to point out the source of the confusion that you espoused here:
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!

Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
"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