Probabilities of God's existence debate

[shnozzola]

Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

Many of us are agnostic, nice name - your name is a good representation of what scares me - you, and Al Qaida, 2 peas in a pod.

[ParkingPlaces]

Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

I've got lots of evidence that god doesn't exist. You, for instance. He wouldn't permit such thing.

[Anfauglir]

Explain your life long, 24/7 concern about a God you erroneously think doesn't exist.   

Wow - good point.  I don't know.  Could it be that belief in this ellegedly loving god makes his followers.....

You atheist scum show your asses daily and it would help us to understand why you do that so often.

.....turn into hate-filled, bigoted morons, who would most likely shoot us dead if they weren't more scared of the real-world police than their ficticious god?

Read back through all the venom you've posed on this site, matey.  Review your chosen forum name.  And maybe - just maybe - you might get some kind of inkling as to why we think religion is a Bad Thing, m'kay?

[wheels5894]

Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

Are you serious? We are atheists here because we see no evidence that there is a god.None at all. If you have come to have fun then fine, we will enjoy seeing you in hell - if there is one...

Meanwhile, enlighten us. You are, presumably, not an atheist but a theist. So, tell us why you are a believer and what evidence you see for the existence of you chosen deity.

[Boots]

Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

"faith" means "believing in something without evidence."  Your faith is weak in your perverted command of the English language.

[Aaron123]

Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

Hold on, I'm confused.  Don't other christians claims things like "it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian", "it takes too much faith to believe in evolution"?

In which case, wouldn't "weak atheist faith" still be stronger than "normal christian faith", or at least at a more comparable level?  Wouldn't that be a good thing?


*sigh* be consistence here...

[Jesuis]

There is a Book called "The case for God by Karen Armstrong"
I am reading it at the moment.

[SevenPatch]

There is a Book called "The case for God by Karen Armstrong"
I am reading it at the moment.

From the reviews of the book, the preliminary impression I get is that Armstrong is basically arguing that believing in God the correct way will make a person better and happier.  If my impression is correct, that would make Armstrongs book nothing more than hateful nonsensical propaganda.

[wheels5894]

no, I don't think there's necessarily anything hateful about it. She wants to get back to the religious roots and apply the idea of doing religious things, presumably with the idea of the monastic, so that one lives and breathes god. Then, she seems to think, we might know the unknowable. I have a few problems with this - its really mumbo-jumbo - but it doesn't sound hateful.

[SevenPatch]

I'd have to read the book to be certain. 

I wouldn't imply that Armstrong knowingly wrote a hateful book.  It's what is between the lines that is hateful.

Someone could read the book, agree that "getting back to the religious roots and apply the idea of doing religious things, presumably with the idea of the monastic, so that one lives and breathes god, will lead to knowing the unknowable" and perhaps make it possible to live a better and happier life.  This person might then look at an atheist or one who doesn't believe any god exists and conclude that person is not a good person and is an unhappy person.

We know perfectly well that an atheist can be good and honest and lead a happy fullfilling life.  This frightens some theists.

[Graybeard]

There is a Book called "The case for God by Karen Armstrong"
I am reading it at the moment.

Apparently you cannot receive PMs. For you, perhaps this is a wise choice. However, I wish to communicate with you.

Apparently you reported my post whilst I was acting as Moderator. You said you could not find the OCG post to which I referred in that particular thread thread."
 
1. I did not say it was in that thread. -> you assumed.
2. You had replied to OCG's post in which he gave you the link -> It is strange that you should forget
3. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25200.msg595615.html#msg595615 -> I am doing your work. You could have searched OCG's posts

GB Mod

[screwtape]

From the reviews of the book, the preliminary impression I get is that Armstrong is basically arguing that believing in God the correct way will make a person better and happier.  If my impression is correct, that would make Armstrongs book nothing more than hateful nonsensical propaganda.

I don't think hateful is the right word for Armstrong.  I would more characterize her as misguided.  I don't think she's stupid, though.  Just wrong headed.  She thinks we need to bend over backward to accomodate the religious.  I am not a fan of hers.

[Jesuis]

Has anyone read the book "The case for God" written by Karen Armstrong?

[Jesuis]

From the reviews of the book, the preliminary impression I get is that Armstrong is basically arguing that believing in God the correct way will make a person better and happier.  If my impression is correct, that would make Armstrongs book nothing more than hateful nonsensical propaganda.

I don't think hateful is the right word for Armstrong.  I would more characterize her as misguided.  I don't think she's stupid, though.  Just wrong headed.  She thinks we need to bend over backward to accomodate the religious.  I am not a fan of hers.

What in the book makes you say that?

[screwtape]

What in the book makes you say that?

I've no idea.  I've not read the book.  I was speaking about her in general terms.  I've read some of her other public pronouncements.  Her approach to dealing with the religious is to accomodate them in every way possible, give them every courtesy and allow them every priviledge to which they are accustomed.  I disagree with that approach.  It is like blacks in the south in the 1950s saying they should be fine with Jim Crow laws.

[wheels5894]

I've not read any of her books either though reading about her I'm not necessarily that sad. Her Wikipedia page seems to suggest you writes the sort of stuff religion want to hear whilst, like so many others, ignoring that fact that the history of the founding of religions is shrouded in dark - the dark of a lack of contemporary historical writing by people other than members of the sect.

Frankly, anyone who thinks the belief is god is a starting point and who is an academic is probably a bit screwy!

[Jesuis]

What in the book makes you say that?

I've no idea.  I've not read the book.  I was speaking about her in general terms.  I've read some of her other public pronouncements.  Her approach to dealing with the religious is to accomodate them in every way possible, give them every courtesy and allow them every priviledge to which they are accustomed.  I disagree with that approach.  It is like blacks in the south in the 1950s saying they should be fine with Jim Crow laws.

I disagree - I read it and got the impression she was making the case that there is a God. It was more akin to slaves being freed because all men were created equal under God as promoted by theists who know God relative to us atheists who do not know God. We always see differences where theists see equality. We are all sinners.

[nogodsforme]

^^^^Wait a minnit! Are you trying to say that slavery was caused by atheists? And that theists always promoted equality? Are you for real?

You do realize that the largest denomination of Christians in the USA is the Southern Baptists, who would probably still be holding slaves today if not for the Civil War, right?

And the racists who created and upheld the violent, oppressive apartheid were the same Dutch Reformed Church members[1]  proud to have introduced Christianity to southern Africa?

Even today in the US there are people who say that civil rights, racial equality and integration were communistic, anti-god and anti American, therefore evil. Please spare me from the tiresome "everything bad is because of atheist sinners, everything good is from religion". If only life was that simple. 

1.	What they were reformed from I can't imagine...

[One Above All]

^^^^Wait a minnit! Are you trying to say that slavery was caused by atheists? And that theists always promoted equality? Are you for real?
<snip>

Given that Jesuis thinks anyone who doesn't know "God" (sic) is an atheist (id est: everyone), I wouldn't take what he says seriously.

[screwtape]

I disagree - I read it and got the impression she was making the case that there is a God.

Well, you read the book and I didn't.  If she's making a case for god, then I am mistaken about her.  I had been under the impression she was an atheist. If she's just a liberal theist, then her position of accommodation makes more sense and is less contemptible in my eyes, though her belief in god would make her somewhat less rational. 

[Jesuis]

I disagree - I read it and got the impression she was making the case that there is a God.

Well, you read the book and I didn't.  If she's making a case for god, then I am mistaken about her.  I had been under the impression she was an atheist. If she's just a liberal theist, then her position of accommodation makes more sense and is less contemptible in my eyes, though her belief in god would make her somewhat less rational.

She is not a theist so your right that she is an atheist.
However what she is doing is looking at the evidence and making a rational logical case.

I am always amazed on how easily belief dictates opinions long before one has had the opportunity to evaluate after one had read the information.
There is another book called "New proofs for the existence of God" by Robert J Spitzer - have you read this one?

[screwtape]

I am always amazed on how easily belief dictates opinions long before one has had the opportunity to evaluate after one had read the information.

We are not rational creatures so much as we are rationalizing ones.  That is why we need a system of decision making that minimizes our biases. 

There is another book called "New proofs for the existence of God" by Robert J Spitzer - have you read this one?

Nope.  I don't really read apologetics/ arguments for god.  I find them aggravating and generally not novel or worth my time.  I think all the arguments for gods are at least 1500 years old.  Really, I've not read any atheist stuff in a while either.  I tend to stick to the more academic stuff, lately.

[Jesuis]

I am always amazed on how easily belief dictates opinions long before one has had the opportunity to evaluate after one had read the information.

We are not rational creatures so much as we are rationalizing ones.  That is why we need a system of decision making that minimizes our biases. 

There is another book called "New proofs for the existence of God" by Robert J Spitzer - have you read this one?

Nope.  I don't really read apologetics/ arguments for god.  I find them aggravating and generally not novel or worth my time.  I think all the arguments for gods are at least 1500 years old.  Really, I've not read any atheist stuff in a while either.  I tend to stick to the more academic stuff, lately.

I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

[Azdgari]

Not part what an academic subject?

[One Above All]

I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Is your god alive?

[screwtape]

I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Of course they are.  However, "life" is kind of a broad topic and "consciousness" and "who I really am" are in the fields of psychology, neurology and cognitive science.  You are not going to find relevant answers in apologetics or religion.  At least, I'm not, anyway.  It is like looking for answers in new age crystals.

[Jesuis]

^^^^Wait a minnit! Are you trying to say that slavery was caused by atheists? And that theists always promoted equality? Are you for real?
<snip>

Given that Jesuis thinks anyone who doesn't know "God" (sic) is an atheist (id est: everyone), I wouldn't take what he says seriously.

Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.

[Jesuis]

I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Of course they are.  However, "life" is kind of a broad topic and "consciousness" and "who I really am" are in the fields of psychology, neurology and cognitive science.  You are not going to find relevant answers in apologetics or religion.  At least, I'm not, anyway.  It is like looking for answers in new age crystals.

The problem with this method of thinking is that we end up looking outside ourselves to find answers to things that lie within us. Our humanity, Our lusts, Our love, Our attention on these things is already in us. We are life already in a human body we are conscious already. Theists say not only of the body but of the mind and of the spirit - according to the theists we need look no further than within ourselves to find all the answers we need. Theists call it sitting in silence, meditation etc.. According to the realised beings the answers to the self can only be found by being still in thought.

It is not found in the field of psychology, neurology or cognitive science because you only learn what someone else discovers that is physical and not an accurate depiction relative to you per se. It has no answers to the self "life giving energy" that is you - only the self can find its eternal self. The human body is the instrument and the laboratory for you to know the truth about you - and its same the place where the tests for you are repeatable at the tenth door, the third eye, the ajna chakra.

[Azdgari]

Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.

What makes your definitions more "real" than those used by other people?