Author Topic: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?  (Read 34398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #261 on: May 17, 2013, 11:41:05 AM »
median,
     Thanks for all the discussion - I think I will drop this argument for now.  Just a couple of comments: I don't think that an analogy has to perfectly parallel the situation that it is describing; if it did, there wouldn't be much point in using the analogy.  The point I was trying to get at was that even though in the marriage example I could take the stranger home and introduce him to my wife, I wouldn't be required to give up my belief that I am married during the 30 minute trip home - at the same time, the stranger wouldn't be rationally required to believe me during that time either.  In terms of the comparison between my relationship with my wife and my relationship with Christ, I consider both to belong to the class of personal agents.  I think that this is where we lack any common ground, and without coming to an agreement on whether a physical body is a necessary requirement for a personal agent to exist, I suppose there is not much point in continuing this argument.  I really appreciated all the time you took to reply to my posts.
             G&W

Likewise, but I'm still curious why you would believe that your comparison is valid, when all of the available evidence for 'relationships' is physical. If you have something which you claim is "a non-communicable relationship" (and thus non-demonstrable) what makes you think it's real? Record yourself making this argument and play it back. It sounds fundamentally no different (whatsoever) from a child/kid who claims to have an invisible friend.

As pertaining to your comment regarding personal agency, all of our available evidence displays that minds are the properties of physical brains. Put simply, when changes to the physical brain are made, changes to the person are made concurrently. Why would you think otherwise? Dualistic arguments have continually failed to show any necessity (or even a coherent definition) of "non-physical persons", and they ultimately boil down the argument from ignorance fallacy. "I can't understand X phenomena. Therefore, it must be 'non-physical.'" Yes, I've read J.P. Moreland's Body & Soul, his Scaling the Secular City, and many others on these topics but none of them is convincing. It always boils down to, "Well, this argument sounds intuitive. So I'll just go with that b/c I want to keep believing what the bible says." That's not convincing to me, and I really don't see why it would be convincing to anyone. So why are you convinced that there is anything "spiritual" or "immaterial" at all?

Btw, just in case your wondering, no, I don't think numbers, mathematical constants, or the logical absolutes exist as "things" in themselves.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1606
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #262 on: May 17, 2013, 11:43:30 AM »
That's the same thing that happened to me when I decided to give up atheism and return to belief. 
Belief doesn't work that way - if you "gave up atheism and returned to belief" you always believed anyway. You just didn't like what you were being told to believe.

Quote
Instead of letting bad religious practices dictate my belief I have been defining God on my own terms and it has worked so much better for me. 
Well, if you think about that statement for a minute, you'll see why - you're making choices about what you want to follow and rejecting what you don't. Provided you aren't harming others, there's not much wrong with this approach. If you choose to assign your belief in your own strengths and abilities to an external ambiguous entity, the only person being shortchanged is you, and I still contend that's the only real harm being done by your beliefs. I think you are shortchanging yourself.

Quote
I understand how all of us believe what we believe. 
There's a lot of evidence that this statement isn't true...

Quote
I think if God is truly defined as Loving and followers displayed that Love it wouldn't be so hard for people to believe w/o seeing God in person.  It is a contradiction to say God Loves You but if you don't believe I'm going to fry you in a fiery hell for eternity. 

The bolded part is certainly true.

Quote
I just don't believe God is so unrelenting. 
Good for you. There's lots of evidence that you are wrong, but go ahead and make it up as you go along. The belief system (since you get so bent about it being called a religion) you appear to be creating seems mostly harmless.

Quote
If you go by the Bible, Jesus teaches us that God's love for us is more perfect than the human form of love.  By that definition God would not condemn non believers to hell, because I wouldn't and God's love is way bigger than mine.  I believe there are consequences but I believe them to be perfectly fair because they come from a source of perfect wisdom.

I'd like a copy of the bible you read that led you to this conclusion.

Quote
I believe in God not religion.

Doesn't make it any less SPAG.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1606
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #263 on: May 17, 2013, 11:47:40 AM »
LoriPinkAngel, I'm sorry to hear that you are having a tough time. Let us know if there's anything we can do to help.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1200
  • Darwins +124/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #264 on: May 17, 2013, 11:49:14 AM »

Doesn't make it any less SPAG.
When it comes right down to it I guess my beliefs are really just SPAG.  But right now with my mental and physical health so fragile I have to deal with them before trashing my whole belief system.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10569
  • Darwins +265/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #265 on: May 17, 2013, 11:53:44 AM »
That's the same thing that happened to me when I decided to give up atheism and return to belief. 
Belief doesn't work that way - if you "gave up atheism and returned to belief" you always believed anyway. You just didn't like what you were being told to believe.

While I agree that belief does not work that way (in the sense that one can't "decide" to give up on a belief or lack thereof), I don't think just because you went back to belief that you were never really an atheist. That's like saying that, because you're an atheist, you were never really a theist.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #266 on: May 17, 2013, 12:01:19 PM »
How much evidence does it take to induce belief in an extraordinary claim?

That would depend entirely on the claim.

Yes, I never said that the function of non-communicable evidence was to convince another person to believe. 

And now we discover, quite precisely, where you have faltered. There is no such thing as 'non-communicable evidence'. That is a contradiction in terms. Evidence is, by it's nature and definition, DEMONSTRABLE to others. So, someone claiming to have "personal evidence" of being abducted by aliens (or in your case having a "non-communicable relationship with an invisible deity") isn't speaking correctly. They don't have evidence (just like you don't). They have a CLAIM! That is all. And until that claim is backed up with some evidence, there is no reason to take the claim seriously.

"I saw Santa Claus, but I can't communicate it to you!" Sorry, I call bullshit. This is the same tactic that I hear nearly every religion on the planet trying (in different forms) - be it friends of mine or acquaintances etc. It's the whole, "Oh, I can't explain Krishna [or whatever deity] to you. You just have to experience it for yourself. You can 'feel' it." Can you say "Mormon!" This is just credulity. Plain and simple. It's the feeble attempt to hide away, and protect, your "faith" from any and all scrutinization and/or falsification.

What hubris!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #267 on: May 17, 2013, 12:17:09 PM »
That's the same thing that happened to me when I decided to give up atheism and return to belief. 

So did you 'give up' not believing in Santa Claus too then? Atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK OF BELIEF. So basically, what you just admitted was that you decided to jump to a conclusion that tickled your ears because you couldn't stand not knowing. Put simply, you engaged in credulity.

Instead of letting bad religious practices dictate my belief I have been defining God on my own terms and it has worked so much better for me. 

Of course! This is what every religious person does. Make up your own version of your assumed religion so that it conforms to your life preferences and not the other way around. This is why there isn't just one Christianity. There are only Christianies (pl.). You people are just making it up as you go along - picking and choosing which parts to take literally, which parts to consider figurative, and which parts to ignore.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #268 on: May 17, 2013, 01:06:45 PM »
Belief doesn't work that way - if you "gave up atheism and returned to belief" you always believed anyway. You just didn't like what you were being told to believe.

While I agree that belief does not work that way (in the sense that one can't "decide" to give up on a belief or lack thereof), I don't think just because you went back to belief that you were never really an atheist. That's like saying that, because you're an atheist, you were never really a theist.
I agree with One Above All on this; it seems incorrect to claim that it is not possible to go from a state of lack of belief to a state of belief.  At least that's the way I'm reading Jag's statement.
"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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6220
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #269 on: May 17, 2013, 03:27:53 PM »

Doesn't make it any less SPAG.
When it comes right down to it I guess my beliefs are really just SPAG.  But right now with my mental and physical health so fragile I have to deal with them before trashing my whole belief system.

It upsets me to hear that you are having such troubles. And it reminds me that we need to keep fighting for universal health care. You would not be worrying about medical bills (on top of being sick) if you lived in Canada or Germany. >:(
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 Greenandwhite

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Darwins +5/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #270 on: May 18, 2013, 12:26:06 AM »
Atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK OF BELIEF.

As far as I know my parent's cat has a 'lack of belief' in God - does that make him an atheist?

Offline Greenandwhite

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Darwins +5/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #271 on: May 18, 2013, 12:31:43 AM »
How much evidence does it take to induce belief in an extraordinary claim?

That would depend entirely on the claim.

Do you just need a certain amount of ordinary evidence to establish belief in an extraordinary claim or do you need a piece of 'extraordinary' evidence?

Offline Greenandwhite

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Darwins +5/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #272 on: May 18, 2013, 12:38:44 AM »
There is no such thing as 'non-communicable evidence'. That is a contradiction in terms. Evidence is, by it's nature and definition, DEMONSTRABLE to others.

I have a couple of questions:
1. Are you considering 'non-communicable evidence' to be synonymous with personal experience?
2. You made a statement about the 'nature and definition' of evidence - were you thinking of any particular definition in an online dictionary or philosophy glossary? If so, could you point me to it?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #273 on: May 18, 2013, 12:47:10 AM »

As far as I know my parent's cat has a 'lack of belief' in God - does that make him an atheist?

Is this their cat?

The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #274 on: May 18, 2013, 02:25:33 AM »
Atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK OF BELIEF.

As far as I know my parent's cat has a 'lack of belief' in God - does that make him an atheist?

Just like the lack of evidence for your alleged deity, there is also a lack of evidence that cats (or any other lower mammal for that manner) have "beliefs". Thus, your question is nonsense.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #275 on: May 18, 2013, 02:27:57 AM »
How much evidence does it take to induce belief in an extraordinary claim?

That would depend entirely on the claim.

Do you just need a certain amount of ordinary evidence to establish belief in an extraordinary claim or do you need a piece of 'extraordinary' evidence?

Again, it depends upon the claim. You apologists seem to have a very low standard of evidence when it comes to the one particular religion you were raised to accept, but a high standard for all other claims to the supernatural. Why is that?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #276 on: May 18, 2013, 03:01:25 AM »
There is no such thing as 'non-communicable evidence'. That is a contradiction in terms. Evidence is, by it's nature and definition, DEMONSTRABLE to others.

I have a couple of questions:
1. Are you considering 'non-communicable evidence' to be synonymous with personal experience?
2. You made a statement about the 'nature and definition' of evidence - were you thinking of any particular definition in an online dictionary or philosophy glossary? If so, could you point me to it?

1. I'm not considering/"assuming" anything. I'm merely pointing out that your assertion regarding "non-communicable evidence" is self-contradictory (and specifically the way in which you are using that term). Call it personal experience or whatever you want to. It still isn't evidence. "Hey! I have non-communicable evidence of my invisible friend Fred! He is real! Do you believe me?"

It doesn't seem you are being very critical of your assertion and/or interpretation of said "experience".

2. No actually, I wasn't. But I suppose it doesn't really matter b/c if I presented a definition of evidence, and then you attempted to spin that definition (so as to make it fit in with your assumption of 'non-communicable evidence') I simply wouldn't buy the BS. For one, b/c that kind of spin tactic is inconsistent with daily life (and what we would accept as evidence with, say, a salesman at the door - i.e. ordinary requirement), and two b/c the tactic is dishonest. It stems from the derivative primary of the fallacy of moving the goal post (and at that, playing word games). And no amount of definition shifting is going to do the job.

Besides that, we haven't been given any good reason for thinking that you actually have "evidence" that, as it just so happens, you just can't communicate to anyone else. All we have is your saying so. But that doesn't make it so.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #277 on: May 18, 2013, 03:07:09 AM »
Your faith that what God is doing is right and just, albeit beyond your understanding, is identical to agreement with what God is doing.

I don't see that it is, or certainly not in every situation. I don’t think it’s worth debating, though – bottom line is that I do believe that God is just, and is loving. Our concept of love and justice is flawed.


Here though, it sounds to me more like you're worming out of it with yourself.  Having faith that Hell is a good thing, versus feeling/believing that it is a good thing...could you explain the difference?

As I've already stated, hell is in no way a good thing. The struggle you correctly sense is to do with the need for it's existence - my inability to understand God's perfect nature, and God's inability to allow any wrong-doing go unpunished, how Jesus' death makes it possible for us to avoid that punishment. I don't pretend to fully understand these things. But - I am willing to accept those things are true because I do understand them on a certain level, and my faith that it is God who created mankind is very strong.


EDIT:  You specifically asked me to clarify something, and I didn't.  What I mean by "we should be amoral, then" is that what I read in your last comment of that post was you saying that humans like to be the ones to "point fingers" (ie. make moral judgments) and should not. 

We do like to point out wrongdoing, and injustice, and we do have a tendency to overlook our own wrongdoing in the process. It doesn't mean we shouldn't seek out try to deal with wrong-doing, but we don't always do it very well.


This interpretation is reinforced by your reliance, in the rest of the post, on the idea that human moral judgments of the universe, are
foolish/unjustified. 

You must have mis-understood me or I didn't express myself clearly, because I don't think that. See above. Moral judgements on God, on the other hand, are certainly foolish and unjustified. But...understandable.


Should that person be in hell?  No moral judgment, just leave it to God! 

How would you decide? Hypothetically? If you had that power?



Should that person be in jail?  No moral judgment, just leave it to God!


I don't believe that.


 Err...that's amoral.  It's also reinforced by the Bible, given what YHWH, in the Garden of Eden story, wanted from humans.  He didn't want humans to be moral agents.  Adam and Eve became ones anyway, an unforgivable crime for which we are supposedly still paying.  Morality is a sin.

Morality isn't a sin. It's true we are born with a sinful nature, and it's nigh on impossible for us to understand why we suffer for something we're born into. But we also can't deny that we have free will[1], and that we choose to do wrong.

I'll be honest...the garden of eden story is a real mind-bender for me. I'll discuss it more when I respond to Screwtape (but that won't be for a while, probably)
 1. once we step outside the philosophy classroom and into the real world
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #278 on: May 18, 2013, 03:28:39 AM »
But we also can't deny that we have free will[1], and that we choose to do wrong.
 1. once we step outside the philosophy classroom and into the real world

I do.  I deny it based on causality and physical laws, and hence any salvation/punishment based on free will is automatically unjust from my perspective.  But I don't want to get into that here - there's plenty of threads where I have already bored people quite enough on that subject!   ;D   Just wanted to point out that "free will" is NOT an automatic - I'm certainly not alone in thinking it does not exist.
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 Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #279 on: May 18, 2013, 03:34:59 AM »
1. Are you considering 'non-communicable evidence' to be synonymous with personal experience?

1. I'm not considering/"assuming" anything. I'm merely pointing out that your assertion regarding "non-communicable evidence" is self-contradictory (and specifically the way in which you are using that term). Call it personal experience or whatever you want to. It still isn't evidence. "Hey! I have non-communicable evidence of my invisible friend Fred! He is real! Do you believe me?"

It doesn't seem you are being very critical of your assertion and/or interpretation of said "experience".

I'm sort of with G&W that it is acceptable as evidence - but ONLY to the person experiencing it.  It adds to their understanding of the world, so it counts as evidence to them.  If I was the only person in the world to see that for two seconds it stopped raining in a crescent shape in my garden, I still have that uncommunicable experience to add to my picture of the world.

What the problem of course is, is that if that evidence is uncommunicable except from my say-so, then it has no relevance as evidence to anyone else.  As Median says, those who accept personal experience are extremely uncritical of those experiences.  They also seem usually unable to accept that if their experience has no evidential value to anyone else, then any other non-evidential experience can be judged no more and no less relevant to a third party than theirs is: there is simply no way for the third party to differentiate between the two claims, and so must either accept both, or (more usually, since they tend to be mutually exclusive) to reject both.
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 The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #280 on: May 18, 2013, 04:38:49 AM »
I'm sort of with G&W that it is acceptable as evidence - but ONLY to the person experiencing it.  It adds to their understanding of the world, so it counts as evidence to them.  If I was the only person in the world to see that for two seconds it stopped raining in a crescent shape in my garden, I still have that uncommunicable experience to add to my picture of the world.

<snip>
If you saw the rain stop raining in a crescent shape, it would also be recordable by a camcorder of sorts and demonstrated to others.

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1384
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #281 on: May 18, 2013, 04:43:54 AM »

As far as I know my parent's cat has a 'lack of belief' in God - does that make him an atheist?

Is this their cat? <snip>
 
Shouldn't that be.

The cat is an Acanis cat.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #282 on: May 18, 2013, 06:01:36 AM »
As far as I know my parent's cat has a 'lack of belief' in God - does that make him an atheist?

Atheism is "lack of belief" in deities, so strictly speaking, yes, your parents' cat is an atheist.  However, to apply a belief-based term to an entity not capable of beliefs is rather silly, and it's definitely not useful in any way.  It's rather like pointing out that rocks and chairs have no opinions either way about same-sex marriage.  True, strictly speaking, but also a ridiculous and pointless observation.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1999
  • Darwins +71/-80
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #283 on: May 18, 2013, 07:27:13 AM »
Instead of letting bad religious practices dictate my belief I have been defining God on my own terms and it has worked so much better for me. 

Yep.  It all becomes a LOT easier when you make it up as you go along.

Isn't it always funny how those people who go seeking their own god always find out that god neatly mirrors their own feelings and morality?  You seldom hear of anyone say "so I went seeking the REAL god and found that it wants all these things that I think are terrible - I'm really unhappy now because I've discovered god, and it's SO not what I think is right."

So it's either don't believe or be a Christian or something with a title.

Thanks Tonus for being insightful.

I appreciate you making me think here Anf.  I can only speak for myself here.  I haven't in a literal way found God.  I found belief in God.  I feel God's Love.  That's why I define God as Loving, so I try to be Loving as well. 

I know you want to know how I feel loved by God.  It's because I am so thankful for my life even the bad stuff.  It's like the good stuff makes it worth all the effort.  I don't look at my challenges as God is picking on me.  I used too; was so angry at God.  It wasn't until I learned to trust that I was able to feel His love.  The reason I trust God is because I believe God is Loving.
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #284 on: May 18, 2013, 07:50:11 AM »
So it's either don't believe or be a Christian or something with a title.

Thanks Tonus for being insightful.

I appreciate you making me think here Anf.  I can only speak for myself here.  I haven't in a literal way found God.  I found belief in God.  I feel God's Love.  That's why I define God as Loving, so I try to be Loving as well. 

I know you want to know how I feel loved by God.  It's because I am so thankful for my life even the bad stuff.  It's like the good stuff makes it worth all the effort.  I don't look at my challenges as God is picking on me.  I used too; was so angry at God.  It wasn't until I learned to trust that I was able to feel His love.  The reason I trust God is because I believe God is Loving.
You stated in your post that you made it up (or in your own words "defining god on my own terms"). I dont know how many times I have pointed this out to you. The rest of the post I am having difficulty following. If you havent "literally" found god then your belief is in something that literally doesnt exist. If youre simply trying to describe "love" we have a word for that, its called "love". How you being thankful for existence suggests "love" is a god is nonsensical. And how could you be angry at "love"?

Why did you make god a man in your religion?

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #285 on: May 18, 2013, 08:18:54 AM »
as one having recently been in the theist camp for many, many years, I can say i used to believe/say nothing would ever ever make me change my mind or convnnce me god wasn't the everything I needed.

What i know now is I held that belief only because I had never looked outside my narrowly constructed box of religious thought and curiosity. Testing the scriptures meant reading more of them, more commentaries, and more apologetics or criticisms of "false" religions. It was a giant circle jerk. Any doubts I had were either dismissed or covered over with "thats just gods way" nonsense.

Now... to move me back, I would have to see direct, unambiguous proof of a deity intervening - maybe showing up for all to see and doing something impossible.  Would that cause me to worship that thing? No, why would it?
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1999
  • Darwins +71/-80
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #286 on: May 18, 2013, 08:20:15 AM »
[quote auth or=Jag link=topic=24803.msg554603#msg554603 date=1368809010]

Doesn't make it any less SPAG.
Quote
When it comes right down to it I guess my beliefs are really just SPAG.  But right now with my mental and physical health so fragile I have to deal with them before trashing my whole belief system.

Yea that's what they call it.  Catchy don't ya think?   ;D 

If God was a projection of me we'd be in trouble.  ;)

Hope you feel better.
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1384
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #287 on: May 18, 2013, 08:55:52 AM »
Quote from: junebug72
If God was a projection of me we'd be in trouble.  ;)
As nobody here believes in your version of god, then the only person in trouble would be you.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #288 on: May 18, 2013, 10:23:19 AM »

I'm sort of with G&W that it is acceptable as evidence - but ONLY to the person experiencing it.  It adds to their understanding of the world, so it counts as evidence to them.  If I was the only person in the world to see that for two seconds it stopped raining in a crescent shape in my garden, I still have that uncommunicable experience to add to my picture of the world.

What the problem of course is, is that if that evidence is uncommunicable except from my say-so, then it has no relevance as evidence to anyone else.  As Median says, those who accept personal experience are extremely uncritical of those experiences.  They also seem usually unable to accept that if their experience has no evidential value to anyone else, then any other non-evidential experience can be judged no more and no less relevant to a third party than theirs is: there is simply no way for the third party to differentiate between the two claims, and so must either accept both, or (more usually, since they tend to be mutually exclusive) to reject both.

This depiction of "evidence" (which attempts to widen the circle) creates exactly the kind of problem I alluded to in previous posts. It opens the door for any quack lunatic to call his personal experience "evidence". I reject that line of thinking. Evidence does not include wholly personal events and cannot. "It's evidence to me!" is not evidence. Evidence is demonstrable. Plain and simple. If someone claims to have witnessed an extraordinary event (in their garden, etc), but they were the only one around (i.e. - no confirmation), then they don't have evidence. They have a claim. And that claim needs to be backed by that which is demonstrable (i.e. - Did the UFO leave notable marks in the garden? Did they get a picture of the alien craft?).

Even if there were numerous people at a particular claimed event (i.e. - an alleged 'faith healing', etc), if none of those people can demonstrate their claim (in some demonstrable form), then they don't have evidence. Again, they just have a claim. If a patient at a hospital claims to have an extraordinary medical condition that is supposedly "non-communicable", would we accept his assertion by claim alone? Should HE accept his own assertion without having critically investigated the situation (i.e. - via others who may disagree, etc)? This whole "non-communicable" evidence mumbo-jumbo is just a sham. It's just a way to open the door for quackery, exaggerated internal misapprehension, self-deception, and lying.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 10:29:16 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1999
  • Darwins +71/-80
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #289 on: May 18, 2013, 10:28:07 AM »

Belief doesn't work that way - if you "gave up atheism and returned to belief" you always believed anyway. You just didn't like what you were being told to believe.

You certainly have the right to your opinion.

Quote
Well, if you think about that statement for a minute, you'll see why - you're making choices about what you want to follow and rejecting what you don't. Provided you aren't harming others, there's not much wrong with this approach. If you choose to assign your belief in your own strengths and abilities to an external ambiguous entity, the only person being shortchanged is you, and I still contend that's the only real harm being done by your beliefs. I think you are shortchanging yourself.

I know Jag you've told me before.


Quote
I think if God is truly defined as Loving and followers displayed that Love it wouldn't be so hard for people to believe w/o seeing God in person.  It is a contradiction to say God Loves You but if you don't believe I'm going to fry you in a fiery hell for eternity. 

The bolded part is certainly true.

Quote
Good for you. There's lots of evidence that you are wrong, but go ahead and make it up as you go along. The belief system (since you get so bent about it being called a religion) you appear to be creating seems mostly harmless.

Thank you.

Quote
I'd like a copy of the bible you read that led you to this conclusion.

KJV, Scofield Edition 1982, Luke 11:11-13, the conclusion is my interpretation of what I read.  That is the point that I actually started to believe God Loves me despite my homosexuality, because my father did.

Happy belated Mother's Day to all the Mom's on the forum.



Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99