Author Topic: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)  (Read 8186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #203 on: December 02, 2013, 04:01:59 AM »
Maybe his Tulpa is only 16. Maybe it's only his Tulpa that we hear from.

She is 7 moths old...
*off derailment*

Christians sicken me, they believe that threatening people with eternal pain is a GOOD thing.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #204 on: December 02, 2013, 06:45:04 AM »
Skeptic,

I wish to withdraw my questions from this post.  Nothing personal, but I think you have your hands full as it is.

I am very glad God has helped you experience a turn around in your life so you are much better person now than before.  And I can see where you want to share this good news of your experience with God to others. 

I would suggest you follow an old axiom of communication:  know your audience.

This audience is wanting proof of God's existence.  YOU know God exists and I am convinced God exists but there is no way to prove that conclusion.  Put another way, there is no ritual, prayer, incantation, etc. which will consistently yield an entity which can be seen and measured that can be understood to be God. 

Unless and until you can come up with proof which meets that criteria, your well intentioned words will have little, if any, impact with the members of this web site.  As you have seen, this is a group that know their Bible very well. 

Before you write this off as some secular advice, consider the words of Paul:  (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)   "19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

To me, Paul made it a point to know his audience.  When you or someone else can come up with the proof this website demands, then you will have credibility. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I will take that into consideration. Thanks for the thoughtful words OCG.

I have a question for you now.

Do you think it's reasonable for atheists to demand a certain type of evidence?

Yes, I do.

We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being. 
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #205 on: December 02, 2013, 07:20:31 AM »
We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being.
I know this is the "ask skeptic" thread but would you mind you mind answering a quick question please OCG?
If you had not read the bible (or any other religious book) is there anything in the world that you think would have still steered you to follow a god(s) and to then go and read the relevant book?
Thank you in advance for any reply.
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #206 on: December 02, 2013, 11:46:00 AM »
Skeptic,

I wish to withdraw my questions from this post.  Nothing personal, but I think you have your hands full as it is.

I am very glad God has helped you experience a turn around in your life so you are much better person now than before.  And I can see where you want to share this good news of your experience with God to others. 

I would suggest you follow an old axiom of communication:  know your audience.

This audience is wanting proof of God's existence.  YOU know God exists and I am convinced God exists but there is no way to prove that conclusion.  Put another way, there is no ritual, prayer, incantation, etc. which will consistently yield an entity which can be seen and measured that can be understood to be God. 

Unless and until you can come up with proof which meets that criteria, your well intentioned words will have little, if any, impact with the members of this web site.  As you have seen, this is a group that know their Bible very well. 

Before you write this off as some secular advice, consider the words of Paul:  (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)   "19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

To me, Paul made it a point to know his audience.  When you or someone else can come up with the proof this website demands, then you will have credibility. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I will take that into consideration. Thanks for the thoughtful words OCG.

I have a question for you now.

Do you think it's reasonable for atheists to demand a certain type of evidence?

Yes, I do.

We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being.

But how can they just dismiss our experiences?

If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #207 on: December 02, 2013, 11:49:52 AM »
But how can they just dismiss our experiences?

If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?

False analogy.  Love can be directly observed.  Your god cannot.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #208 on: December 02, 2013, 11:58:43 AM »
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #209 on: December 02, 2013, 12:11:53 PM »
If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.
"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 Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1601
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #210 on: December 02, 2013, 12:23:18 PM »
I can't help but see skep's confusion over evidence as amounting to "What? You won't just take my word for it? But, but, but...I don't understand... why not?"

Or he's a very persistent troll.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #211 on: December 02, 2013, 06:53:37 PM »

I certainly view it as trying to save the person.

A helpful analogy is a fireman holding the net out and telling someone to jump but they refuse to jump and they die in the blazing inferno.

Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?

False Analogy (and not helpful). We have lots of examples of burning buildings, fires, people getting hurt, etc. YOU DO NOT, however, have any demonstrable examples of demons, ghosts, a place called "heaven" or "hell", a deity named "Yahweh", or any of that other supernatural stuff (and claims in books don't count b/c I've seen tons of fires, burning buildings, fireman, hurt people, etc - we don't just read about them in 2000 year old texts). Try actually comparing apples to apples next time.

EX:

A talking unicorn pointing in the direction of the end of a pot of gold for someone to get rich and have all their dreams come true

Would you say the unicorn is stupid for not taking the gold itself?


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #212 on: December 02, 2013, 07:16:10 PM »

But how can they just dismiss our experiences?

If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?

We are challenging YOUR INTERPRETATION of your alleged 'experience', and your confirmation bias that you use in support of it.

"Love" is merely a word that we use to describe a specific set of human emotions, feelings, conscious states, and the like. There is no indication that love is anything supernatural. It is related to emotion. So your analogy is a false one. You cannot compare a human emotion to an alleged supernatural thing which has not been demonstrated. Where is your critical thinking?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #213 on: December 02, 2013, 07:59:30 PM »
Or he's a very persistent troll.

I'm still voting for Troll, actually.

He doesn't engage with enough variation to be a real person.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #214 on: December 02, 2013, 08:21:32 PM »
"Love" is merely a word that we use to describe a specific set of human emotions, feelings, conscious states, and the like.

He said, actually, "fell in love". The state known as "falling in love", is known by psychologists to be a delusional, OCD state, where the person who falls in love, suspends judgement on a load of issues.

It's similar to Christianity.

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #215 on: December 02, 2013, 08:32:56 PM »

I certainly view it as trying to save the person.

A helpful analogy is a fireman holding the net out and telling someone to jump but they refuse to jump and they die in the blazing inferno.

Would you say the fireman is an annoying prick?

False Analogy (and not helpful). We have lots of examples of burning buildings, fires, people getting hurt, etc. YOU DO NOT, however, have any demonstrable examples of demons, ghosts, a place called "heaven" or "hell", a deity named "Yahweh", or any of that other supernatural stuff (and claims in books don't count b/c I've seen tons of fires, burning buildings, fireman, hurt people, etc - we don't just read about them in 2000 year old texts). Try actually comparing apples to apples next time.

EX:

A talking unicorn pointing in the direction of the end of a pot of gold for someone to get rich and have all their dreams come true

Would you say the unicorn is stupid for not taking the gold itself?

but the thing is there have been people who died and went to hell and came back to life and told us about it. Countless people experience OBE's and can see things in different rooms.

This stuff is not just made up. This is the proof you guys want and it's right there!
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #216 on: December 02, 2013, 08:34:48 PM »
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #217 on: December 02, 2013, 08:42:47 PM »
If someone never fell in love with a woman/man, are they justified in being skeptical about whether or not love exists?
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.

However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1725
  • Darwins +81/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #218 on: December 02, 2013, 09:10:47 PM »

but the thing is there have been people who died and went to hell and came back to life and told us about it. Countless people experience OBE's and can see things in different rooms.

This stuff is not just made up. This is the proof you guys want and it's right there!

Leaving aside all the research which suggests that near death experiences, out of body experiences, etc, are most likely some form of hallucination (which can, in fact, be duplicated in lab conditions), the fact still remains that the vast majority of people who did experience the white light, the overwhelming sensations of peace and love, etc, come from backgrounds which you would probably categorize as being demon-influenced.

The sensations reported tend to be very similar among people of all sorts of religious backgrounds, and those which report "hell" are quite few and far between. Also, there are other types specifically related to a person's religion, though I have not read as much about those.

How would you explain the fact that the experiences of a Baptist, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Pentecostal, a hippy-dippy new ager and someone who more or less ignores religion altogether (just to name a few backgrounds) might all have a very similar scenario when, according to you, all but about 1% of them are living lives which have them on the slope to hell?

For the most part, there does seem to be a strong correlation between what a person expects to find on the other side and the experiences they report if they do, indeed, have some sort of NDE. There are also many people who are resuscitated and do not recall anything in particular.

Oh, and while there are some pretty cool coincidences with what people recall seeing in OBE's, as far as I know there has not been anything thus far which has verified that people are seeing things which they absolutely would have no way to know, and plenty of instances where things reported did not match up to reality.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #219 on: December 02, 2013, 09:11:48 PM »

but the thing is there have been people who died and went to hell and came back to life and told us about it. Countless people experience OBE's and can see things in different rooms.

This stuff is not just made up. This is the proof you guys want and it's right there!


Have you even researched these claims? The Institute for Near Death Experiences has documented a lot of these CLAIMS - and they contradict each other! How gullible are you? People who grew up in Hindu cultures had Hindu "experiences". People who grew up in Buddhist cultures had "past life" experiences - likewise with people who grew up in Judeo Christian, Muslim, Mormon, or Jewish cultures. This stuff you are bringing up is extremely weak. The brain is powerful and can create all sorts of illusions, false memories, and delusions that are not real.

Your assumption doesn't win by default. Sorry.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1540
  • Darwins +59/-0
  • I shall smite thee, in HIS honor
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #220 on: December 02, 2013, 09:15:22 PM »
Since my question seems to be spread out over two threads now, I shall ask again in this thread...

*sigh*

Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.


Really, how many times do I have to ask you this?

Quote
How many times must I say it?

Follow Jesus' words and accept Him as your savior. That's it.
Show me where Jesus says, "Worship my mom at mass on Sundays."
(HINT: Don't do it because it's pointless. It's not in the Bible.)

THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER. IT IS A DODGE. Where in the above have you attempted to prove your god as being the correct one?
It's YOUR god, it's YOUR rules, YOU go to hell.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

"Noah's ark is a problem. We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon, only way to fit 5000 species of mammal in the same boat."
- River Tam

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #221 on: December 02, 2013, 09:16:24 PM »

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.

However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.

Wrong again. We are animals in that we are part of the animal kingdom. And no matter how much you want to just assume your belief on souls (or whatever), it doesn't make it true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but you don't even have ordinary evidence. All you have are ASSUMPTIONS and more claims b/c you are practicing intellectual hypocrisy.

Second, monkeys (just like all other creatures on earth) do the best they can with what they have - just like we are doing. Nothing about that equates to some 'immaterial soul'. Your term for "spiritual" is meaningless and points to nothing real.

Btw, "the right things" we should apply skepticism to are all claims about reality, and especially those of the supernatural, miraculous, superstitious, and non-demonstrable.

You need to start applying skepticism consistently (not selectively).
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 09:36:48 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #222 on: December 02, 2013, 09:19:52 PM »

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.

Have you read the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu Veddas, The Code of Hammurabi, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the writings of Confucius, or the Illiad and Odyssey? You simply don't know what you're talking about. There are a ton of books that "jump out at you". But just b/c a book "jumps out at you" doesn't say anything as to whether or not it is true.

YOU ARE BEING IRRATIONAL

« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 09:23:56 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4387
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #223 on: December 02, 2013, 09:22:57 PM »
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.
Plato,Nostradamus any many others made prediction,although vague and like the Bible open to many interpretations. If I tell you there will be a holy war soon am I right? Vague predictions open to interpretation are hardly an acceptable look at the future from 2000 years ago.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #224 on: December 02, 2013, 09:54:40 PM »
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.
Please explain either:
a) if you agree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please, as specifically as you can, explain why that is so.
b) if you disagree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please either:
    1) acknowledge that you believe that flobort exists
    2) explain why you do not believe flobort exists but do believe love exists.
c) If you cannot do either a or b, then it will suffice if you provide a method or process for discern whether some claim does or does not deserve skepticism.

Quote
However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.
First of all, you, I and every other human are animals.  Get over it.

Secondly, yes I do acknowledge that we have to be better than relying on the simple senses.  That doesn't mean you can just pick any old bulls**t willy-nilly as a 'true' claim regarding objective reality - refusing to have any sort of sanity check or process to serve as a 'truth filter' is downright bonkers.  You need to have some way to evaluate claims for truth-value; you need to have some reason to accept that some claims are true and other claims are false.  Rules of logic, coherence and consistency with observations and predictions from objective reality...these are tools that we use to extend our knowledge about reality beyond what we can get from our simple senses.

Accepting as true claims arbitrarily, that is, without any skepticism towards the truth-value of that claim, is abhorrent to doing better than our simple senses.
"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 OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #225 on: December 02, 2013, 09:55:56 PM »
We are talking about a subjective idea; that of faith or belief in a supreme being.  The people on this website are looking for some external evidence to back up any assertion about a supreme being.
I know this is the "ask skeptic" thread but would you mind you mind answering a quick question please OCG?
If you had not read the bible (or any other religious book) is there anything in the world that you think would have still steered you to follow a god(s) and to then go and read the relevant book?
Thank you in advance for any reply.

I have no idea.  Perhaps and perhaps not.  Such a question is impossible for me to answer with any certainty.

Regretfully,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #226 on: December 02, 2013, 11:15:39 PM »
Sceptic, try to imagine that you do not have any god belief. How would you even begin to know who to believe without any evidence? Christians (all 30,000+ variants), Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindi, Pagan ... the list goes on. We would need some criteria for choice. its not christianity or atheism here ... there is a whole world full of belief systems. You don't get to skip to the head of the line without a REASON.

The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you. When I read the pages, everything applies to today. It's shocking how precise Paul and the other authors were about the future.

No, the bible is the only holy book that jumps out at YOU. for me it never resonated in the slightest. certain native American beliefs, some goddess religions, some pagan beliefs ... these at least made some sense. In contrast, your bible is a violent horror show filled with mysogyny, racism, and scare tactics. A large cult that worships a torture device, participates in ritual canibalism, and threatens eternal torture for finite crimes. pathetic.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #227 on: December 02, 2013, 11:26:59 PM »
If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.

Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?

If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.

Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.
Please explain either:
a) if you agree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please, as specifically as you can, explain why that is so.
b) if you disagree that applying skepticism towards flobort is valid then please either:
    1) acknowledge that you believe that flobort exists
    2) explain why you do not believe flobort exists but do believe love exists.
c) If you cannot do either a or b, then it will suffice if you provide a method or process for discern whether some claim does or does not deserve skepticism.

Quote
However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.

We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.
First of all, you, I and every other human are animals.  Get over it.

Secondly, yes I do acknowledge that we have to be better than relying on the simple senses.  That doesn't mean you can just pick any old bulls**t willy-nilly as a 'true' claim regarding objective reality - refusing to have any sort of sanity check or process to serve as a 'truth filter' is downright bonkers.  You need to have some way to evaluate claims for truth-value; you need to have some reason to accept that some claims are true and other claims are false.  Rules of logic, coherence and consistency with observations and predictions from objective reality...these are tools that we use to extend our knowledge about reality beyond what we can get from our simple senses.

Accepting as true claims arbitrarily, that is, without any skepticism towards the truth-value of that claim, is abhorrent to doing better than our simple senses.

Believe me I see what you are saying. but atheism is a dead end when it comes to proving an objective reality.

How does one prove an objective reality?
 Can you please define it as well?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #228 on: December 02, 2013, 11:52:49 PM »
Believe me I see what you are saying. but atheism is a dead end when it comes to proving an objective reality.

It's not a dead end for you, because you don't even bother to consider that you are in a dead end, as much as any atheist. You think you have a special exemption card, or something.

Watch the profound discussion that results from your explanation of why you have a special exemption.

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #229 on: December 03, 2013, 12:31:17 AM »
Believe me I see what you are saying. but atheism is a dead end when it comes to proving an objective reality.
I really don't think you see what I'm saying.  Because everything that you say after that statement doesn't address what I'm saying.  It really doesn't.

First of all, I didn't make any mention of 'atheism' in my post.  So I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up.  Secondly, if you do not want to agree that there exists a shared objective reality (that is, there exists some facts that can be evaluated as true irrespective of a subjective entity's thoughts and experiences), then all of this is moot.  You're arguing from a perspective that there is no external world.  You're deciding on solipsism.  There is no argumentation left to be had.  You've chosen the philosophical nuke and have rendered all arguments and claims both true and false.  You've eradicated the very notion of evidence, annihilated the very concept of 'morality', curb stomped any notion of the existence of demons, and resolutely dimissed the existence gods.

You've allowed yourself to believe any and all bulls**t and disbelieve anything to the contrary just because it makes you feel good.  You would seriously need to find a way to change your username then.

Lastly, you completely ignored the little decision-tree thingiemadoodle made.  Which doesn't really support your assertion that you 'get what I'm saying'.
Quote
How does one prove an objective reality?
 Can you please define it as well?
Honestly, I have no idea how to prove an objective reality.  I suppose existence could be solipsistic in nature, but then as per above, there really is nothing at all to discuss.  But let's face it - you concede an objective reality exists.  Your position depends on it just as badly as anyone else's position.

Edit: I learned to count! (fixed enumeration of points to be sensible)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 12:40:25 AM 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 Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2931
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #230 on: December 03, 2013, 01:03:35 AM »
The Bible is the only Holy Book that jumps out at you.

Never did a thing for Me.  I've had far better luck with the Poetic Edda, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Edith Hamilton's book Mythology, and Dragonlance Legends.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #231 on: December 03, 2013, 01:57:30 AM »
Skeptic, answer me this.


You state that pastafarianism is false, as it is not the majority.

Now, catholicism is the most common christian religion, so why is it false?

This contradicts itself.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.