Author Topic: Almost Persuaded  (Read 899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheUnknownWitch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Almost Persuaded
« on: June 23, 2014, 09:44:00 AM »
I have been reading the posts on the forum and here is my over-all view of them. On a scale of 1 – 10, ten being the highest, this is the score I’ve bestowed upon them.

Christians - 0 Atheists – 9

These are my reasons. I’ll start with the Christians.
1.   The words of their holy book are used to prove that those same words are truth.
Not evidence. I could tell a story on my website and without documented incontestable proof, there is no way I could back it up. I might believe it, or I might be lying. You have no way of knowing if there is no actual evidence.

2. The use anecdotes to back up their claims of God’s existence
Not evidence. Same reason as #1

3. They refuse to accept evidence which is right under their noses.
Evolution is a proven fact. It can be studied and documented. When Christians are faced with such incontrovertible fact they use weasel words and twisted logic to avoid facing facts.

4. When their unproven arguments don’t convince anyone except other Christians, they descend to insults and name-calling.
When you descend to that level, you’ve already lost the debate.

Now It’s the Atheists’ turn.

Atheists, I gave you a nine. You’ve asked good questions and you’ve done an excellent job proving your points and making your case. However, you haven’t proven there is no God.

Wait a minute, before you start yelling at me that you can’t prove a negative and that the burden of proof is not on you, let me explain.

I am not asking you to prove anything. I’m just making a point and trying to explain why I can’t quite accept your reasoning. We have proof of evolution and that can be used to infer that God doesn’t exist. Inference is not proof.

You can infer something from the facts and nine times out of ten, you’ll be right. But that tenth time, maybe not so right.

Say I’m sitting in a room and you come in, put ten pieces of candy on the table and walk out. A little while later you return and now there are only nine pieces. The logical inference is, I stole a piece of candy. Maybe I did. But maybe a piece rolled off the table and under the couch. Maybe someone entered the room while you were absent, took a piece of candy and left again. In that case your logical inference would be wrong.

To find out if the piece of candy rolled away, you can look for it. If you find it, then you know the truth. That’s evidence.

You could ask me who took the candy. I may or may not answer truthfully but no matter what I say, unless there is a nannycam in the room, it’s hearsay and therefore, it is not evidence.

Neither is inference. With inference, all you have is a maybe and that’s not good enough. That’s why you got a nine instead of a ten.

Frankly, until God comes out from behind his/her curtain and stops playing the role of the Wizard, I don’t see this argument ever being resolved. Let’s just say that for now, you’ve almost convinced me.
If God was going to truly die, no resurrection, would he still have gone ahead and offered himself for a sacrifice anyway?

You have a good heart. . .I think I'll eat it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2014, 10:04:19 AM »
It's certainly true that atheists can't prove that gods don't exist.  However, that does not justify acting as if they exist, or using natural events to attempt to justify their existence.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +127/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2014, 10:11:56 AM »
I don't argue with theists.  I don't claim there is any proof that any gods do not exist.  But there has been no demonstrable evidence in my life that they do.  Therefore I am a nonbeliever.  If you read some of Old Church Guy's posts you may give the Christians a point.  You'll see why.
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.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2014, 10:15:02 AM »
Hi

welcome and thank you for joining us.

Frankly, until God comes out from behind his/her curtain and stops playing the role of the Wizard, I don’t see this argument ever being resolved. Let’s just say that for now, you’ve almost convinced me.

A few follow up questions:

1. Is it good policy to believe things just because you cannot prove their negative?
2. Do you apply this line of reason (non-reason?) to other gods, such as Hermes, Vishnu, Ganesh, Quetzlcouatl?  That is, do you say Ganesh has not been proven, but you still hold out that he might exist simply because you cannot disprove him?
3. Do you apply this line of reason (non-reason?) to other sub-divine beings?  Such as ghosts, leprechauns, Loch Ness Monsters, Draculas, and the like?

My point is just because you cannot prove something is not real does not mean there is any validity to it.  You can imagine beings all day which, though not real, could not be disproven. 

a follow-up reading for you:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20148.msg444285.html#msg444285
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline TheUnknownWitch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2014, 10:44:21 AM »
Give me a bit to think about your posts. The points you bring up are things I have only begun thinking about  very recently so let me get my thoughts in order and muster my arguments before I reply.  :D
If God was going to truly die, no resurrection, would he still have gone ahead and offered himself for a sacrifice anyway?

You have a good heart. . .I think I'll eat it.

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2014, 10:56:40 AM »
Why don't I get a score.  I'm spiritual not religious.  What do you know about that? 


 

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 junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2014, 11:04:20 AM »
I don't argue with theists.  I don't claim there is any proof that any gods do not exist.  But there has been no demonstrable evidence in my life that they do.  Therefore I am a nonbeliever.  If you read some of Old Church Guy's posts you may give the Christians a point.  You'll see why.

bad post
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 11:11:18 AM by junebug72 »
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 jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2108
  • Darwins +377/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2014, 11:24:10 AM »
Out of curiosity, would you say that you are convinced that unicorns do not exist or almost convinced that unicorns do not exist?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +127/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2014, 11:35:17 AM »
Why don't I get a score.  I'm spiritual not religious.  What do you know about that? 


 

You're not a Christian, she'd need to make a separate category for Spiritual.   ;)
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.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +127/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2014, 11:45:18 AM »
I don't argue with theists. Because I just don't enjoy arguing or debating. I don't claim there is any proof that any gods do not exist.  But there has been no demonstrable evidence in my life that they do.  Therefore I am a nonbeliever. I think this is self explanatory. If you read some of Old Church Guy's posts you may give the Christians a point.  You'll see why. I respect OCG and would like to see him get his props.

bad post
 
Sorry, I have inserted colored additions so it might make more sense.

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.

Offline TheUnknownWitch

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2014, 12:35:39 PM »
Quote
However, that does not justify acting as if they exist, or using natural events to attempt to justify their existence.

I agree. However, it conversely, doesn’t justify NOT believing in God’s existence. It goes both ways. As for using natural events to attempt to justify God’s existence, others may do that. I do not. Natural events have a logical proven cause. Therefore, you will never catch me saying, “That volcano blew it’s top because God was mad at me."

Quote
If you read some of Old Church Guy's posts you may give the Christians a point.

I looked them up and I do see what you mean. Okay, one point for the Christians! ;D

Quote
1. Is it good policy to believe things just because you cannot prove their negative?

Is it a good policy? I dunno. That’s what I’m trying to discover.

Quote
2. Do you apply this line of reason (non-reason?) to other gods, such as Hermes, Vishnu, Ganesh, Quetzlcouatl?  That is, do you say Ganesh has not been proven, but you still hold out that he might exist simply because you cannot disprove him?

Pagans believe in many Gods. I believe in The Gods as aspects of God/Dess. Since these Gods have neither been proven nor dis-proven to exist I believe that I am just as entitled to believe as you are to disbelieve. So yes, I think I do apply this line of reasoning to other Gods.
Quote

3. Do you apply this line of reason (non-reason?) to other sub-divine beings?  Such as ghosts, leprechauns, Loch Ness Monsters, Draculas, and the like?

Yes. I have seen ghosts. So I do believe in their existence. Other things of this nature, I have not seen so I make no claim one way or another.

Quote
My point is just because you cannot prove something is not real does not mean there is any validity to it.

No it doesn’t give validity to such things. Experiences such as mine, of seeing ghosts are subjective and there is no concrete evidence. There are alternate explanations of such experiences, such as I could be a head case. I was screwed up enough as a kid. That is the reason I do not offer these experiences of mine as proof of God’s existence. 

Quote
I believe it and you can’t prove it doesn’t!

I read the follow up link you gave me (thanks, BTW.) I am not asking for proof. I am asking for your arguments against what I believe in so that I can decide for myself if I am wasting my time being I am a witch or not. After being a Witch for so many years, I find myself confused and doubting many things.

 I’ve been a witch so long, it’s hard for me to think from any other perspective but that of a witch. By introducing me to ideas that I could not have come up with on my own, you are helping me to clarify my thoughts. Thank you for that.


If God was going to truly die, no resurrection, would he still have gone ahead and offered himself for a sacrifice anyway?

You have a good heart. . .I think I'll eat it.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +127/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2014, 12:49:34 PM »
If they prove that Thor actually looks like Chris Hemsworth I will believe in him.   ;D
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.

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2014, 01:27:40 PM »
I was madly in love with a Wiccan once.  I guess I wasn't spooky enough, so she left me.

 I became a Werewolf, she missed out.
 
 So am I telling a story, is there any truth to it?  How would you relay that story to a stranger and would they believe it?
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2014, 01:51:22 PM »
I agree. However, it conversely, doesn’t justify NOT believing in God’s existence. It goes both ways. As for using natural events to attempt to justify God’s existence, others may do that. I do not. Natural events have a logical proven cause. Therefore, you will never catch me saying, “That volcano blew it’s top because God was mad at me."
So what does justify believing in a god's existence, in your opinion?

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2014, 01:52:52 PM »
Why is it important to prove things about invisible God?

I've never observed his actions, so already he is irrelevant to me.

Aside from that i have no need for first cause, "forever" or "infinity."

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2014, 02:21:06 PM »
Is it a good policy? I dunno. That’s what I’m trying to discover.

Gadzooks, man!  It's a terrible policy!  Here are links to help get you started.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationality_materials
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1e/raising_the_sanity_waterline/

read them.  Let me know if you get stuck on something.

Pagans believe in many Gods. I believe in The Gods as aspects of God/Dess. Since these Gods have neither been proven nor dis-proven to exist I believe that I am just as entitled to believe as you are to disbelieve. So yes, I think I do apply this line of reasoning to other Gods.

Yes. I have seen ghosts.

No, you haven't.  There are no such things as ghosts.  But that is beside the point.  I was asking if you believed in things only on the basis of not being able to prove their non-existence.  In this case, you thought you saw a ghost.  So that is not a case of what I was talking about.

I am asking for your arguments against what I believe in so that I can decide for myself if I am wasting my time being I am a witch or not. After being a Witch for so many years, I find myself confused and doubting many things.

My argument is, believe things only based on evidence. Things that are real leave evidence.  If a thing leaves no evidence, it is imaginary.

As you will read from the rationality links above (if you read them), beliefs should contribute to your mental model of reality.  If a belief does not explain and predict reality, then it is not a good belief.  If another belief had better explanatory and predictive power, it should replace you r prior belief.  Think of it as updating a map. 

If your map says there should be a lake here, but it is an invisible lake, that won't make you wet, and there are no fish in it, well, how is that of any value?


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2014, 03:48:19 PM »
It's just extremely unlikely that there's a god, not that it's proven there is no god.   It's just that all the evidence points towards there probably not being a god at all, and even less likely that it's one as described by bronze age men.

Why would an all powerful, all knowing, supposedly all-good, god get jealous, angry, sexist, irrational, etc?

So if there's a god out there who is aware of us, acting like he doesn't exist, what's the point in worrying about it?   If he wanted something he'd show up in some way.

Note too that no matter your belief system, the laws of probability work out exactly the same for everyone... divorce, healing, etc.   So if there was a god who was aware of us and cared about us, and there was a right way to interact with that god, it's pretty clear that nobody is doing it because everyone is getting the exact same non-results.

You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2014, 04:01:38 PM »
I opine that it is possible to argue against a particular god to such a degree that, while perhaps not *proving* that god doesn't exist, you can eliminate belief as a reasonable course of action.  If someone can define a god, there will often be items that are self-contradictory (as in the case of Biblegod) and thus logically impossible.

I have seen ghosts. So I do believe in their existence.

how do you know they were ghosts?
* 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 SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2014, 07:09:03 PM »
We have proof of evolution and that can be used to infer that God doesn’t exist.

Welcome to the wwgha forums.

The Theory of Evolution infers nothing about the existence or non existence of gods, nor can we infer anything as such about gods based on the Theory of Evolution. 

Frankly, until God comes out from behind his/her curtain and stops playing the role of the Wizard, I don’t see this argument ever being resolved.

This is called the "appeal to ignorance" logical fallacy.  You're assuming the existence of a god simply because it hasn't stopped hiding yet and that until this god stops hiding that this argument cannot be resolved.

_______________________

You are right about one thing, inference is not evidence.  I personally don't know if there is evidence that "God" does not exist.  I've never come across any conclusive evidence that "God" does not exist.  Of course, I've never come across any evidence that “God” does exist either.  I have the same amount of evidence for “God” as I do for any other imaginary character, so why should I infer that one particular imaginary character actually exists?
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
  • Darwins +31/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2014, 07:58:51 PM »
Out of curiosity, would you say that you are convinced that unicorns do not exist or almost convinced that unicorns do not exist?

TUW,
        Will you answer jdawg70s question?
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
  • Darwins +31/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2014, 08:06:46 PM »
If they prove that Thor actually looks like Chris Hemsworth I will believe in him.   ;D

Sorry,
http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/11/2/awesome-lady-thor-cg-art.html
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2014, 09:18:38 PM »
I have been reading the posts on the forum and here is my over-all view of them. On a scale of 1 – 10, ten being the highest, this is the score I’ve bestowed upon them.

Christians - 0 Atheists – 9

These are my reasons. I’ll start with the Christians.
1.   The words of their holy book are used to prove that those same words are truth.
Not evidence. I could tell a story on my website and without documented incontestable proof, there is no way I could back it up. I might believe it, or I might be lying. You have no way of knowing if there is no actual evidence.

2. The use anecdotes to back up their claims of God’s existence
Not evidence. Same reason as #1

3. They refuse to accept evidence which is right under their noses.
Evolution is a proven fact. It can be studied and documented. When Christians are faced with such incontrovertible fact they use weasel words and twisted logic to avoid facing facts.

4. When their unproven arguments don’t convince anyone except other Christians, they descend to insults and name-calling.
When you descend to that level, you’ve already lost the debate.

Now It’s the Atheists’ turn.

Atheists, I gave you a nine. You’ve asked good questions and you’ve done an excellent job proving your points and making your case. However, you haven’t proven there is no God.

Wait a minute, before you start yelling at me that you can’t prove a negative and that the burden of proof is not on you, let me explain.

I am not asking you to prove anything. I’m just making a point and trying to explain why I can’t quite accept your reasoning. We have proof of evolution and that can be used to infer that God doesn’t exist. Inference is not proof.

You can infer something from the facts and nine times out of ten, you’ll be right. But that tenth time, maybe not so right.

Say I’m sitting in a room and you come in, put ten pieces of candy on the table and walk out. A little while later you return and now there are only nine pieces. The logical inference is, I stole a piece of candy. Maybe I did. But maybe a piece rolled off the table and under the couch. Maybe someone entered the room while you were absent, took a piece of candy and left again. In that case your logical inference would be wrong.

To find out if the piece of candy rolled away, you can look for it. If you find it, then you know the truth. That’s evidence.

You could ask me who took the candy. I may or may not answer truthfully but no matter what I say, unless there is a nannycam in the room, it’s hearsay and therefore, it is not evidence.

Neither is inference. With inference, all you have is a maybe and that’s not good enough. That’s why you got a nine instead of a ten.

Frankly, until God comes out from behind his/her curtain and stops playing the role of the Wizard, I don’t see this argument ever being resolved. Let’s just say that for now, you’ve almost convinced me.



Russell's teapot[1] is a valid point. If it wasn't, atheists would have thrown it in the trash long ago.



1. A god.

We live in an existence where spiders spin webs, birds build nests, and humans build all sorts of shit. We know that there isn't only one spider making a web, one bird making a nest, or one human making a fart. Russell's teapot renders any concept of "god(s) without proof" as ridiculous as "Santa and his flying reindeer without proof". When you try to weasel in One God, it shows that you haven't explored these possibilities for as long as we have-- and that's alright. I'm just pointing this out.


2. Even if there is One God who created this universe, we know that this god allows suffering and isn't interested in making us aware of its existence. Everyone who posts on this forum is interested enough to have been made aware of a god if a particular god truly wanted us to be aware. In other words, since a singular god can't be completely scientifically disproven(beyond Russell's teapot), any god that we atheists can logically grant(given our known circumstance) simply can't be as desirable as the "God wisher" wants it to be.


If you want the truth, there it is.
 1. Google it.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2014, 09:51:33 PM »
If you read some of Old Church Guy's posts you may give the Christians a point.  You'll see why.

Let's see . . .

1.   The words of their holy book are used to prove that those same words are truth.
Not evidence. I could tell a story on my website and without documented incontestable proof, there is no way I could back it up. I might believe it, or I might be lying. You have no way of knowing if there is no actual evidence.

2. The use anecdotes to back up their claims of God’s existence
Not evidence. Same reason as #1

3. They refuse to accept evidence which is right under their noses.
Evolution is a proven fact. It can be studied and documented. When Christians are faced with such incontrovertible fact they use weasel words and twisted logic to avoid facing facts.

4. When their unproven arguments don’t convince anyone except other Christians, they descend to insults and name-calling.
When you descend to that level, you’ve already lost the debate.

#1 may not accurately describe OldChurchGuy. #4 definitely can't be associated with OldChurchGuy. However, #'s 2 and 3 can.

As far as giving OldChurchGuy any points for persuasion, he still gets zero points. Even he would tell you that. If TheUnknownWitch reads OldChurchGuy's posts, she will find that he is a nice guy, but she will not be persuaded whatsoever of his god.

All these gods are going to the graveyard because the free-flow of internet information is pouncing upon these ridiculous gods.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2014, 10:01:40 PM »
Yes. I have seen ghosts. So I do believe in their existence.

Ghosts? What did they look like? Did they look like apes
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7277
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #24 on: June 23, 2014, 10:57:22 PM »
Welcome to the forum. Are you following the Salem TV series?  ;)

No god has ever been shown to exist in the history of all gods ever invented by humans. Further, there exists no good reason to presume that the idea of a deity of any kind is necessary. We are looking at our universe in great wonder, and we are learning more and more as we peer deeper and deeper. Nowhere along that journey is even a hint of a god.

Back on earth however, and further back in time, it seems that some humans decided that a god was a necessary explanation for things completely unknown to them; things that we fully understand today. And so those gods are dead, as it should be. What we face now are the remaining gods of the deluded masses who seem unable to imagine a world without their imaginary god to worship, or pray to, or masturbate in front of. It is indeed a mass delusion that has no basis in reality. For the atheist, there is absolutely zero need to even attempt to disprove a thing that does not even hint at existing, even remotely.

More and more humans are becoming skeptical when it comes to religious claims of supernatural entities taking an interest in our tiny spot in the cosmos. When you really give it a moment's thought, it is extremely difficult to conclude that any particular god claim is more than a human idea whose time has come to abandon.

The world appears exactly as we might expect it to appear if there were no gods. Full stop.

Jet

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6481
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2014, 11:31:48 PM »
We humans often think and/or do strange things. So if we really, really want something to be true, we can use that very lack of evidence as proof that it is real. Our various cognitive biases assure us of success in all of our delusional endeavors, including religious ones.

In less important matters, we often have more stringent, logical and useful standards. Which is why nobody has ever formed the Church of Don't Look Both Ways Before Crossing the Street of Jesus Christ. Well, if they have, it didn't last long.

Once your god stops being important to you, you'll see that he doesn't exist. In the meantime, enjoy the heck out of thinking he is real, because that's all he's good for.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1658
  • Darwins +66/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2014, 12:01:00 AM »
Say I’m sitting in a room and you come in, put ten pieces of candy on the table and walk out. A little while later you return and now there are only nine pieces. The logical inference is, I stole a piece of candy. Maybe I did. But maybe a piece rolled off the table and under the couch.

OYG![1] God is under my couch! It's always the place you look, ain't it?

*looks under couch*

But... I can't see him... Oh yeah, that's right, he's invisible! Also, he doesn't exist.
 1. Oh Your God
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1658
  • Darwins +66/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2014, 12:11:07 AM »
Out of curiosity, would you say that you are convinced that unicorns do not exist or almost convinced that unicorns do not exist?

TUW,
        Will you answer jdawg70s question?

I would very much like to hear an answer to this also.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Almost Persuaded
« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2014, 01:07:16 AM »
It's just extremely unlikely that there's a god, not that it's proven there is no god.   It's just that all the evidence points towards there probably not being a god at all, and even less likely that it's one as described by bronze age men.

Why would an all powerful, all knowing, supposedly all-good, god get jealous, angry, sexist, irrational, etc?

So if there's a god out there who is aware of us, acting like he doesn't exist, what's the point in worrying about it?   If he wanted something he'd show up in some way.

Note too that no matter your belief system, the laws of probability work out exactly the same for everyone... divorce, healing, etc.   So if there was a god who was aware of us and cared about us, and there was a right way to interact with that god, it's pretty clear that nobody is doing it because everyone is getting the exact same non-results.


It wouldn't.  That is just a bad perception of God. 

Not if the something it wanted was for us to deserve this life we've been given by being good to each other and good to this planet.  That God must not help us with.  We have to do it on our own.  People pray for the wrong things, i.e. parking places, car keys, Jimmy will be in church on Sunday, heal my mother while 100,000 other mothers lay dying.  They say God bless America and what is up for the rest of the world.  In God we trust on our money but yet they trusted war after 911.  When it's all said and done what people have faith in, what they trust, what they want is money honey and power.

Do you have a statistic on divorce rates, prison percentage of the spiritual not religious category.  I bet it's less than Christianity or atheism.  The spiritual not religious pop is very close to the same as atheist I think by a smidgen more.  So yes my stance should get a vote.  My RE: To Star how do you define God was inarguable.  I proved belief was not a bad thing that religion was.  I've made some good points that have stopped threads in their tracks.  Come on now.  I need to know how I've been doing.

Native Americans were spiritual not religious before white man came.  They did not kill people in the name of their Gods.  Only to eat or protect their families.  They were not the savages.  They respected the gifts from the sun, moon, planet and stars.  They never took more than they needed.   They were socialist not capitalist.  Hunter gatherers.  Would have been better for them had the future capitalist never found their way.
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