Here is why you should believe in God.

[The Grand Nudger]

b-mine
It's interesting that you would claim that after explicitly insisting that we think sideways all the time, don't you think...?

Okay. Let's just skip the formalities : what would be your reaction the moment you find your house broken into and your money taken..? I want a direct answer and the underlying reasoning that led to it.

That some creature very interested in money, of all things in my house, knew that my house would have money, knew how to break in, and then took what they came for without being detected.

Probably a dragon..maybe a griffon.  I suppose there;s just the slimmest chance that burglars exists and burgle houses...but that's just so out there it's hardly sound.

LOL, I couldn't help but to highlight the inanity of this argument - and it doesn't change anything about your incoherence from one sentence to the next no matter who or what I think might have robbed me.  Honestly, out here where I am...it might actually be racoons..though they;d have to be oddly specific coons to take the cash and dash.

Obviously, the issue of your inability to present a single coherent thought on the matter is academic in the context of your excusing yourself from any obligation to offer coherent thoughts.

And what about your inability to recognize "something can't come from nothing" as true and that it doesn't involve special pleading.. since there was no nothing that preceeded a deity, eternal by definition. That's a very simple coherent thought you're dishonestly avoiding ....!!?

What about it?  Will we be having a rational discussion full of good reason..or the other kind?  You can probably imagine how different my remarks might be between the two.  I might spend the time to give you the fullest expression of my very thoughtful and open position on the matter..if we're having a rational discussion..but if we're having the other kind...?

Ten penguin red lightly swoon!

I can't speak for everyone, but I think about gods in precisely the same way that I think about anything..right or wrong.  If you object to the way I think then theres really nothing you have to offer me.  If you object because you think I'm wrong...well......good luck communicating that without some reference to objective and coherent propositions.

I am asking you to apply the same rules of thumb you use on a daily basis to the god question. If you think they're not reliable, you should normally stop relying on  them altogether, as a rational skeptic.... Am I asking too much?

-and I'm telling you flat out that I do use the same rules.  That's all there is to it.  So...criteria satisfied..but as with any other criteria you've ever offered...you won't be satisfied even when it's met.

Temet nosce.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Okay. Let's just skip the formalities : what would be your reaction the moment you find your house broken into and your money taken..? I want a direct answer and the underlying reasoning that led to it.

That some creature very interested in money, of all things in my house, knew that my house would have money, knew how to break in, and then took what they came for without being detected.

Probably a dragon..maybe a griffon.  I suppose there;s just the slimmest chance that burglars exists and burgle houses...but that's just so out there it's hardly sound.

LOL, I couldn't help but to highlight the inanity of this argument - and it doesn't change anything about your incoherence from one sentence to the next no matter who or what I think might have robbed me.  Honestly, out here where I am...it might actually be racoons..though they;d have to be oddly specific coons to take the cash and dash.

And what about your inability to recognize "something can't come from nothing" as true and that it doesn't involve special pleading.. since there was no nothing that preceeded a deity, eternal by definition. That's a very simple coherent thought you're dishonestly avoiding ....!!?

What about it?  Will we be having a rational discussion full of good reason..or the other kind?  You can probably imagine how different my remarks might be between the two.  I might spend the time to give you the fullest expression of my very thoughtful and open position on the matter..if we're having a rational discussion..but if we're having the other kind...?

Ten penguin red lightly swoon!

I am asking you to apply the same rules of thumb you use on a daily basis to the god question. If you think they're not reliable, you should normally stop relying on  them altogether, as a rational skeptic.... Am I asking too much?

-and I'm telling you flat out that I do use the same rules.  That's all there is to it.  So...criteria satisfied..but as with any other criteria you've ever offered...you won't be satisfied even when it's met.

Temet nosce.

But Grand if he defines god as eternal then it isn't special pleading accept it still is .

[R00tKiT]

That some creature very interested in money, of all things in my house, knew that my house would have money, knew how to break in, and then took what they came for without being detected.

Probably a dragon..maybe a griffon.  I suppose there;s just the slimmest chance that burglars exists and burgle houses...but that's just so out there it's hardly sound.

 
Dragons flying your money off the window is more probable than the burglar hypothesis.  We're lucky not many people out there will have that same reaction.
It appears you're open to the metaphysical, dragons included.. it's a good start.

LOL, I couldn't help but to highlight the inanity of this argument

It was a simple question, what's the underlying reasoning that usually leads us to the burglar conclusion. Maybe there were other ways I could articulate my position, but I really can't help it with dishonesty on the way.

-and I'm telling you flat out that I do use the same rules.  That's all there is to it.  So...criteria satisfied..but as with any other criteria you've ever offered...you won't be satisfied even when it's met.

Temet nosce.

Are these the same rules that led you to the dragon..?

[Nay_Sayer]

@Klorophyll Don't bad mouth the dragon, He'll mess up your village and or castle!

[The Grand Nudger]

That some creature very interested in money, of all things in my house, knew that my house would have money, knew how to break in, and then took what they came for without being detected.

Probably a dragon..maybe a griffon.  I suppose there;s just the slimmest chance that burglars exists and burgle houses...but that's just so out there it's hardly sound.

 
Dragons flying your money off the window is more probable than the burglar hypothesis.  We're lucky not many people out there will have that same reaction.
It appears you're open to the metaphysical, dragons included.. it's a good start.

LOL, I couldn't help but to highlight the inanity of this argument

It was a simple question, what's the underlying reasoning that usually leads us to the burglar conclusion. Maybe there were other ways I could articulate my position, but I really can't help it with dishonesty on the way.

-and I'm telling you flat out that I do use the same rules.  That's all there is to it.  So...criteria satisfied..but as with any other criteria you've ever offered...you won't be satisfied even when it's met.

Temet nosce.

Are these the same rules that led you to the dragon..?

-exactly.

---

@Klorophyll  Don't bad mouth the dragon, He'll mess up your village and or castle!

[R00tKiT]

Huh... what is there left to say. Guy won't call the police if his house is broken into, simultaneously asking for good reasons to believe ...

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you ever have trouble remembering where you are? Like, you just look up and think - "fuck, where the fuck am I, how the fuck did I get here?".

It seems like a relevant question given the response above. You seem to be very confused.

[The Valkyrie]

Well.... there we have it.  Good Reason™ has nothing to do with valid logic or sound propositions.

I don't think that you're going to get far with that one.

"broken handles and smashed glasses therefore burglar" isn't a sound proposition either. Yet we go with it. That's the point of the whole post.

Bottom line, atheists, and yourself, can think straight all day long until the god question comes up;

Here's what has always amused me about the Abrahamic religions.

First, the Jews invented a religion in which the god was wrathful, vicious, and, let's face it, a right prick.

Then the Christians grabbed it, tossed out the Old Testament (except where it's convenient for their agenda), wrote the New Testament to include a more "loving" god (though still a self absorbed, sexist, bigoted piece of shit), based around a carpenter who probably didn't exist but, according to them, fulfilled all the OT prophecies.  Though the Jews said he didn't and they ARE their prophecies, after all.

And since this mythical carpenter was nailed up, it's lead to 2,000 years of persecution against the Jews even though they were, according to the myth, following God's will when it happened, and the aforementioned carpenter WAS here as a sacrifice because this perfect deity fucked up again (see Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, etc. etc...).

Then around 1,500 years ago God decided "third time lucky, huh?" and tapped some illiterate peasant on the same region (notice a pattern here?) as his prophet and said, "just write some fantastical bullshit, add some fancy phrasing, then get some followers and go and put everyone who doesn't follow you to the sword.  You can still treat women like shit though! Oh, and scrub that bit about the carpenter being my son.  Ungrateful little bastard!"

And billions still believe it!

Where are your peer reviewed papers in some history of religions journal? I suggest you keep your stereotypical, and ignorant, interpretations of the prophets' messages to yourself. Just say it, you are a blind adept of scientism, and can't have a nuanced opinion about anything related to religion.

I suggest you go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

I don't need peer reviewed papers regarding your child molesting prophet.

[R00tKiT]

I suggest you go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

After you, *Lady*,

I don't need peer reviewed papers regarding your child molesting prophet.

Noted, just don't molest history.

[Fake Messiah]

Also there is no reason why the laws of physics cannot have come from within the universe itself. And they all lead humans to follow to the symmetries of the void out of which the universe spontaneously arose without any miracle or divine intervention.

 

.... spontaneously arose

Great, I'm talking to a person who considers a lol emoticon to be an argument.