I'm thinking there would be an inverse correlation between a given believers piety/sincerity of belief/trust in the will of the Lord and the frequency and magnitude of the 'special favors' being prayed for.

Luckie Wrote:F#*/ING

How do you pronounce that?

(May 11, 2017 at 1:03 pm)LastPoet Wrote: About paragraph 1: Consider generous of me to even bother to answer the OP. I value my time and consider that in my free time I gave the OP an answer. This is a discussion forum, is it not?

Indeed it is. If you're idea of discussion is talking down to someone, so be it. As far as generosity goes, however, I find it difficult to believe that the OP wouldn't have been just fine without your response, but I could be wrong.

Quote:About your ETA: please do not compare my view of reality to a theistic one. While you are trying to shift the burden of proof, it is me that deal with real life, people and the natural word. Theists are the ones that need to define precisely and prove, so that anyone can see, of their god, whatever that is. The same thing I say about believers in the tooth fairy. It is an extraordinary claim, usually Its theists that have to provide proof of that.

Pretty sure the burden of proof falls to anyone making or implying a positive claim to truth as though it is objectively correct. Don't think it has anything to do with what the content of that claim is. I have no issue with people tearing down what a person believes to be true, provided they are actually claiming or implying that it's true.

(May 11, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 11, 2017 at 1:54 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: C_L, if it makes you feel good, go with it. I'm not willing to accept your belief but I'm willing to accept you. (except for some of those icky parts/shudders)

Me too, but I am also willing to accept it if she figures out we were right. Someone planted doubt in my head long ago and I wish I could go back and thank them. But if she never sees what we see, the only request I would have is the same of anyone of any religion, don't demand religious based laws, don't get violent with those who blaspheme you, but I think she already thinks that way.

I thought the atheist position was that you didn't know if a god exists because there has not been enough proof to convince you of one. Not that you've already concluded that one for sure does not exist. Am I wrong?

(May 11, 2017 at 3:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 11, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Me too, but I am also willing to accept it if she figures out we were right. Someone planted doubt in my head long ago and I wish I could go back and thank them. But if she never sees what we see, the only request I would have is the same of anyone of any religion, don't demand religious based laws, don't get violent with those who blaspheme you, but I think she already thinks that way.

I thought the atheist position was that you didn't know if a god exists because there has not been enough proof to convince you of one. Not that you've already concluded that one for sure does not exist. Am I wrong?

You need to make a distinction here which you seem to fail to do every time I explain this.

The only part that I say "I don't know" about is the future, and even then a strictly semantic sense, and even then I find it highly UNLIKELY a god of the gap answer will fill the ultimate answer. Currently science is running away for any need for a god of the gaps answer on top of it being infinitely far more likely that humans make them up because it is a reflection of them. 

CURRENTLY my light switch is OFF on all past and current claims, and yes, I am sure those are all worth discarding and not worthy of considering to be true.

I am an "agnostic atheist". I cant say I wont ever go back, strictly because I have not lived my entire future. But even then I know I wont in my current lucid state. It would take severe emotional trauma or severe brain injury or severe mental decline. Outside those possibilities no. I cannot see myself ever falling back into any god belief as long as I am lucid. 

I have too much scientific fact in my head in my lucid state to consider any currently held god claims.

(May 11, 2017 at 3:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 11, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Me too, but I am also willing to accept it if she figures out we were right. Someone planted doubt in my head long ago and I wish I could go back and thank them. But if she never sees what we see, the only request I would have is the same of anyone of any religion, don't demand religious based laws, don't get violent with those who blaspheme you, but I think she already thinks that way.

I thought the atheist position was that you didn't know if a god exists because there has not been enough proof to convince you of one. Not that you've already concluded that one for sure does not exist. Am I wrong?

It varies. 
Most would call themselves Agnostic Atheists (Don't know for sure, but no evidence of one)
Some are Gnostic Atheists (Know for sure there isn't one).

Most people also vary depending on the god mentioned.  For instance many people on this forums have even stated they outright feel certain saying the God of the Bible does not exist, however that does not mean that no gods exists anywhere.  A lot of the problem comes from the broad and varying definitions of the word God.

I bet you are a Gnostic Atheist about the existence of Zeus, for instance.  But no one actively believes in Zeus anymore, so it isn't a position you need to defend.

Could your personal Abrahamic god exist?  No.  Could a god exist?  Possibly.  <---------------I think this is a common, though not universal, atheist position.

So when you talk about God, it depends on if the atheist is taking it by the broadest definition (any possible god), or the narrower one (the biblical one with all the extra attributes given it by someone personally).

Hope that made some sense.

(May 10, 2017 at 6:53 pm)Valyza1 Wrote: All I ever thought I was talking about when discussing Free Will is the ability to pursue whatever it is that we will to pursue.  It's about as simple as that.

This is why compatabilism is inane. It defines free will in a way that everyone believes in, in an extremely trivially true way and in such a way that there would be no free will debate in the first place if all free will meant was 'the ability to will what it is that we will to pursue'.

The question is whether the will is free. And just labelling the will as 'free will' or pointing to distinctions we already know exist--like the difference between unintentional and intentional actions--doesn't address the question.

Compatabilism only admits that we could have done otherwise in slightly different circumstances. We already know that. The whole point is that most people think that when they do an action they could have done otherwise in precisely the same circumstances. And they're wrong. So compatabilists are only misleading people by calling ordinary mundane willpower 'free will' when most people believe in something more.

Compatabilism is okay if the first thing compatabilists do is make it very clear to people what kind of free will they DON'T have is; the kind they believe in. The problem is compatabilists don't do that because they're more worried about people becoming fatalists and more interested in being condescending than actually being honest and direct with people. They know that if they started by telling people the kind of free will they don't have they'd scare the shit out of most people. Sure, people are wrong to be afraid but happily being misunderstood about the concept of free will and happily misleading people is not the answer. The kind of free will most people believe in is a much more dangerous belief than fatalism. Hatred itself is irrational once the classic version of free will is no longer believed in.... but love still makes sense. Because hatred presumes that someone ultimately has control over their actions. It's irrational to hate a bear for killing someone for example. We don't seek retribution against animals. Not rationally anyways. It's the same without the classic version of free will. Hatred becomes irrational and rationally unjustifiable once you realize the classic version of free will is impossible. But love still makes sense because although you can not rationally hate an animal... you can certainly rationally love one.

(May 11, 2017 at 5:41 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 11, 2017 at 3:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I thought the atheist position was that you didn't know if a god exists because there has not been enough proof to convince you of one. Not that you've already concluded that one for sure does not exist. Am I wrong?

It varies. 
Most would call themselves Agnostic Atheists (Don't know for sure, but no evidence of one)
Some are Gnostic Atheists (Know for sure there isn't one).

Most people also vary depending on the god mentioned.  For instance many people on this forums have even stated they outright feel certain saying the God of the Bible does not exist, however that does not mean that no gods exists anywhere.  A lot of the problem comes from the broad and varying definitions of the word God.

I bet you are a Gnostic Atheist about the existence of Zeus, for instance.  But no one actively believes in Zeus anymore, so it isn't a position you need to defend.

Could your personal Abrahamic god exist?  No.  Could a god exist?  Possibly.  <---------------I think this is a common, though not universal, atheist position.

So when you talk about God, it depends on if the atheist is taking it by the broadest definition (any possible god), or the narrower one (the biblical one with all the extra attributes given it by someone personally).

Hope that made some sense.

While it is true you have to ask the individual atheist I don't see the "possibility" and neither do the top scientists the higher up you go in science. Stephen Hawking "A God is not required"<--- For example, and people like Krauss and Greene and so on and so on. 

I see no need to fill in a gap with any type of God/god/s/deity super natural. And again science is currently running away from the idea one is needed to explain everything. 

You cannot take the word "possibility" out of context, it has to be framed with "probability" and or "likelihood". And right now the top scientists are saying that it is so fleetingly unlikely and on top of being unnecessary and superfluous adding more questions it is not worthy of consideration.

If you can cherry pick the Bible in a certain way that there are no longer any logical contradictions... then that particular cherry picked version is logically possible.

Anyone who believes in at least two Bible verses about God that logically contradict each other... that God they believe in isn't possible.

It's kind of funny that the most honest reading of the Bible leads to a logically impossible God isn't it?

logically, God COULD BE allergic to iron chariots . . . .