(October 27, 2017 at 8:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 27, 2017 at 7:54 pm)Whateverist Wrote: That's okay.  What you lack in hard evidence you make up for in faith .. and you wear it well.

Yeah, there is no hard evidence for the supernatural that can be presented, tested, experimented, etc. That's kind of the whole point of the supernatural - if it does exist, it is beyond our natural, physical world and cant be "proven".

We come to our beliefs based on conjecture, educated guesses, maybe some personal experience if we've been lucky enough to have one, and lastly hope.

I appreciate this remark.  Out of curiosity, what do you think about people who try to establish the existence of the supernatural via naturalistic means such as reason and logic? In your opinion, does this contradict the whole idea of faith?

Also, by the definition of supernatural in bold, if an individual claims that something is beyond the physical, natural world, then is that claim completely free of the human mind's inability to understand it?  How does one differentiate "beyond the human mind's ability to understand" from "beyond the natural, physical world"?  Is it possible that there may be an unexplored/overlooked intermediate step here?  Thanks.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, CL. What if Kali, the dark one, came to you one night and in similar fashion demonstrated that she is God, the only God, the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of creation, and likewise answered all your questions which would otherwise result in reticence toward worshiping her.

Would you then become a devotee of Kali? What would you do?

(October 27, 2017 at 8:58 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: The rice experiment really 

https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s...experiment

---

Umm no their is no principle  specifically of the supernatural that places it beyond testing or proof . Certainly not the supernatural as i or Carrier define it . 

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/0...tural.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Ht9Ic_y6A

(can't find it in english - but why would a measuring machine give wrong information)

Since the possibility of the LIE exists at all times, it is alaways possible to find a piece of information to keep up the existing worldview.
It's just basic mathematics.

The problem with scepticism is that its biggest flaw is just being ignored. If a sceptic is supposed to be sceptic, why isn't he sceptic about scepticism itself.

As said, before the only real way to get through the smoke screens is to test empirically, and even then there is still the possibility of error.

All one has to do is do a little bit of travel and meet a person who will demonstrate abilities in such a way that You are convinced. Going into discussion with somebody with a "sceptical" mindset is obviously stupid. 


Most people do not even incorporate basic psychological mechanisms into their worldview like normaly bias and such. Since we live in a society where most people are just idiots without the determination to really know something, we tend to accept things like opinions, suspicions, tendencies. Knowledge is something far more complex then just a piece of information, unattainable if certain preliminaries are not met.

There is this quote about history, I do not remember who said it. Take away a person's past and I will be able to tell him who he is.


------------------------------------------
Let's start with some simple questions.
How much control over information distribution do goverments have nowadays?
Do You know how many soldiers work in the field of information control in different countries.
Have You checked how efficient those kind of mechanisms are?


As to discussions with idiots there is this rule that has to be kept in mind:
Never talk to an idiot or he will drag You to his level and then beat You because of his experience.

(October 28, 2017 at 7:18 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, CL. What if Kali, the dark one, came to you one night and in similar fashion demonstrated that she is God, the only God, the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of creation, and likewise answered all your questions which would otherwise result in reticence toward worshiping her.  

Would you then become a devotee of Kali?  What would you do?

Ooh good one.
They always assume that if there is a god (there isn't) that theirs is the one there is.

(October 27, 2017 at 8:58 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: The rice experiment really 

https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s...experiment

---

Umm no their is no principle  specifically of the supernatural that places it beyond testing or proof . Certainly not the supernatural as i or Carrier define it . 

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/0...tural.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Ht9Ic_y6A


In the past people used radio active toothpaste:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doramad_Ra...Toothpaste

Today people use the internet as for information consumption.

Just a basic question:
How much control over information distribution do goverments have in Your opinion?

(October 28, 2017 at 7:18 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, CL. What if Kali, the dark one, came to you one night and in similar fashion demonstrated that she is God, the only God, the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of creation, and likewise answered all your questions which would otherwise result in reticence toward worshiping her.

Would you then become a devotee of Kali? What would you do?

I would have to believe she existed, but i wouldnt be a devotee if she is evil. As flawed as we are, humans generally still have an inherent desire for goodness I think. At least I do, but I think the same can be said about most people.

(October 28, 2017 at 8:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I would have to believe she existed, but i wouldnt be a devotee if she is evil. As flawed as we are, humans generally still have an inherent desire for goodness I think. At least I do, but I think the same can be said about most people.

A powerful idea can corrupt the desire for goodness, politics and religion are the main ones that can turn otherwise nice people into monsters.

Think of the NAZIs a powerful mixture of nationalism and hate and the chrsitian crusades and islamic jihads and you can see what I mea.

(October 27, 2017 at 9:59 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(October 27, 2017 at 8:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yeah, there is no hard evidence for the supernatural that can be presented, tested, experimented, etc. That's kind of the whole point of the supernatural - if it does exist, it is beyond our natural, physical world and cant be "proven".

We come to our beliefs based on conjecture, educated guesses, maybe some personal experience if we've been lucky enough to have one, and lastly hope.

1. I appreciate this remark.  Out of curiosity, what do you think about people who try to establish the existence of the supernatural via naturalistic means such as reason and logic? In your opinion, does this contradict the whole idea of faith?

2. Also, by the definition of supernatural in bold, if an individual claims that something is beyond the physical, natural world, then is that claim completely free of the human mind's inability to understand it?  3. How does one differentiate "beyond the human mind's ability to understand" from "beyond the natural, physical world"?  Is it possible that there may be an unexplored/overlooked intermediate step here?  Thanks.

1. I think it's perfectly fine and good to use reason and logic to come to the conclusion to believe in the supernatural. That's how it should be. But it's still conjecture rather than solid proof. I think it's silly when people claim they have proof of God and then use a logical reason to back that up. It's still not solid proof. Conjecture? Yes. An educated guess? Yes. But not "proof."

2. No, i think we still mostly don't understand or even have the capacity to understand much beyond the physical, natural world. We believe there is more out there that is beyond our world, but there's no way to claim we fully know it or understand it. Not even close!

3. I really don't know. Perhaps there is an intermediate step there, but heck if I know what it would be. I can't imagine it.

---

(October 28, 2017 at 7:28 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(October 28, 2017 at 7:18 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, CL. What if Kali, the dark one, came to you one night and in similar fashion demonstrated that she is God, the only God, the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of creation, and likewise answered all your questions which would otherwise result in reticence toward worshiping her.  

Would you then become a devotee of Kali?  What would you do?

Ooh good one.
They always assume that if there is a god (there isn't) that theirs is the one there is.

Well, obviously lol. If I didn't believe the Christian God was the real one, then I wouldn't believe in the Christian God lol.

But none of th is means there is no chance I could be wrong. I don't think I am, obviously, but there is the possibility that I could be of course.

---

(October 28, 2017 at 9:05 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(October 28, 2017 at 8:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I would have to believe she existed, but i wouldnt be a devotee if she is evil. As flawed as we are, humans generally still have an inherent desire for goodness I think. At least I do, but I think the same can be said about most people.

A powerful idea can corrupt the desire for goodness, politics and religion are the main ones that can turn otherwise nice people into monsters.

Think of the NAZIs a powerful mixture of nationalism and hate and the chrsitian crusades and islamic jihads and you can see what I mea.

I think a lot of it is a constant battle inside us. We do ultimately desire goodness and to be good. We are inherently drawn to it i think. But we also, simultaneously, have a tendency towards greediness. Towards wanting things for ourselves, even if it might be at the expense of someone else. (It doesn't have to be big things. For most of us, it really is just the little things... like lashing out at someone else when we are upset about something or having a bad day. It feels good to "let it out" so we often do it, even though it hurts the innocent bystander who takes it.)

Anyway, what im getting at is when we find an excuse to be greedy and tell ourselves that what we are doing is actually good, it kind of creates this perfect storm. The Nazi's, Isis, and the crusaders, all told themselves they were working towards a greater good. And in doing so they had an excuse to exercise their already existing greed and flawed nature.... the feeling of power over others, obtaining more land, etc.

---

(October 27, 2017 at 8:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 27, 2017 at 8:08 pm)Wololo Wrote: See, condescending and dismissive, unwilling to engage in debate. What you cannot refute you try to ignore.

Well, unfortunately for you reality* has a bad habit of being unignorable.

*Including the obvious reality that your imaginary big beard in the sky doesn't exist.

I engage just fine with people who are actually willing to have honest discussion. I've learned better than to try to talk to Tazz because from the minute he got here he's been nothing but nasty to me and throws a bunch of straw my way. Just a couple weeks ago he called me a neo Nazi. Lol. Excuse me if I don't take the clown seriously or waste my time engaging with him. I'll talk to fatandfaithless and whateverist all day though. They are actually open to talking with me rather than just spewing shit my way.

Whoa, just realized this Wololo person i am responding to is actually Tazz lol. Whoops.

(October 28, 2017 at 9:11 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 28, 2017 at 7:28 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Ooh good one.
They always assume that if there is a god (there isn't) that theirs is the one there is.

Well, obviously lol. If I didn't believe the Christian God was the real one, then I wouldn't believe in the Christian God lol.

But none of th is means there is no chance I could be wrong. I don't think I am, obviously, but there is the possibility that I could be of course.

I admire your humility.  Specifically, IMO, you are one of the few theists here who is willing to acknowledge the possibility that he or she could be wrong, which IMO, invites constructive, educational dialog.  IMO, such dialog is destroyed the moment an individual asserts that his or her views are the one and only truth and is unwilling to consider the possibility that he or she may be mistaken. 

With that said, thanks for your thoughtful answer, CL.

(October 28, 2017 at 8:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 28, 2017 at 7:18 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, CL. What if Kali, the dark one, came to you one night and in similar fashion demonstrated that she is God, the only God, the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of creation, and likewise answered all your questions which would otherwise result in reticence toward worshiping her.  

Would you then become a devotee of Kali?  What would you do?

I would have to believe she existed, but i wouldnt be a devotee if she is evil. As flawed as we are, humans generally still have an inherent desire for goodness I think. At least I do, but I think the same can be said about most people.

Well then why the devotion to god? By any standard what is attributed to him shows a being of pure evil, condemning the whole of humanity for Eve acting exactly as he set her up to do, and getting worse from there.

Your actual position on yhwh belies the words you say about kali. You would no more accept her as god than you do now.