(January 31, 2013 at 7:03 am)catfish Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 6:45 am)Brian37 Wrote: Anything that would allegedly have such powers and allows all this pain and suffering is either inept or cruel.

So, you secretly (now openly) wish for a sky-daddy babysitter?
.

No, don't project superstition on me.

This is about logic and your bad starting point and bad process that leads you to believe such a being exists. Like a character in a book, which is all your pet diety is.

I don't need Lex Luthor or Superman to explain the good or bad in life either. Same reason you don't need Thor to explain lightening.

Then explain to me how the existence of God would require his intervention?

I have logic. When you can prove the cause of the big bang, the start of life, and your inability to reconcile that cognitive dissonance, then perhaps I'll believe you have logic too.
.

(January 31, 2013 at 9:47 am)catfish Wrote: Then explain to me how the existence of God would require his intervention?

I have logic. When you can prove the cause of the big bang, the start of life, and your inability to reconcile that cognitive dissonance, then perhaps I'll believe you have logic too.
.

Logic can be made to work for anything on its own, but in order to apply it to reality you need to feed facts into it and see if it churns out a correct answer.

Whether the big bang, evolution, or any of that other stuff science comes out with is correct is irrelevant to whether or not a god exists. Atheism can still be right even if all those things are proven false, because no one has demonstrated a god. Demonstrate a god, and then atheism will be wrong.

Demonstrate no god and atheism will correct. What others fail to see in their own "logic" is that they patently dismiss possibilities without definitive proof.
I see you label yourself an agnostic atheist, so am I correct in assuming you understand this principle?
.

(January 31, 2013 at 10:26 am)catfish Wrote: Demonstrate no god and atheism will correct. What others fail to see in their own "logic" is that they patently dismiss possibilities without definitive proof.
I see you label yourself an agnostic atheist, so am I correct in assuming you understand this principle?
.

I think I understand. I don't entirely reject the notion of a god, it's entirely possible that there might be one. I just haven't been presented with a case that convinces me of it being true. If I apply this same principle of lacking knowledge and a definitive belief to everything else, I find that I end up professing a belief for a lot of false things if in these situations I say they do exist for lack of evidence to the contrary.

For instance, I believe that a girl in a brown dress lives in my fire place, and that she is superior to the Abrahamic god by virtue of her purity and moral correctness.
Until someone proves me wrong, this is true.

You have to prove yourself wrong. Someone else may present you with the evidence, but the end decision is and will always be yours.

Others try to tell me my "god" isn't true by virtue of the bible and ridicule. I have my own reasons and logic for believing and they are nothing like anyone else's.
And you don't have to believe something just because there's no contradictory evidence, but to exclude something based on that logic is false and goes directly against the scientific method.

I remember being taught as a child about different species and extinction. I was told that after the dodo bird, the only other animal to reach extinction was the Blue Whale. Carneigie museum even had an entire section devoted to this "fact". People didn't see them, so they didn't exist anymore... How wrong they were...
.

(January 31, 2013 at 10:42 am)catfish Wrote: You have to prove yourself wrong. Someone else may present you with the evidence, but the end decision is and will always be yours.

Others try to tell me my "god" isn't true by virtue of the bible and ridicule. I have my own reasons and logic for believing and they are nothing like anyone else's.
And you don't have to believe something just because there's no contradictory evidence, but to exclude something based on that logic is false and goes directly against the scientific method.

I remember being taught as a child about different species and extinction. I was told that after the dodo bird, the only other animal to reach extinction was the Blue Whale. Carneigie museum even had an entire section devoted to this "fact". People didn't see them, so they didn't exist anymore... How wrong they were...
.

So if I told you that the little girl that lives in my fire place created the universe, and that she created a system of rules by which you must live your life, or else have your life force stripped from you when you die and hurtled into a great black pit of moaning and constant complaining, would you believe me and follow those rules simply because you have no proof against this idea?

No, but I wouldn't tell you that is not what you see and believe. Whether physically manifested or not, your dreams, visions and beliefs are real.

If I told you that your eyesight was all an hallucination, would you believe me?
.

(January 31, 2013 at 10:42 am)catfish Wrote: I was told that after the dodo bird, the only other animal to reach extinction was the Blue Whale. Carneigie museum even had an entire section devoted to this "fact". People didn't see them, so they didn't exist anymore... How wrong they were...
.

(Bolding mine)

When has a god been shown to ever exist, let alone still exist?

(Also, I tried googling "blue whale extinction" but I found only Pygmy whales, if that is what you are referring to. http://www.livescience.com/25656-pygmy-w...ssils.html)

You should probrably be aware that I don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate...
.