Ahh so you also think you have some new approach. Well, I got news for you, many of us have been there and now we are here, sans God.

I would suggest you compare notes with your Christian friends and see if they came to the same conclusions as you have. Do not to ignore the differences. Check the bible and see which idea has merit. You will probably find what I did, that diametrically opposed ideas are equally supported by sections of a book inspired by a supposedly timeless being who is omni-yeah you get the idea.

Rhizo

(February 16, 2010 at 1:14 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Ahh so you also think you have some new approach. Well, I got news for you, many of us have been there and now we are here, sans God.

I would suggest you compare notes with your Christian friends and see if they came to the same conclusions as you have. Do not to ignore the differences. Check the bible and see which idea has merit. You will probably find what I did, that diametrically opposed ideas are equally supported by sections of a book inspired by a supposedly timeless being who is omni-yeah you get the idea.

Rhizo

Never said I have a new approach, in fact I think it was the song All You Need is Love which said "Nothin' you can say that can't be said."

It just so happens that my beliefs are formed by such comparisons as you advise me to have. Independent Bible studies with friends who do and don't believe in varying degrees have led most of us to common groung on quite a few issues,and in fact a better understanding of the Bible, and God.

(February 16, 2010 at 12:54 am)Watson Wrote: I do understand, and also, I never said that Sherlock Holmes' methods proved the existance of God. What I was saying is that he had to believe in the indivdual he was tracking down, and then look for evidence of their existance.

He used deductive reasoning, coupled with his own experience to re-create what happened at the crime scene. He didn't take any leaps of faith. He used tangible and verifiable evidence to solve cases.

(February 16, 2010 at 12:54 am)Watson Wrote: Not only this, what you are saying is that many of you were initially believers, but that you examined the 'evidence' and found none for proof of God. What I am saying is that you do not understand God, and you are looking for the wrong individual evidence of him. You are looking for scientific evidence where there is none to be had.

So it's like Sherlock Holmes, except with no evidence of anything. Who's chasing ghosts here?

Saying "You don't understand God" is a cop out, because your definition of God varies greatly with many other Christians. If the only experience and truth God has is subjective, then guess what, anything anyone says about God would automatically be valid. I can say God is crazy and he talks to me every night. It wouldn't make it any less valid than what you're saying, and I can attest to knowing God on a much more personal level than you ever can. See how it works?

If you don't have objectively verifiable evidence, especially for someone who is apparently everywhere, in everything, intervenes in our lives, and grants us gifts on a daily basis, there should be at least SOME proof, don't you think? Considering my eternal soul is on the line here, I would think God would make his existence a bit more apparent.

(February 16, 2010 at 12:54 am)Watson Wrote: When Sherlock Holmes looked for evidence of a wooden legged man in the Sign of the Four, for instance, he knew he was looking for a wooden-legged man because of his clients claim that their father had shot a wooden legged man out of fear, and then been killed later. Sherlock then found evidence of this man in the form of footprints where one 'foot' was just a circle; the print of a wooden stump.

This is called deductive reasoning. He gets clues, forms a hypothesis, and tests the hypothesis and eventually catches the bad guy. I don't see any faith involved here.

(February 16, 2010 at 12:54 am)Watson Wrote: You must understand the individual you are looking for evidence of first, then look for evidence which proves their individuality and existance.

I find it comical that most religious people won't even admit that it's a possibility that the concept of God exists purely in their mind.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them. In academic philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, being contrasted with essence, which specifies different forms of existence as well as different identity conditions for objects and properties.

I don't consider evidence of God being events in my life that I don't understand right away. I don't consider evidence of God being things that I could have felt from being in a highly excited, suggestive state or the placebo effect. This is the creator of the UNIVERSE we're talking about. We have trillions of things he could have put his mark on, or left for us to find, since I'm assuming he knew that this would be an issue in many parts of the world. Yet there is no scientific evidence for his existence. The only thing left is to simply believe, and rationalize things to fit that belief system.

I hold myself to a higher standard than blind faith. I'm not a sheep, I don't need a shepherd. I have a brain, and I can think for myself. If God exists like you assert he does, he's reading this right now and can do something about it. If it is important to him for people to believe, he should do something about it. It's the 21st century, we don't sacrifice goats and burn witches. Blind faith is for chickens in the slaughterhouse, not for thinking and capable human beings.

(February 16, 2010 at 1:14 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Ahh so you also think you have some new approach. Well, I got news for you, many of us have been there and now we are here, sans God.

You say that like you're claiming unbelief is somehow the only logical conclusion, which is of course ridiculous. Not a valid conclusion. It's ironic how you keep bringing this up. Do you really believe that? I wish I could be as delusional. If that's the arrogance of disbelief (and I think I suffered the same delusion), it says something don't you think?

(February 16, 2010 at 5:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 16, 2010 at 1:14 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Ahh so you also think you have some new approach. Well, I got news for you, many of us have been there and now we are here, sans God.

You say that like you're claiming unbelief is somehow the only logical conclusion, which is of course ridiculous. Not a valid conclusion. It's ironic how you keep bringing this up. Do you really believe that? I wish I could be as delusional. If that's the arrogance of disbelief (and I think I suffered the same delusion), it says something don't you think?

Am I also arrogant that I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

You call it arrogance, yet you have provided zero evidence (scientific OR subjective, whatever that may be) to back up your view. Did he come to you in a dream? Did you see the virgin mary in toast? Any other miracle?

You calling people delusional is simply hilarious. Your skewed view of logic doesn't help your credibility in the least. Though you have some good points sometimes, any inspection renders your belief system full of holes. and circular reasoning.

This is how your logic works.

I can't find evidence of something (something which by its nature has no evidence), so I'll just believe it and make my own pieces to fit the puzzle. That's the MOST logical thing to do.

You still don't understand that what you're doing is irrational, and advocating it like it's the only logical conclusion.

(February 16, 2010 at 5:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 16, 2010 at 1:14 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Ahh so you also think you have some new approach. Well, I got news for you, many of us have been there and now we are here, sans God.

You say that like you're claiming unbelief is somehow the only logical conclusion, which is of course ridiculous. Not a valid conclusion. It's ironic how you keep bringing this up. Do you really believe that? I wish I could be as delusional. If that's the arrogance of disbelief (and I think I suffered the same delusion), it says something don't you think?

My non-belief is supported by the non-verifiable claus, Santa that is...

If there is no evidence for something that is supposedly everywhere, um, YES non-belief IS the only logical conclusion. Also the magic aether told me so while it was holding me to the Earth.

Rhizo

(February 16, 2010 at 3:03 am)tavarish Wrote: If you don't have objectively verifiable evidence, especially for someone who is apparently everywhere, in everything, intervenes in our lives, and grants us gifts on a daily basis, there should be at least SOME proof, don't you think? Considering my eternal soul is on the line here, I would think God would make his existence a bit more apparent.

(February 16, 2010 at 11:51 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: If there is no evidence for something that is supposedly everywhere, um, YES non-belief IS the only logical conclusion. Also the magic aether told me so while it was holding me to the Earth.

Rhizo

These statements remind me of the story of a man on the roof of his house during a flood praying that God will save him from the rising water. A boat comes along to take him away but he refuses the ride because he is praying to God and is sure God will save him. As the water rises, another boat and a helicopter come along to take the man to safety but with the same results. Finally the man drowns. When he gets to heaven, he asks God why he didn’t answer his prayer to be saved from the flood. God answers “I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”

So maybe the issue is a matter of perspective. Maybe it is not the lack of evidence but the interpretation of that evidence. Maybe the existence of the universe, the fact that you have air to breathe, and all the good things that you have ARE evidence of the God who is everywhere, intervenes in our lives, and grants us gifts on a daily basis and you just refuse to see these things for what they are.

Quote:These statements remind me of the story of a man on the roof of his house during a flood praying that God will save him from the rising water. A boat comes along to take him away but he refuses the ride because he is praying to God and is sure God will save him. As the water rises, another boat and a helicopter come along to take the man to safety but with the same results. Finally the man drowns. When he gets to heaven, he asks God why he didn’t answer his prayer to be saved from the flood. God answers “I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”

A boat coming to the aid of a person is what I would call human intervention not devine intervetion. Boats and helicopters will be present in the area of a huge flood in order to save as many as possible. This isn't a godly thing but a human thing. If I was in danger and brought to safety by others putting their lives on the line for my safety, I would be thanking them not god. People being rescued by other people is not evidence of a god. The fact we can breathe does not prove there is a god. From YOUR point of view it is but not mine or any other atheist/rational person.

(February 16, 2010 at 12:52 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(February 16, 2010 at 3:03 am)tavarish Wrote: If you don't have objectively verifiable evidence, especially for someone who is apparently everywhere, in everything, intervenes in our lives, and grants us gifts on a daily basis, there should be at least SOME proof, don't you think? Considering my eternal soul is on the line here, I would think God would make his existence a bit more apparent.

(February 16, 2010 at 11:51 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: If there is no evidence for something that is supposedly everywhere, um, YES non-belief IS the only logical conclusion. Also the magic aether told me so while it was holding me to the Earth.

Rhizo

These statements remind me of the story of a man on the roof of his house during a flood praying that God will save him from the rising water. A boat comes along to take him away but he refuses the ride because he is praying to God and is sure God will save him. As the water rises, another boat and a helicopter come along to take the man to safety but with the same results. Finally the man drowns. When he gets to heaven, he asks God why he didn’t answer his prayer to be saved from the flood. God answers “I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”

So maybe the issue is a matter of perspective. Maybe it is not the lack of evidence but the interpretation of that evidence. Maybe the existence of the universe, the fact that you have air to breathe, and all the good things that you have ARE evidence of the God who is everywhere, intervenes in our lives, and grants us gifts on a daily basis and you just refuse to see these things for what they are.

Here we go with this argument. The existence of everything does not equal existence of God. By the same merit, would that also be proof of my celestial mongoose? The fact that I have air to breathe is because the Earth formed an atmosphere or nitrogen and oxygen that supports the organisms that use it for energy.

Whether or not a God started it off is up for debate, but seeing as how this would be a scientific question, since it deals with biology, physics, and cosmology, sufficient objective evidence is needed.

If you say God is in everything, you're not adding any understanding to anything. You're not learning any more about the thing you're describing. It doesn't take on any special properties.

"God is in my water bottle"

I have not added anything to the water bottle, nor have I learned anything from it. It is a statement devoid of reason and merit. For something to have evidence of a creator, it needs to have objective and verifiable evidence supporting such a claim. For an all-powerful creator, this seems to be his weak point.

The joke you put up also is a bit one sided, but I guess it wouldn't have worked if the man had just stayed up there, not prayed to anyone, and got saved because he didn't expect a magical rescue from his sky daddy.

Hmmm. Really hard to find out whether it is homeopathic water, holy roman pedarastic water, or new age energized water in that bottle of yours. It seems everybody is in our water nowadays. Maybe we should tax it.