(June 5, 2015 at 12:18 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Also...I don't like using the word "faith" for expectations built upon actual experience and probability... I'd call that 'confidence' or 'trust', just because "faith" has such baggage attached to it.

Oh, you mean like the Relationship we can build with God.. I don't use the word faith to describe that aspect of the relationship. The only faith needed is the faith it takes to just A/S/K. The rest as you say is built on " built upon actual experience and probability."

I'm not denying that you have "trust" and "confidence" in your god Drich, I'm saying that trusting and being confident in something isn't evidence for its existence. And that's all you have as far as "evidence" for god goes...your feelings and experiences.

Drich, I do not believe in soul mates or one true loves. Sometimes people are very compatible and they feel a very deep connection with one another. This is what happened to my husband and me but if I had never met him, that doesn't meant that either of us would have ended up unhappy or that we might not have found someone else that we felt a similar connection. There isn't one set person for anyone.

You seem to be going by the assumption that my trust in my marriage is the same type of blind trust that a religious person places in their god. It isn't. There are reasons that my husband and I would divorce and neither would be justified in hurting or torturing the other because they left the marriage. I have seen my husband, touched him and heard his voice so I know he exists.

A better analogy would be if one person agreed to be married to a person that they never spoke to, met or interacted in any physical way. When something good happened- like they get a job they wanted or a really good parking spot-then they believe that their unseen spouse is somehow working behind the scenes. They also know that if they commit adultery then their invisible spouse will know and make them suffer forever.

(June 5, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Drich Wrote: Oh, you mean like the Relationship we can build with God.. I don't use the word faith to describe that aspect of the relationship. The only faith needed is the faith it takes to just A/S/K. The rest as you say is built on " built upon actual experience and probability."

You don't have a relationship with a god. You have a relationship with your imagination. It's crazy having a relationship with something that isn't there.

(June 5, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 12:05 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Still the dumbest analogy.

Said the box of rocks...

Note how the theist results to insults when his argument rather than himself is insulted.

Quote:

Quote:We know marriage is a thing.

Marriage is an institution, Like Religion or worship is an institution. If you are going to try and be intellectually honest you need to compare apples to apples.
If you know marriage is a thing, then you equally know Christianity is a 'thing.' Again both are institution that represent a formal Deeply personal relationship.

Also note the many words that don't actually say anything of value.

And marriage is functionally a socioeconomic status, granting certain privileges.  It doesn't have to represent a deeply personal relationship.  The two ideas, while connected, aren't 100% cause and effect.

Quote:

Quote: There are actually certificates involved and everything.

The same is true with religion.

Really?  Where's your certificate of belief?

Quote:

Quote: There's 3rd party evidence of it actually, you know, existing.

Again the same is true with the actual acts contained in religion.

Ah, here's the linguistic trick area.  What actual acts are you describing?  The various rites and rituals belonging to a religion, or the miracles your savior supposedly executed?

Quote:

Quote: There's also the fact that the people who get married actually exist.  They're not marrying a ghost, or holy spirit, or anything not tangible and evident to all.

Again real people goto a real Church so again you know that is real.

So?  Church is real.  Religion is real.  The feelings theists have towards their deity are real.  But none of that means that deity actually exists.  People form emotional attachments to fictional things all the time.  Those attachments don't lend those objects reality.

Quote:What you don't seem to get is what the marriage represents is just as intangible as God IF you have never experienced either. This is also why you don't think the analogy works. because to you marriage is only a 'thing'. You don't seem to be accounting for all the intangibles that go into a relationship before a marriage can happen. Not to mention all of the intangables that must be there in order for people to stay married. These 'intangables' are also what establishes and maintains a relationship with God.

A relationship has your intangibles (which really aren't intangible since brain chemistry exists, psychology is real, and physical responses to certain stimuli also exists).  Marriage is, again, a socioeconomic construct whose origins stem from maintaining lineage and maintaining/increasing wealth, often in the form of land holdings, cattle, and things of that nature.  It's also strongly tied to politics, namely in forming and strengthening alliances between tribes/clans/families.

You're stuck on the Hallmark ideal of marriage, that it's this grand final step in a loving relationship.  Actual human history shows that marriage has often been used as a tool, one utterly bereft of love.  It doesn't mean that people don't or haven't married for the 'right' reasons, just that there are far more things involved in marriage as a concept than it being a holy institution.

Quote:

Quote:With god, there's what's presented in the bible, which is hardly an unbiased source, and the people who buy into its tripe, who are also obviously biased and their feelings/experiences can logically be explained by other, more mundane things which, following Occam's Razor, makes it far more likely that those mundane things are the cause rather than a god entity.  Beyond that, there is zero, as in nothing, nada, zilch reputable evidence that a god entity actually exists.

That's not true. The only thing you can truly say is you have found nothing to support the existence of God. just like if you were to never get married, the best you can say is that YOU have no proof of what Love is. You cant say love is not real or does not exist simply because you never experienced it.

This is idiotic.  I'm not married, but have been in love.  Moreover, I know, objectively, that love exists.  Again, brain chemistry is real.  We have brain scans of people experiencing all sorts of different emotions, and memories, and other things related to thought and feeling.

To get back to your tortured relationship/marriage analogy, you keep using the word faith when it comes to people searching for a partner.  But here's the thing - you're assuming that people believe that there's a soul mate waiting for them somewhere among the, what, 6 or 7 billion people on the planet.  But that's, again, presumptuous.  Plenty of people hope they find someone they can spend their lives with, but they might not believe that there is a single person out there that's utterly perfect for them.  Or, even if they do believe that there is because they watched The Notebook too many times, they might not be convinced that they'll find that person and are willing to make do and compromise.  Or they might not care at all, and are simply playing the field.

On the other side, you're assuming that there's one soul mate for each person, when there could be several out there.  Which utterly undermines your analogy, because you'll only accept your god as the right answer.

It's a trite, ill-fitting analogy all the way around, designed to paint belief in a romantic light.

Quote:

Quote:And, yes, the bar is set higher for god.  The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be to verify it.

 
A claim is only deemed 'extrordinary' if and when the item or concept is completely foreign. If heavier than air flight possible? was it possible 200 years ago? if not, then why would any more proof be needed 200 years ago, than would be needed now, IF indeed the concept is sound? Prejudice. People want to believe what they think they already know.

Except, the concept of god isn't sound.  Indeed, your particular god is utterly illogical and self-contradictory.  And, again, you're conflating disparate things - technological advancement vs. no evidence suggesting your claim of a deity is true.

Bro, can you even argue?

Quote:

Quote:And the claim of being the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe is far, far more extraordinary than the idea that there may be a proper partner/mate out there for everyone.

So again would a face to face with such a creator be evidence enough for you? That is what Jesus is offering in Luke 11. If we exert just the same effort we put into finding the person we want to spend our life with.

Not unless that face-to-face presented me the ability to ensure I wasn't simply hallucinating, or wasn't witnessing something else attempting to deceive me.  There's also that tricky question of which god.  You're presumptuous in assuming I'd see your god.

Quote:

Quote:Again, you're relying on naive romanticism and a tortured analogy to make a point that is easily refuted.

Easily refuted if and only if one is not honestly looking at all of what is being said.

Or if the person trying to make the point couldn't form a coherent argument if their life depended on it.  Guess which accurately describes this little exchange?

(June 5, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 12:17 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: There's a difference between blind faith and 'faith' that's built upon actual experience and probability.  

What makes you think blind faith is required?

Because that's what religion is predicated on? You can't actually interact with your deity, you know, so you necessarily have to buy into the idea wholesale. Moreover, religion teaches that only absolute belief is acceptable, to the point of considering Jesus your lord and messiah. All of this based on stories from ~2000+ years ago.

Quote:

Quote:People usually, you know, take the time to know each other first before getting married Not all the time, to be sure, and perhaps they're not honest during the courtship phase, or maybe there are warning signs, but one person in the couple thinks they can 'fix' the other, but generally, there's a fair amount of time spent in the presence of the other person.  Enough time so each person in the couple can learn to predict what future choices might result in based on past interactions.  It's not 100% fool proof.  People are always unpredictable to a certain extent, but it's built on pattern recognition and the probability of a resultant behavior based on each pattern.

lol.. not married yet huh?
Well, after the first decade or so one starts to notice changes in themselves and in who they married. The long and short of it is you are not the same person that you were when you were dating. neither of you are.
Like wise your Understanding of God matures quite a bit after a 'few' years of getting to know Him and how He works. you will look back at your initial sunday school understanding and wonder why God did not strike you down for the sheer stupidity of your understanding and efforts. To know God, to have a relationship with Him is not the one way street you are describing. It works like any other relationship you might have.. Minus the manipulation that you seem to have in your relationships.

Oh, really? You have long talks with god? What's his favorite color? Who is he rooting for in the Stanley Cup Finals? What does he think of current Medicare rules? Who does the dishes?

Relationships actually require a second party to interact with rather than one's imagination. The idea that anyone can have a deep, personal relationship with an entity that, again, has no evidence pointing to its existence is asinine at best. Real relationships require communication, action, and compromise. Tell me, has god ever compromised for you?

Regarding the manipulation crack, everyone engages in manipulation in their interpersonal relationships. It's not a bad thing in and of itself. It's evident in how we decide to do or phrase things to others in order to get the most positive reaction possible. Do I tell my girlfriend she's fat, or do I try to subtly push her in a healthy direction? Do I outright disobey my boss, or do I try to suggest a better alternative? Everyone does it every day.

Quote:

Quote:It's not at all like the faith you're describing.  It's not blind acceptance and hope.  It's a faith built on actual interactions with a separate being that actually exists.

you don't seem to understand the basics I am describing... Maybe you should go back and actually read what I have written rather than try and shot gun a general anti theistic response.

I understand just fine. I'm not the one making a piss poor analogy that falls apart with a minimum amount of scrutiny.

God is like a flying ninja gangster crocodile, because they're both mysterious.

There are no flying ninja gangster crocodiles, therefor there are no gods.

God is like a married bachelor because it's a hard concept to imagine.

There are no married bachelors, therefor there are no gods.

(June 5, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 5, 2015 at 12:18 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Oh, you mean like the Relationship we can build with God.. I don't use the word faith to describe that aspect of the relationship. The only faith needed is the faith it takes to just A/S/K. The rest as you say is built on " built upon actual experience and probability."

If you really had a relationship with god, you wouldn't be so dependent on the Bible. We read books about people we don't know.  No one can write a book about my father and tell me he told them what to write so I  should  forget everything I think I know about him from my experience with him. Who is my father? My father is the universe. Who is my mother? My mother is the Earth. I have a personal relationship with them. I can stand on the beach and see the curve of the horizon where the water meats the sky, so I don't need Christopher Columbus to tell me the planet is round.

 I cannot have a relationship with something no one has ever seen or heard, not even you. If you say you have heard god speak to you, the men in the long white coats will come and put you away in a locked room with padded walls.

How can I corner, of course with my words, Christians and make them feel they have no choice but admit to rethinking their position or part of their positions when it comes the bible or their god? I usually go fishing online at conservative news sites like Breitbart News Network. I'll click on a story or headline, look down at the comments and either look for key words that Christians use or post a stimulating comment, which they would of course feel the need to correct me or defend their so called faith. Is there any tools or creative weapons of reason and logic that I can use to stump them?

Theists play tricks on themselves. Maybe we all do.

Apologists deliberately play tricks on others. Fuck em.