(April 7, 2009 at 8:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Hehe @ U EvF(In a nice way)
Haha - that's no probs. TBH, personally I wouldn't have it any other way - it's exactly the way I wish it to be.
It's friendly and people take the piss but I never get bothered whether they mean it or not anyway.
I'd love to be a comedian... - I just guess the only real problem I have is the fact that I'm not even remotely funny.
Quote:Ok, I thought of one... All religions postulate definitions of God/ god/ gods/ etc. All these are independent reasoning around the subject. Weighing up those definitions, you can work out which seem true to you, and which don't. Some ideas are easily discarded, some you can stack on the maybe pile, and some you can keep as solid reasoning. Now I've struggled through this process, and come to the conclusion that although the Christian Bible is entirely interpreted by humans, so potentially flawed. I find it 100% solid reasoning, so far.
TBH to me that sounds a bit like sticking your hand in a big bag of rotten cherries and trying to pick out the least rotten one when you haven't got very good eyesight and can't really tell for sure which is the least rotten one anyway.
Personal opinion and personal experience are not evidence. Many people from many different religions have different views on what is the right religion or "God(s)" to believe in. It's all very vague...
And if you did some how magically have the ability to pick out a religion that could be said to absolutely objectively "the best" overall in whatever ways that it would "help" you or whatever - consolation for instance---or courage (because you think you'll go to heaven) - then that still doesn't do any good anyway because there's still no evidence that your God - or indeed, any Gods - exist AT ALL. STILL no evidence.
So I repeat - personal opinion and personal experience are not evidence. You have no more reason for believing in your "God" than anyone else does in any other or even in the same God as you but they have a different interpretation of it - Still none of you have any real evidence at all and all the personal "reasons" in the world wouldn't do any good because everyone has a different interpretation.
Why would you value your own non-evidence reason for believing in the existence of God over anyone else's when these reasons just aren't personal evidence.
Is this more about how "God" helps you in some way - or changes your life for the "better" in your view - or is this more about the existence?
Because the thing is - if God almost certainly doesn't exist then how can you believe in God if you believe it 'helps you' in some way if you DON'T believe in God?
You obviously do - so the thing is - the belief "helping you" doesn't give the belief any supporting evidence if there's no evidence supporting the belief in the first place!
So would you indeed believe in the existence of an Evil God that had plenty of evidence - the evilness of him not shrinking the evidence at all...
And would you NOT believe in the existence of a Good God if you believed there was NO evidence (as I do) because the supposed 'goodness' of the idea of God making you emotional and 'feeling God' cannot give any evidence to God since you cannot attribute it as evidence for God if there's no evidence for God in the first place?
Or do you consider good feelings as evidence for God?
Because the thing is that would kind of be...totally circular thinking right?
The thing is if there's evidence for God then he exists whether he's evil and you feel good or not right?
And if there's not evidence for God (as there indeed, isn't) then all the good feelings in the world cannot count as evidence for his existence since there's no evidence of any God to attribute evidence to in the first place.
That and the fact that feelings aren't evidence of the existence of something anyway!
EvF
