Believe:

[Kyuuketsuki]

Pip,

You say "You said:" (I say) a lot ... are you aware there is a mechanism for quoting others already? The way you do it where the quote is not separated from your answer is confusing. The quote mechanism is the third little picture box from the right ... highlight your text and click that button (I do it differently but then I'm a techy).

I feel that the tone of this conversation is getting a little less than perfect. I would like to please make clear that I very much respect your ideas and right to them. I have no problem disagreeing with you. I am enjoying this, and hope to maintain a high level of maturity.

I respect your right to believe what you wish, what I cannot do is respect ANY belief without it making sense (and I don't mean common), without it being supported by validatable evidence and without it having some degree of "fit" with what is already understood.

When exactly did a lack of maturity equate to forcefully expressed opinion?

The answer is of course, yes. I say what I mean. I believe in god, but I am not associated with ANY religion. I am fond of eastern mysticism and ancient irish culture... But mine is a search for truth, and it was pretty obvious religion is a tool of control, and I am grown-up enough to be in control of my own ideas. I hold most religions to the same light, 4 of the 6 you mentioned are from the same source...

Perhaps they are but they have had a considerable amount of time to "evolve" and they are nothing like the same religions any more. In addition these were a mere half-dozen of the thousands upon thousands of religions that humanity has invented. Why should I accept that yours is any different?

I agree that there is no 'right' way to behave, that goes with my earlier point. You and I can disagree on what is 'right' showing off our internal separate realities. But what if we try to keep wrong and right on the simplest and most provable scale. Is it 'right' to abuse children? No, I think we can all agree, if we look at the situation as objectively as possible, it is not. Ask a pedorast that, and you will get a different answer, but may we be entitled to call him 'wrong' and us 'right'? Is is ever right to destroy the environment you are an integral part of? There is an underlying 'right' and 'wrong', regardless of our concepts, just as there is a real reality out there. The pattern repeats.

In some cultures child abuse has been seen as OK even fostered (ancient Greek warriors did just that as I recall), it can never be right to me but to them? Then again the most obvious one is that there is a community of paedophiles who quite obviously have no problem with child abuse. Like it or not there are no fixed morals.

I also don't quite understand the second sentence. Many people can understand and certainly validate the horrible things that they do. I see it every day. I am sure I do it myself. And if you are under the will of another you cannot be morally correct? What if I will you too be happy and fulfilled? Is you happiness then not right?

I would say that if you are under the will of another then no you cannot be sure you are morally correct because you have to trust the morality of that other ... if, of course, you decide which of that others' morals is correct and which are not then you are in reality just deciding for yourself so why not shed that other and just decide?

This is a fantastic sentence although I don't think my beliefs are idealistic fairytale hogwash. That is almost rude.

It was intended as contemptuous, dismissive, cynical, superior and more besides. Typically such attitude are considered to be rude ... the real curiosity is why that should be so?

It does not matter what you think of my beliefs, so try to leave it out of the debate as much as possible. Discuss my arguments, or your own ideas. The burden of proof is not soley on me. Either it is on both or none of us. The term 'no one can support such ideas' is strange, because I can support my ideas. No one can conclusively prove to another my ideas, but that is different that support.

Objectively no, it doesn't matter; but the fact that you came here apparently to discuss your ideas rather implies you are being less than truthful for someone who wishes to discuss something likely cares about that something and therefore it would indeed matter to them what others say. Let me ask you this ... would it matter to you if I absolutely loved your ideas? I'm betting that as a human (just like me) it would and if it matters that people admire them it stands to reason that it will matter if they don't.

And finally, you are "entitled to reject" these ideas. Why? Am I too entitled to reject your ideas?

You're entitled to do as you wish but given that all the ideas I advance as real arguments are based on science and things that can be demonstrated and that, whilst I can obviously be wrong, to deny such ideas to the degree that fairytale believers do is quite frankly stupid ... IOW you have the right to be as stupid as you like.

By saying that belief is the problem when going over religious abuse after religious abuse, I think he is not being entirely honest. I am all for reigning in religion, not letting it have the level of control over people and policy. I just stand (seemingly alone) for people that still have a relationship with god, outside of religion. And Dawkins lumps me in with the fanatic jehovah crowd that is very much opposed to my view of a successful world.

Whilst I (and I suspect Dawkins) respect your right to believe as you wish I cannot respect the belief itself unless it is rational nor, when you bring it into the public domain, will I condone it in any fashion ... like Dawkins I just consider you a part of the problem in the exact same way as he (and I) consider astrology to be part of the problem.

Of course you think I am deluding myself. I believe in God only because of the evidence I have seen. My reality is plenty harsh and cold, if that is the judgment. That is the simple argument I was trying to skip over here. I have seen insurmountable evidence of god. Undeniable. Otherwise, I would not believe. But you have seen the same quality of evidence supporting your view, and it is how you arrived at your view. So we can't really argue there, because it is obvious that we would never see eye-to-eye.

What evidence?

Don't think I make my reality fit around god. I know you can't understand it, just as I can't understand why someone wouldn't see what is obviously god right in front of them. That's ok, we can disagree. Like i said, I went the same route as all of you, I just happened to get a different answer... The rational atheists are likely fooling themselves on one count or another. It's just that science does not have all of the answers yet, and evidence is interpretive. What did I say that you asked me to reiterate? All evidence must pass through the veil of interpretive reality. Especially with such a big question as whether or not there are gods, it is now impossible to make the evidence clear one way or another. In fact, some of the things that made me think there was no god have come full circle to be the best examples of god.

I cannot (do not) accept you went the same route as me and that science does not have all the answers is firstly to be expected, secondly simply a matter of resolution (the ability to resolve), thirdly confers nothing positive to your views and fourthly means your god is a god of the gaps.

Please don't be dismissive. I made it clear then that I wholly agree with you. I am assuming you didn't mean the double negative. Saying outright (and trying to make others adhere or agree) that there is a god IS as foolish as saying there is not. I agree. I don't know why you think I didn't understand that.

Please don't tell me how to behave.

I also already heard the twinkie planet concept. I am moved to say that the evidence is all around us, usually right in front of your nose. There is also none of the problems you theorize, as my god (would have) created science and logic and reason. In fact they are only very similar states-of-mind and schools-of-thought. Please try to understand me, I know you disagree. My god seems unreasonable to you, yes. I aknowledge that. But she is not unreasonable in reality. Outside of your opinion, my beleifs are based on reality and long, long trains of thought. Not the other way around.

Again I ask what evidence?

There are HUGE problems with the idea of a creator god because it answers the question, "How did we come to be?" with "God" and by that simple act alone you invalidate all the other answers so far given, you make research pointless ... what are atoms made of? Doesn't matter, God made them. Why did that car crash? Got dun it. Any question ever asked can be answered with "God dun it!" ... it's insanity and illogic unleashed.

ANY god is entirely unreasonable if that god cannot be explained rationally and no creator god, no miracle performing monkey god so far claimed can.

That made me laugh. It is funny to me because you are insinuating that I am a little bit of an asshole, but you do it so rudley! It makes it very funny indeed. My gods are not fairytale creatures, please think of a better term if you could. My decisions and beliefs are not in spite of the evidence as I have seen it. They are based on the evidence, it is only that we see such so differently.

I am WYSIWYG ... I say it as I see it.

Your gods are, as far as anyone can rationally tell, fairytale creatures.

If there is evidence please reveal it instead of simply claiming you have some.

Please accept my apologies if any of this seems angry. The internet is a black-hole for nuanced enunciation. Like I said, I hold most people in very high regard, and do not wish to be petty. I am trying to make it clear that I know my beliefs seem silly to you. If we were talking about your beliefs they would seem silly to me. I just like to think I would treat your opinions with a little more care.

Please do not tell me how to debate, I stand on my own unafraid and unashamed of what I am and what I say ... my opinions are mine and I will express them as I wish. If you wish to attack my beliefs please do so, better "men" than you have tried and failed.

Kyu