|
the case against the case against god
|
 (December 8, 2014 at 2:45 am)robvalue Wrote: I share the same sentiment. Sadly, in the case of gods, it takes one to know one.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
 RE: the case against the case against god
December 8, 2014 at 3:11 am
(This post was last modified: December 8, 2014 at 3:12 am by robvalue.)
Indeed. No one who has a shred of honesty knows what he actually looks like, for example. If he turned up in front of you, you could not distinguish him from an imposter.
That's a stumbling block before you even get into the difficult stuff. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum  (December 6, 2014 at 1:29 pm)whateverist Wrote: Someone call for a devil's advocate? Internally, I think it is possible for a few well adjusted individuals to hold their religion and science on equal footing. Separate but equal footing. We've seen a couple here. Michael comes to mind. The trick is to be scrupulously clear with yourself which questions fall into which sphere.I was thinking of something a bit different. The way that we can investigate things in the physical world differ from the way we can investigate so-called spiritual phenomena. If a group of people hear a rapping noise against a window, they can investigate and discover the source and confirm it to one another. If they decide to make up an explanation instead, you'll get a whole range of possibilities. And if they are limited to "spiritual" explanations, none of them can be investigated or confirmed. A wind-blown branch can be confirmed as a culprit. Your dead grandfather's ghost, or the demon Yog'Sothoth, will probably require chemical assistance.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould RE: the case against the case against god
December 8, 2014 at 3:31 pm
(This post was last modified: December 8, 2014 at 3:32 pm by robvalue.)
When people define spiritual, it's usually a long list of what it is NOT. Never what it is.
And certainly not distinguishable from imagination, assigning agency and emotions. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum  RE: the case against the case against god
December 8, 2014 at 4:01 pm
(This post was last modified: December 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm by Mystic.)
(December 7, 2014 at 11:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(December 7, 2014 at 1:53 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Even if there isn't a consensus on how to approach spirituality, it doesn't follow there is no way to know something via spiritual experience. A coherent definition for the term doesn't need to be used, because we know what is meant by it's use over time like how we learned most words (not through a dictionary). Some things like love are experienced and are better known through experience, and can't really be put in precise words. You're always assuming that God doesn't exist when you ask these questions how we would know. If God doesn't exist, there obviously would be no way to know as it would be a falsehood. In the case of God existing however, it seems odd, to say, it's impossible that he gives us knowledge of himself or makes us able to witness the spirit existing. If a spirit exists, why wouldn't it be possible for us to know we are beyond material and aren't just a product of chemical reactions inside the mind? That would be a reality of who we are, why wouldn't be able to recognize that reality of who we are?  
The Bible warns repeatedly about idols, false prophets, and false messiahs. What it doesn't explain is how to tell the true ones from the false ones. Apparently the false ones can do magic too. It seems to me that you can't trust anyone about god--at least not anyone who says there is one.
JuliaL is right, the only way to identify one for sure is to be one.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
 (December 8, 2014 at 4:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: A coherent definition for the term doesn't need to be used, because we know what is meant by it's use over time like how we learned most words (not through a dictionary). Some things like love are experienced and are better known through experience, and can't really be put in precise words. Not true. When in comes to existential claims, to have a meaningful conversation, we need to be discussing the same thing. Without your definition, there can be no meaningful discussion. I have heard as many definitions for the word 'spiritual' as the number of people I have asked. Quote:You're always assuming that God doesn't exist when you ask these questions how we would know. If God doesn't exist, there obviously would be no way to know as it would be a falsehood. In the case of God existing however, it seems odd, to say, it's impossible that he gives us knowledge of himself or makes us able to witness the spirit existing. No. I am not starting from the assumption that a god does not exist. I am simply stating that the claim that one does exist has never met its burden of proof. I am simply unconvinced by any argument that has been made, since they are all fallacious. I am not claiming that a god does not exist. I am stating that there is no logical or evidential reason to believe one does exist. I'm not saying that is is impossible for a god (if one exists) to give us knowledge. All I am saying is that for every case I have ever heard of where someone makes this claim, there are better, purely natural explanations. Quote:If a spirit exists, why wouldn't it be possible for us to know we are beyond material and aren't just a product of chemical reactions inside the mind? This 'spirit' needs a definition. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. 
one big issue god cannot exist without a creator himself nothing can or could exist forever in the context the judo christian god could.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe> RE: the case against the case against god
December 9, 2014 at 9:26 pm
(This post was last modified: December 9, 2014 at 9:27 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(December 8, 2014 at 4:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The Bible warns repeatedly about idols, false prophets, and false messiahs. What it doesn't explain is how to tell the true ones from the false ones. Apparently the false ones can do magic too. It seems to me that you can't trust anyone about god--at least not anyone who says there is one. Or, you could buy my handy-dandy Who's Who of Deities, updated biannually with the latest info on the long-entrenched rulers, the most popular deities, and the up-and-comers of the next few centuries. $19.95 plus tax. Void where prohibited. Not all gods listed are gods. Status projections based on Pew Research statistics and the publisher takes no liability for misplaced Vegas bets. Convert at your own risk. Crucifixion not required. May cause arrhythmia, snakebite, and hairy palms. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
