fairy tales and lies

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[robvalue]

I would say that if I have to have anyone else tell me what the bible really means, God has failed to communicate with me effectively.

Just wanted to say that this post hasn't received enough love.

Thanks very much! Maybe a new line of t-shirts...

Wyrd: I don't get it, are you saying some atheists still believe in a real God character?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[robvalue]

Sure...

Yes, most of the world's population are theists. But atheists, by definition, don't believe in it. Unless you're saying some professed atheists aren't actually atheists. I'm sure that's true, just as some professed theists aren't actually theists.

I wouldn't say most professed atheists are theists, that seems a bit of a stretch.

[drfuzzy]

Sure...

Yes, most of the world's population are theists. But atheists, by definition, don't believe in it. Unless you're saying some professed atheists aren't actually atheists. I'm sure that's true, just as some professed theists aren't actually theists.

I wouldn't say most professed atheists are theists, that seems a bit of a stretch.

Yes.  It does seem like a stretch.  Particularly since the vast majority of us "deconverted" slowly, as the tales started to seem ridiculous and absurd and offensive and . . . completely illogical.  I would say that most professed atheists are . . . atheists, who are surrounded by a theistic world, and who were raised within religion, therefore some of the thought processes are still affected.  But that does not equate with belief.

[robvalue]

I can understand the mindset of someone who just can't help but feel there's some super force in control of things. I don't have a problem with that. I just personally don't feel that need to assume it until it's been demonstrated.

What I find ridiculous is people claiming to have intimate knowledge about it while presenting absolutely no evidence. That's what is really stupid.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I can understand the mindset of someone who just can't help but feel there's some super force in control of things. I don't have a problem with that. I just personally don't feel that need to assume it until it's been demonstrated.

What I find ridiculous is people claiming to have intimate knowledge about it while presenting absolutely no evidence. That's what is really stupid.

Are you saying that it's really stupid to claim that gods don't exist because the person has no acceptable evidence that they don't?

[robvalue]

No, I'm saying it's stupid to say you know loads of things about God while not giving any evidence as to how you could possibly know any of it (or even that it exists at all).

[Lek]

No, I'm saying it's stupid to say you know loads of things about God while not giving any evidence as to how you could possibly know any of it (or even that it exists at all).

It comes down to what we consider to be evidence Rob. I see the existence of life as evidence to support my belief in God. I see his intervention in my life as evidence for his existence. I see the testimonies of others as to how he has worked in their lives as evidence. You have your criteria as to what it would take to make you believe, and these things don't meet that criteria. Okay. I agree that these things are not evidence according to how you define evidence, but you can't go inside others and experience what they experience. It is also true that if you are unwilling to step outside the boundaries of natural sciences, then you won't experience God because God is outside the boundaries of natural science, and that's your prerogative to do so.

[Vincent]

It comes down to what we consider to be evidence Rob.  I see the existence of life as evidence to support my belief in God.  I see his intervention in my life as evidence for his existence.  I see the testimonies of others as to how he has worked in their lives as evidence.  

Have you ever considered the Placebo Effect?

 It is also true that if you are unwilling to step outside the boundaries of natural sciences, then you won't experience God because God is outside the boundaries of natural science, and that's your prerogative to do so.

The natural sciences are the way we understand our world and our universe. The stuff "beyond" it (the supernatural) either a) does not exist or b) exists but cannot interact or have an effect on the natural world, thus making it useless and inconsequential to believe in. Why is the second statement so? Because if something exists beyond the natural world (supernatural) and it intervenes in the natural world, then that intervention becomes natural, and subject to natural laws. It becomes testable and measurable by science, because science is the tool used to study the natural world. However, because there is no evidence for such interventions, and because most of it can be explained by an individual's brain simply believing it to be true, it's doubtful that god exists and is doing things for you himself. Once again, refer to the Placebo Effect or the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.