Theism is literally childish

[John V]

If you say so.

Wow emjay, you're learning every bad tactic in the book. It's not if I say so. The fact is that you say belief in abiogenesis is not a delusion simply form your personal credulity, rather than from evidence. But, when another person says that cause and effect and our common experience (millions of abiogenesis experiments each day, never a positive result) makes a creator more plausible, you label that as delusion.

Ultimately it's entirely your prerogative if you want to consider me deluded

You project way too much. I'm not hurt by the OP, neither do I find you deluded. Neither side is deluded. They have opposite positions on questions which are currently unanswerable and have been debated for millennia. The problem is that you guys are calling us delusonal.

for looking to the natural world first, rather than magic, for explanations.

A natural universe beginning from nothing isn't magic?

Or likewise for looking at psychology first, rather than "spirituality".

How much good is that doing you?

But if so, you'll have to take it up with science.

Science doesn't have answers for the creation of the universe or the beginning of life.

Occam's Razor.

Occam was a theist.

But whether you see me as deluded or not doesn't make any difference to what I've said; it makes me no more likely to see arguments steeped in confirmation bias as credible,

Sure it does - it's just that you choose materialist confirmation bias.

---

... die out on the next Dec. 25th.

Jesus Christ said that he would return within a generation.  And yet you still believe some 2,000 years later.  By your logic, Christianity should have died out a long time ago.

Jesus said he didn't know when he was coming back.

---

Strawman argument and equivocation. No one said that it was inanimate matter coming to life.

Unless you're starting with life, then yes, you necessarily need inanimate matter coming to life at some point.

Would you agree that just after the big bang (assuming you accept that) all matter was inanimate? Now there's life. See the point?

[Angrboda]

Jesus Christ said that he would return within a generation.  And yet you still believe some 2,000 years later.  By your logic, Christianity should have died out a long time ago.

Jesus said he didn't know when he was coming back.

Bullshit.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

[John V]

Jesus said he didn't know when he was coming back.

Bullshit.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

See? OK, John saw it all. Read Revelation.

Also note that Enoch did not die, but was taken by God. Same with Elijah. So, another explanation is that the same happened to one or more people standing there.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Science doesn't have answers for the creation of the universe or the beginning of life.

See this is an example of how religious indoctrination conditions children to be unable to tell reality from fiction. Because how can you teach a child the concept of plausibility if you are expecting them to accept that one fairy tale is true while all the others are false?

There are very plausible hypotheses about how life first developed and we have no reason to suspect that we will ever need to resort to the non-explanation of magic. What you are trying to do is convince people that just because there are gaps in our knowledge that all your fairy tale explanation is equally valid. But this ignores the concept of plausibility.

Strawman argument and equivocation. No one said that it was inanimate matter coming to life.

Unless you're starting with life, then yes, you necessarily need inanimate matter coming to life at some point.

Citation required. Also a definition of what you mean by inanimate matter vs animate matter. And define life while you're at it.

I see you ignored my example of a car being made up of inanimate matter, yet no one would argue that a car can't be animated. What you are doing is performing a fallacy of composition. It is energy that animates the car. The only difference between inanimate and animated matter is whether there is a flow of energy through it that can perform work. I could have instead used the example of an ice crystal growing, or snow recrystalising over time while the temperature (energy) changes but stays below freezing.

Returning to the concept of plausibility, we can see examples of how matter is animated by energy with crystalisation. We can make use of the flow of free energy it by creating engines. Therefore it is plausible to think of life as working in a similar way but on a much smaller level. Cells are essentially molecular engines. This is why we eat. To provide the energy. If we don't get that energy then we die and our life ceases. We know the exact mechanisms of how energy powers cells to perform work. We know how energy continually animates matter into complex patterns of order and also why. Abiogenesis as a form of self organisation is plausible.

What is not plausible is that some non-corporeal intelligence made up of only energy and not matter is able to continually scan your brain, understand how it functions and know when you are praying and when you are not, and then interact with the world to answer those prayers. Not only that but do it for everyone else in the world at the same time.

For this to even start becoming plausible, you would have to show that telepathy exists, that energy can persist as a complex ordered pattern without the use of matter and that there is some physical mechanism that could allow a brain to be scanned and the information transmitted back to a non-corporeal being.

Would you agree that just after the big bang (assuming you accept that) all matter was inanimate? Now there's life. See the point?

No. At the point of the Big Bang there was only energy. Matter came afterwards. Nor would I ever say that there was ever a point in the universe's history where all matter was inanimate. Although that's not to say that we won't reach that point at the heat death of the universe.

[emjay]

If you say so.

Wow emjay, you're learning every bad tactic in the book. It's not if I say so. The fact is that you say belief in abiogenesis is not a delusion simply form your personal credulity, rather than from evidence. But, when another person says that cause and effect and our common experience (millions of abiogenesis experiments each day, never a positive result) makes a creator more plausible, you label that as delusion.

I didn't label that as delusion, or if I did, I didn't mean to.

Ultimately it's entirely your prerogative if you want to consider me deluded

You project way too much. I'm not hurt by the OP, neither do I find you deluded. Neither side is deluded. They have opposite positions on questions which are currently unanswerable and have been debated for millennia. The problem is that you guys are calling us delusonal.

I'm glad you're not hurt by it... this is already one of those threads I wish I hadn't partaken in for all the division it's creating. My point about delusion was not that belief in God itself was delusional, but that to the extent that I see (any) belief as emotionally/irrationally driven I find it less credible. But I daresay you're the same; at the extreme, that guy who comes in every now and then claiming to be a direct descendant of God/Jesus; I daresay you find him about as credible as I do. Or MK relentlessly claiming that all atheists are secretly believers who have just turned their backs on God. Similarly, I would not expect you, or anyone, to take me seriously about the health risks of smoking compared to say a doctor, especially if I was climbing the wall fiending for a fag at the time. At the extreme end it's just practicality that says it's pointless to argue; whatever you say is ignored or misrepresented so there is no point in wasting time on it.

for looking to the natural world first, rather than magic, for explanations.

A natural universe beginning from nothing isn't magic?

I don't know what came before the big bang, and it may be impossible to know. But I'm comfortable with that.

Or likewise for looking at psychology first, rather than "spirituality".

How much good is that doing you?

Put it this way, I'm perfectly happy to engage in Buddhist meditation... which some might call 'spiritual', but it will never be anything other than a psychological phenomenon to me, rather than a spiritual one. Or likewise, horoscopes, though interesting in their effect, will never be anything other than bias to me. I have been interested in psychology and the brain my entire adult life, so I could not reverse those assessments and start labelling them spiritual even if I wanted to.

But if so, you'll have to take it up with science.

Science doesn't have answers for the creation of the universe or the beginning of life.

Maybe not, but at least it's trying to find them and looking to this universe, rather than speculating about the unknown and unknowable, to do so.

Occam's Razor.

Occam was a theist.

Fair enough, but it remains the case that magic is not the simplest explanation for... anything. Taken to it's extreme, someone who believed that, would never have to rely on physical evidence for anything. If I find my computer mouse missing, what is the likeliest explanation? That someone in my family borrowed it, or that I misplaced it... or that God took it? But if my computer mouse disappeared before my very eyes, what then is the most likely explanation? I don't know what it would be for you, but for me, psychology, rather than magic would be the first port of call... maybe I'm hallucinating, maybe I'm tired etc; I would try to exhaust the real world possibilities before looking to magic... if I did at all; accepting that I don't know the answer, but that it likely has a physical explanation, even if I can't find it, is still more reasonable to me than assuming magic.

But whether you see me as deluded or not doesn't make any difference to what I've said; it makes me no more likely to see arguments steeped in confirmation bias as credible,

Sure it does - it's just that you choose materialist confirmation bias.

What I'm saying is whether you see me as biased... and clearly you do... any even if you're right... doesn't make any practical difference to how I perceive others; I'm still no more likely see what I personally consider irrational/emotionally driven belief as credible. Basically, if you don't find me credible, then don't listen to me... that's your prerogative... but it is likewise my prerogative dismiss what I do not find credible.

[I_am_not_mafia]

But, when another person says that cause and effect and our common experience (millions of abiogenesis experiments each day, never a positive result) makes a creator more plausible, you label that as delusion.

What makes you say that millions of abiogenesis experiments are performed a day?

Again this is a typical theist tactic of just stating something that they wish to be true without any evidence to back it up.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jesus said he didn't know when he was coming back.

Bullshit.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Jor, I'd stick to philosophy if I were you. Every passage of Holy Scripture must be considered in light of the whole testimony of the Bible. Please don't make the same mistake as many Christians do by pulling one verse from its context to make a point. Even this one verse that you quoted, is steeped in allusion to prior texts and foreshadows those to follow.

Anyways, those calling theistic beliefs 'delusions' are clinging to a very weak connotation for no other purpose than to insult. I think I have one beer still in the fridge. I could be wrong. I have no evidence that there is. If there isn't a beer in the fridge that doesn't mean I am delusional. It would just mean that I am mistaken. On the other hand, if I check the fridge find no beer and yet insist that there is beer that might count as delusion...until I dig deeper and find one in the back of the crisper.

Now people believe in God for many reasons from personal experience to careful study of Scripture, from observation of Nature to reflection on life's significance. They may be wrong but they are not holding those beliefs in strong evidence to the contrary which would qualify as delusion. It used to be that denigrating sincerely held religious convictions was considered a form of bigotry.

[emjay]

But, when another person says that cause and effect and our common experience (millions of abiogenesis experiments each day, never a positive result) makes a creator more plausible, you label that as delusion.

What makes you say that millions of abiogenesis experiments are performed a day?

Again this is a typical theist tactic of just stating something that they wish to be true without any evidence to back it up.

Yeah, I wondered what that was about but at the same time, tbh I'm not hugely interested; the idea still remains perfectly plausible to me in principle based on the nature of chemistry and physics, so if that's referring to human experiments, no amount of them can compare to the billions of years worth of 'trials' nature itself had the chance to perform.

[Catholic_Lady]

Bullshit.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Jor, I'd stick to philosophy if I were you. Every passage of Holy Scripture must be considered in light of the whole testimony of the Bible. Please don't make the same mistake as many Christians do by pulling one verse from its context to make a point. Even this one verse that you quoted, is steeped in allusion to prior texts and foreshadows those to follow.

Anyways, those calling theistic beliefs 'delusions' are clinging to a very weak connotation for no other purpose than to insult. I think I have one beer still in the fridge. I could be wrong. I have no evidence that there is. If there isn't a beer in the fridge that doesn't mean I am delusional. It would just mean that I am mistaken. On the other hand, if I check the fridge find no beer and yet insist that there is beer that might count as delusion...until I dig deeper and find one in the back of the crisper.

Now people believe in God for many reasons from personal experience to careful study of Scripture, from observation of Nature to reflection on life's significance. They may be wrong but they are not holding those beliefs in strong evidence to the contrary which would qualify as delusion. It used to be that denigrating sincerely held religious convictions was considered a form of bigotry.

I love this post! I've tried explaining this before but couldn't quite put it into words like this.

[Angrboda]

Bullshit.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

See? OK, John saw it all. Read Revelation.

Also note that Enoch did not die, but was taken by God. Same with Elijah. So, another explanation is that the same happened to one or more people standing there.

Did he "then repay every man according to his deeds?" No, he did not. So those are speaking to different events. You don't get to just ignore context. All you're doing is proving my point that true believers will come to any rationalization to avoid having to accept any disappointment over a failed prediction or expectation. Just as with Jesus, so with Father Christmas. So, no, you were wrong. December 25th would come and go, and all that would change are the rationalizations.