Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:30 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
#31
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
@ Kyu: I never brought up the subject of my non claims. you did. I tried to say I didn't want to discuss it, but you insisted very strongly that I did.

You don't have to do anything with my beliefs. Why should you? Your point, I'm sure, was to debunk any claim I had. As I made none, then you are disappointed, understandably.

I've said many times why I'm here. I say your crap has merit. I'm happy that you think differently to me, and I value your opinion.
Reply
#32
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
If you feel as though you have come to your conclusions about Christianity on the basis of rational thought, but do not insist that everyone believe, are you saying that reason is different to different people? And if so, then how could anyone ever have a "reasonable" discussion, if no one agreed on what reason actually was.

For the idea of reason to work, I think it would need to have to have at least a similar meaning to everyone, otherwise everyone could base their claim on reason, simply for the fact that it was the way they defined reason.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#33
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
I'm confused about how you're defining 'reason'.

Reasoned conclusions can be different, hence why people hold different views. In an impossibly controlled environment with two people experiencing identical influences, all their lives, with their minds thinking the same thing, would reach that same conclusions.

I could in no way assume another persons' conclusions. The potential information influencing an individuals reasoning have to be almost infinite. Everyone concludes what they do as a result of their own unique reasoning, and for each person, those conclusions are what that individual believe to be true.
Reply
#34
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
Of course, the definition of reason must be exactly the same for you and me, or our arguments fall apart.

Perhaps think about it this way, what you insist on believing is based on both objective evidence and subjective evidence. What I insist on believing is based on objective evidence. And I know that anyone can argue that everything is subjective, but this leaves us with no answers.

Objective is that which can be observed by everyone and still be the same. Subjective the observable unique to the individual. You use both, I use objective.

How's that sound?
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#35
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
Right I think I get you now. The reasons to believe I think are probably more common than I'd like to think. So I'd say that the vast majority of reasons are common. That's not to say that anyone could parade them out and there would be an unstoppable reason to believe. although some believe that to be the case.

When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.
Reply
#36
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
(April 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Of course, are perhaps it would seem that because people agree and have the same reasons, there must be some objective truth. But the amount of people that believe in something does not affect where something is true or not. All it says is that lots of people believe in it.

If something is objective is means it is undistorted by emotion or personal bias; it is based on observable phenomena.

So if lots of people share a common reason for something, the next step is to evaluate whether there reason/s are objective or subjective. Are the reason/s undistorted by an emotional bias and based on observable phenomena? Then their reason/s are likely objective. But if there is an emotional bias and the reason/s are not based on observable phenomena, then they are subjective.

I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.

In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#37
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(April 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Of course, are perhaps it would seem that because people agree and have the same reasons, there must be some objective truth. But the amount of people that believe in something does not affect where something is true or not. All it says is that lots of people believe in it.
Absolutely. I was just answering your point on common reasoning.

(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: If something is objective is means it is undistorted by emotion or personal bias; it is based on observable phenomena.

So if lots of people share a common reason for something, the next step is to evaluate whether there reason/s are objective or subjective. Are the reason/s undistorted by an emotional bias and based on observable phenomena? Then their reason/s are likely objective. But if there is an emotional bias and the reason/s are not based on observable phenomena, then they are subjective.
Agreed

(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.
I discard this sort of evidence. I just don't find it useful. I also find it goes against belief.

(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.
Says you! I disagree. Only the foolish are swayed that much by emotion. I see it as a nice addition to the experience, nothing more. Every sensible Christian I know does the same.
Reply
#38
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
(April 7, 2009 at 8:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.
I discard this sort of evidence. I just don't find it useful. I also find it goes against belief.

What evidence? It simply comes back to how we define observable phenomena. And at this point in time, what science can know, is observable phenomena. As for what is can't know, it might still be there, there's just no reason to believe in it yet. I hope I never rule out the possibility of the existence of god, however at this point in time, I can't believe and simultaneously be honest with myself.

(April 7, 2009 at 8:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.
Says you! I disagree. Only the foolish are swayed that much by emotion. I see it as a nice addition to the experience, nothing more. Every sensible Christian I know does the same.

Ha, I guess I was getting lazy and thought I'd throw in a made-up statistic.

What I was trying to say was that the majority of Christians do not base their faith on observable phenomena. But I do recognise that there are some very intelligent Christians who are aware of why they believe, what makes is reasonable to believe in it, and are capable of explaining it and backing up their claim to any takers. They also realise that everything they say is still, at least on one level, subjective. They simply find that there is more reason to believe in god than not.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
Reply
#39
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
(April 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Consensus on things that can't be demonstrated? Colour me impressed ... oh no wait ... I'm not.

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#40
RE: God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.
(April 8, 2009 at 9:22 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(April 7, 2009 at 8:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I understand that one can argue that because a number of people have seen something, it is observable phenomena. No - observable phenomena is observable by anyone if they wish to see it. Much like if I wish to see the sky, I must go outside. And absolutely anyone who wants to see the sky, can outside for themselves.
I discard this sort of evidence. I just don't find it useful. I also find it goes against belief.

What evidence? It simply comes back to how we define observable phenomena. And at this point in time, what science can know, is observable phenomena. As for what is can't know, it might still be there, there's just no reason to believe in it yet. I hope I never rule out the possibility of the existence of god, however at this point in time, I can't believe and simultaneously be honest with myself.
Again, I was talking about your idea of a subject to reason with. Observable phenomena is all hogwash.

(April 8, 2009 at 9:22 am)athoughtfulman Wrote:
(April 7, 2009 at 8:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(April 7, 2009 at 9:11 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: In 99.99% of cases, Christians are emotionally biased and do not include observable phenomena in their reasoning. The .01%? Call them an agnostic theist.
Says you! I disagree. Only the foolish are swayed that much by emotion. I see it as a nice addition to the experience, nothing more. Every sensible Christian I know does the same.

Ha, I guess I was getting lazy and thought I'd throw in a made-up statistic.

What I was trying to say was that the majority of Christians do not base their faith on observable phenomena. But I do recognise that there are some very intelligent Christians who are aware of why they believe, what makes is reasonable to believe in it, and are capable of explaining it and backing up their claim to any takers. They also realise that everything they say is still, at least on one level, subjective. They simply find that there is more reason to believe in god than not.

They also have to realise the reason to believe involves an element of faith. Maybe I'm saying the same thing as you. Interesting though.

(April 8, 2009 at 11:43 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:
(April 6, 2009 at 3:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: When Christians converse they find they are in agreement on key findings. This is evidence of those common reasons.

Consensus on things that can't be demonstrated? Colour me impressed ... oh no wait ... I'm not.

What I was talking about was thoughtful's point that disparate reasoning was illogical. The point being it isn't disparate.

That these things can't be demonstrated is irrelevant here.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can you be a "Non religious muslim"? Woah0 31 1729 August 22, 2022 at 8:22 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Persistent Non-Symbolic Experiences Ahriman 0 530 August 18, 2021 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: Ahriman
  Questions about the European renaissance and religion to non believers Quill01 6 636 January 31, 2021 at 7:16 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The absurd need for logical proofs for God R00tKiT 225 13412 December 31, 2020 at 7:48 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Are miracles evidence of the existence of God? ido 74 3911 July 24, 2020 at 12:59 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  God as a non-creator Fake Messiah 13 1560 January 21, 2020 at 8:36 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Being can come from non-being Alex K 55 6987 January 15, 2020 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Being cannot come from Non-being Otangelo 147 13132 January 7, 2020 at 7:08 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Quantum Physics Proves God’s Existence blue grey brain 15 1829 January 2, 2019 at 11:08 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Why are you chasing the idea of the existence of a God? WinterHold 26 3219 August 7, 2018 at 2:05 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)