Originally posted by howardgeeExactly!
OK, so it's been 2 weeks now, and not one believer has been able to give a single piece of evidence which would persuade them that God does not exist.
(KellyJay gave some conditions, but they required his non-existence so do not qualify as evidence)
This is no surprise to me. For a long time I have realised that religious belief is just blind faith an ...[text shortened]... guy to understand the importance of falsifiability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Anything can be moulded to "God wants it this way...", and people will give their lives, or worse, take others lives, for the concept.
Originally posted by ahosyney"don't know what I belive and how I do belive it it. This is the first sign of stupidity."
You called me stupid although you don't know me and don't know what I belive and how I do belive it it. This is the first sign of stupidity.
Saying I have a blind faith is your problem alone. I will no tell you why I belive that GOD exist, simply because the question is very stupid, and the answer is there if you really care. [b]I will ask you to show m ...[text shortened]... the word GOD from the english dictionary? The word has no meaning and it shouldn't be there.
No, the first sign of stupidity is not knowing how to spell simple words like "believe".
I know exactly what you think about God anyway. It is the same as every other dumb schmuck has been brainwashed to believe.
(EDIT - I misspelled 'believe!)
Originally posted by howardgeeIt will be really stubidity if English is my first language (like you for example).
"don't know what I belive and how I do belive it it. This is the first sign of stupidity."
No, the first sign of stupidity is not knowing how to spell simple words like "believe".
I know exactly what you think about God anyway. It is the same as every other dumb schmuck has been brainwashed to believe.
(EDIT - I misspelled 'believe!)
It is the same as every other dumb schmuck has been brainwashed to believe.
Brainwashing is a very elastic word to prove you are smart for yourself, while you are really suffering from brainwashing yourself.
There are contradictions among and across different Biblical texts. One of the errors is in treating the Bible as a book, rather than as a collection of disparate writings (which is what the word meant to begin with).
The Biblical texts prove nothing about the existence of god—any god—one way or the other. They do establish (some differing) views about how particular groups of people understood both the divine and the human predicament.
One can take the Biblical texts as evidence for (or about) God only by first assuming, with regard to those texts, a particular understanding of divine inspiration. One can argue then from the texts to a certain understanding of God—or one can argue from certain beliefs about God to the meaning and validity of the texts. One cannot reasonably do both.
As FreakyKBH (himself a Biblical Christian, and self-described literalist!) put it: “You can’t point to the vision of the castle in the air to prove that the vision isn’t a hallucination.” (Or something like that.)
Ironically, those who—as BoS put it—“flippantly dismiss” the whole thing, are dismissing nothing more than those kinds of errors. I dismiss them too.
To dismiss Biblical literalism/historicism (which appears be a relatively new phenomenon in the history of Christianity) is not the same thing as to dismiss the texts—or their value—as a whole. Sometimes I imagine that some day there will be people who claim that The Lord of the Rings is a literally true account of events sometime on Middle Earth, rather than mythology. Then other people—instead of simply arguing against the confusion of mythology, allegory, moral story, poetry, etc. with literal history—will start to clamor about the absurdity of LOTR itself!
[Note: I am not suggesting that the LOTR is an exact analogy for the Biblical texts, just one that I think makes the point.]
Now, I happen to appreciate howardgee—since the one or two times he has skewered me, he forced me to rethink myself. But it would be hilarious—were it not so tragic—to watch him and various Biblical fundamentalists thrash it out over such stuff, and think they are arguing over something other than a straw idol...
_________________________________________
Howard: There is either some kind of god, or there is no kind of god. The particular kind of god imaged in particular religious texts seems to me to be irrelevant to your arguments.
Remember, I am a non-dualist/monist, so I use the word differently than would a straight monotheist, when I’m speaking for myself; also, I think the supernatural category, as generally used with regard to theism anyway, is unnecessary. I neither read the Biblical texts literally, nor set aside my own moral sensibilities in the face of “Goddunnit.” I do not treat the Biblical texts as somehow the “inerrant word of God.” But I defend their integrity—as what they are, and are meant to be—against what I see as that “straw idol”—whether that is what someone else is promoting, or what you are attacking.
Now, I happen to think that the conventional supernatural theistic idea a being called “God” is untenable, and may be—at least in many versions—incoherent (and I’m willing to entertain counter-arguments). But—
I think I give the writers of the various biblical texts more credit than either you or the fundamentalists—I give them credit for being skilled storytellers, who thought deeply about the human condition and the possibility of some “divine” being, or simply ground of being (there is, to my mind, a strong monistic stream in the OT, which is generally embraced by Judaism), and who were literarily very skilled. Some of them, at least, seem to be less superstitious than some moderns. One cannot read their work as literature and dismiss them as unintelligent—whether you’re reading the Yahwist texts in the Torah, or the author of the Book of Job, or the author of Ecclesiastes, or the author of the Gospel of Matthew (when he is appropriately, I think, read as a skilled midrashist), just to name a few examples. One can argue with them (and I do)—one cannot dismiss them as fools. (Just as one can argue with James Joyce, but one cannot say he was unintelligent; or Schopenhauer, say.) Their philosophies are various, and they presented them in artful (literally) forms, including I think, a literary form that I call “histo-myth.”
They did not have the wherewithal for scientific inquiry. But their intelligence was no less than our own. They understood myth, and what it was about; moderns no longer seem to. To read mythology (or allegory, or even histo-myth) literally is to turn it into fantasy. To believe that fantasy is true, or to reject it as silly—are both to miss the error that turned it into fantasy to begin with...
Originally posted by howardgeei dont believe, but at one stage i wanted to. i tried hard, but in the end accepted that i do not believe in god.
This is a sincere question for everybody out there who believes that God exists.
It is a thought experiment for you, so give it a good shot and please admit it if you cannot think of anything at all, as this is all a part of the exercise.
The question for you to try to answer is this:
"What evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that God does not exist?"
to suggest an answer to your question, how about if aliens arrived and confessed that they created the whole god thing?
Originally posted by eamon oTo a rational person, yes this would seem to refute God.
i dont believe, but at one stage i wanted to. i tried hard, but in the end accepted that i do not believe in god.
to suggest an answer to your question, how about if aliens arrived and confessed that they created the whole god thing?
But of course a brainwashed God botherer would simply adapt the evidence to their theory and probably conclude that:
"God has sent these aliens as a test to see how much we truly believe in him".
Originally posted by howardgeeI think the more pertinent question would be how the aliens had managed to create an eternal uncaused cause of all creation. If they had truely done this the only thing to do would be to worship them!
To a rational person, yes this would seem to refute God.
But of course a brainwashed God botherer would simply adapt the evidence to their theory and probably conclude that:
"God has sent these aliens as a test to see how much we truly believe in him".
Originally posted by howardgeeOK, so it's been 2 weeks now, and not one believer has been able to give a single piece of evidence which would persuade them that God does not exist.HOWARDGEE
OK, so it's been 2 weeks now, and not one believer has been able to give a single piece of evidence which would persuade them that God does not exist.
(KellyJay gave some conditions, but they required his non-existence so do not qualify as evidence)
This is no surprise to me. For a long time I have realised that religious belief is just blind faith an ...[text shortened]... guy to understand the importance of falsifiability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
What a funny position. Some people did give you an answer myself included but you refused to accept it. It's as if you planned this final comment from the start and no matter what any Christian said you were going to come out with this statement anyway. Of course , none of us could say "look at this piece of evidence here , that would dissuade me" because if they could they would be Atheists. It's the absence of such evidence that makes them Christians.
When I used my imagination to give you a potential situation that would dissuade me you dismissed it. You asked for honest answers and honest answers were given , the problem was the whole thing was a dissingenuous set up designed to confirm to yourself what you already believe. In this sense your mindset is no different from the average fundie (but in reverse). You set up an impossible question and turn it around to suit your beliefs. Ironic eh? Maybe that's why you hate them so much because you project the worst aspects of your disingenuousness on to them whilst conveniently disowning it within yourself. You accuse Christians of not being open minded but this whole thing was only ever going to have one outcome in your mind. There's a word for this ..it begins with H and ends in Y. It just goes to show..we teach what we most need to learn.
I have one final question ...what kind of answers did you expect to find satisfying to you? Was there any answer one could have given that would have postponed your final triumphant tirade? I am always wary of those who use "whatsoever" far too often.
I am so glad you are not a fundie...you would be more dangerous than those you attack.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe only piece of 'evidence' you sugested was:
OK, so it's been 2 weeks now, and not one believer has been able to give a single piece of evidence which would persuade them that God does not exist.HOWARDGEE
What a funny position. Some people did give you an answer myself included but you refused to accept it. It's as if you planned this final comment from the start and no matter what any Christi ...[text shortened]... I am so glad you are not a fundie...you would be more dangerous than those you attack.
"So for example if it could be shown that the Christian experience of the Holy Spirit could be dismissed as false in a convincing way "
This is tautologous.
This is exactly like saying:
"the piece of evidence which would persuade me from believing God exists is a piece of evidence which shows God does not exist in a convincing way."
You failed to give me a specific example of this evidence, despite several promptings.
For me, the very existence of dinosaurs bones is evidence enough thet God does not exist. This is because the bible does not mention their creation and the bible is the word of an infallible God. Clearly the humans who wrote the bible knew nothing of the dinosaurs. Just like they new nothing about God's non-existence.
Hence the whold pile of tripe can be dismissed as such, along with religion.
The perpetual existence of such terrible human evil in the world is also proof to any vaguely sane person that God cannot exist.
"Do you believe, God makes you breathe?
Why did he lose, 6 million Jews?"
ELP.
Originally posted by howardgeeFor me, the very existence of dinosaurs bones is evidence enough thet God does not exist. This is because the bible does not mention their creation and the bible is the word of an infallible God. Clearly the humans who wrote the bible knew nothing of the dinosaurs. Just like they new nothing about God's non-existence. HOWARDGEE
The only piece of 'evidence' you sugested was:
"So for example if it could be shown that the Christian experience of the Holy Spirit could be dismissed as false in a convincing way "
This is tautologous.
This is exactly like saying:
"the piece of evidence which would persuade me from believing God exists is a piece of evidence which shows God does ...[text shortened]... .
"Do you believe, God makes you breathe?
Why did he lose, 6 million Jews?"
ELP.
If you have such a perception of what Christians believe as this it's not surprising that you find God ridiculous. You are still stuck with a creationist conception of Christianity without realising that it's perfectly possible to believe in evolution and still be a Christian. Your disbelief is simplistic and based on a strawman.
"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" CS LEWIS
Originally posted by knightmeisterSome Christians do believe that though.
If you have such a perception of what Christians believe as this it's not surprising that you find God ridiculous. You are still stuck with a creationist conception of Christianity without realising that it's perfectly possible to believe in evolution and still be a Christian. Your disbelief is simplistic and based on a strawman.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou think I have a funny position!
OK, so it's been 2 weeks now, and not one believer has been able to give a single piece of evidence which would persuade them that God does not exist.HOWARDGEE
What a funny position. Some people did give you an answer myself included but you refused to accept it. It's as if you planned this final comment from the start and no matter what any Christi ...[text shortened]... I am so glad you are not a fundie...you would be more dangerous than those you attack.
That's rich coming from a man who believes in the reality of God based on nothing more than feelings:
"Granted they are none of them objective proof (of God's existence) but then I don't need objective proof , only you do."
The fact is you should require objective proof. Carry on beleiving in something with no real evidence whatsoever. Just don't expect anyone to respect your position.
Originally posted by howardgeeThat's rich coming from a man who believes in the reality of God based on nothing more than feelings:HOWARDGEE
You think I have a funny position!
That's rich coming from a man who believes in the reality of God based on nothing more than feelings:
"Granted they are none of them objective proof (of God's existence) but then I don't need objective proof , only you do."
The fact is you should require objective proof. Carry on beleiving in something with no real evidence whatsoever. Just don't expect anyone to respect your position.
You put words into my mouth without proper regard for what I have said. I have never said the above and you know it. There is much more to faith than feelings. The above statement is a concoction of fallacy based on your own pre-determined position. I challenge you to find any evidence on this forum where I have made this statement. You talk about integrity and respect but in the same breath manipulate others words with the same ease as a tabloid journalist.
I do have objective proof but it is proof to me and not to others. The evidence before me is sufficient for me and thus constitutes proof for me. The evidence is real enough although for you it is unconvincing. That's fine... that's your opinion. The fact that this evidence is unconvincing to you is neither here nor there to me because the chip on your shoulder would never allow you to have anything but disdain for a theist position.