Good one.
Yes a typical, closed minded, arrogant, hypocritical, athiest. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Opinion and Several Questions from a Non-Believer
- Thread starter IchBin
- Start date
Good one.
Yes a typical, closed minded, arrogant, hypocritical, athiest. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Yes, just like this. I think that an atheist's point of view is an unbiased and objective one. An atheist is led by reason, not by stories. And what you were saying just doesn't make any sense to me. It's unconvincing and logically incomplete. It has holes and paradoxes.
If you could prove that God, as portrayed by religion, does exist, in a logically complete way, with no possibility for paradoxes and holes in your proof, I would throw away my current beliefs, because if that's the case they would be wrong and I would start going to church every Sunday, saying grace, etc. So far, all explanations religious people gave me do not make sense to me. I can always find a paradox and a lot of ambiguity in what they're saying. My question is - are the teachings of religion correct - all I get in response are quotes from the bible and ambiguous, pseudo-logical nonsense. I really am looking for at least a single thread of logic I could follow in their explanations, but I can't find one no matter how hard I try.
ichbin,
i think the paradox is that no one can prove god's existence to you but god. so if you're looking to another person to prove it, you're looking in the wrong place. if you associate a knowledge of god's existence with things like going to church and saying grace, then i can understand why you're not looking (in the right place).
The only way to have the existence of an unproven thing proven is to have that unproven thing prove itself? And you don't see that as a paradox?
Last edited:
i just said it was a paradox. but the thing is, if we're talking about god here, do you really think that should be a problem? god did it for me. i demanded it, he proved it, and there is not a doubt in my mind. i wouldn't want it any other way. i couldn't believe in something like god based on hearsay. that presumption is too impactive.
this kind of knowledge isn't based on the intellectual endeavor, but the experience.
Yes.
There are doubts in mine. See- you CLAIM that some non-falsifiable thing proved himself to you.
A much more likely explanation is that you cherry picked whatever 'evidence' you wanted to support your preconceived belief.
No, it is based on delusion.
Your argument begs the assumption that my life lacks the experiences that your life has had in which "God proved himself" to you.
Yet, you are unable, in any way, to "prove" (Or demonstrate within reason to support an extraordinary claim) to me or anyone else that what you are claiming has any merit whatsoever- and you base your result on that very principle as if it proves it.
That, too, is a paradox.
Every single thing you have just responded to me with, I can substitute, "Puff the Magic Dragon" for each instance in which you used the word, "God" and nothing about your arguments will change.
It is in that that the fallacy is clear- ANY Unproven or non-falsifiable absurdity can readily be accepted as proving itself to the believer, no matter how far fetched it is.
Although in your hands (As you are a nice person) that kind of self justification may Seem Harmless-- But in the hands of people that our society considers abnormal (Rapists, serial killers and the criminally insane. Terrorists, extremists and vindictive believers), it clearly can be a very destructive and dangerous trait.
actually its pseudo-logical to deem empiricism as having a monopoly on all knowable claims ... and that is the precise aspect of your closed-mindedness, inability to question et al
:shrug:
Last edited:
the basis of your argument is that god doesn't exist. when i demanded, i had no preconceived notion, but i'll tell you this...i figured that if god would not respond to my demand, that he wasn't one worth knowing. god did respond, and is worth knowing.
would you ever demand such a thing, having already made up your mind? no. i had not made up my mind; i could not without proof. that proof was provided to me by god himself.
if you don't want to know, then don't ask. but don't go around asking the wrong being (other human beings), and pretending like you want to know. what you're doing is actually a paradox.
Exactly how is that statement accurate?
Closed mindedness is also the inability to accept error- which is a requirement for faith.
Faith requires one not ask questions.
Faith requires nothing be examined.
And yet, you have the audacity to call critical thinking, examination and observation closed minded?
The rejection of fallacy and absurdity is closed-minded?
The problem with your "Unknowable" is that you actually invent and state as fact facets and traits about unknowable things as if you know them. How can you know them if it's admittedly unknowable? You speak of pseudo-logic?
Apparently you demonstrate your own.
bullshit. faith is trust, pure and simple. do you not trust anyone? and if so, what is your trust based upon? knowledge perhaps? experience?
actually I said empiricism
your closed mindedness is to think that critical thinking etc has no higher/other avenues other than empiricism
the problem is that you label it as "unknowable" when its simply a case that your favored method of approach is constitutionally unable to approach it
:shrug:
Kind of like accurate temperature recording is unknowable for as long as one relies solely on tape measures
that's simply your closed mindedness speaking
Sure, I can trust that which is falsifiable.
I just have difficulty in trusting Leprechauns and various other feats of the imagination that do not exist.
How did he respond?
Can you show us this evidence he used to "Prove" himself so we can examine it?
Or provided by yourself.
I'm asking that which is in existence to demonstrate the existence of a claim they believe in. That is perfectly rational and logical to do- and you contradict yourself by claiming it isn't- Because a moment ago you said you would not accept God without proof, but then claimed he proved himself to you.
SO which is it?
There is a mountain of evidence that our evolution is a product of trial and error and not creation.
There is Zero evidence that there is a creator or God- and you can claim he magically proved himself to YOU, but unless you can provide that evidence for others to examine, then you cannot deny the high probability that it was you that convinced yourself of a belief that you wanted to have.
in lots of ways, that were extremely meaningful for me.
no, you have to get your own. that's the whole point.
no. it's not provided by me. that's the whole point.
no it's not rational and logical. i can testify to you all day long that my mom exists. i can tell you how to get to her. i can tell you what she looks like. i can tell you what she thinks and how she behaves. i can show you her driver's license or other documents with her name on them. but until you meet and experience my mother, you will never know for sure.
THAT is rational and logical.
no, not magically. nothing is magic; just stuff you don't understand yet. and no i did not want to have that belief. when i asked, the thought of having to become a different person was not appealing to me at all, particularly if that person was a religious person, for obvious reasons, and i still feel the same way today about it.
edit to clarify: i have changed a lot, and it was very hard, but i'm very grateful none the less. i have not however, changed into the religious person that i have a negative association with.
Stated like a true believer.Neverfly said:
Note how, in order to "not believe" in God, you have to believe something.
And again- I spent 5 years in the ministry myself. You don't know what I have experienced in my life.
You only admitted that you cannot provide any evidence that can be examined. You cannot provide evidence that it was not you, practicing self confirmation, that "proved God" to yourself.
But all of that Independently Verifiable Evidence bears weight and merit. Given that evidence, without meeting her, I can accept it as Likely that she does exist.
You admit that you can provide- NOTHING -on behalf of God. Zero. Nada. Your excuse is that I must find that all by myself.
Funny, cuz that's always been the demonstrated case with God, demons, angels, elves and whathaveyou as well...
Hogwash.
If you didn't WANT the belief- you wouldn't have it. That's the whole nature of faith and belief.
Perhaps you have changed in some ways that could be self improvement. However, you demonstrate the same rationale as those same religious people you now condemn. You display the same contradictions, denials and circular arguments.
If improving on yourself is your primary goal, is it not more logical to question yourself instead of justifying yourself? To provide answers instead of excuses? To examine glaring contradictions in your statements?
I pointed out earlier that you seem to be a nice person. In my own dealings with you on this forum, that is what I've witnessed and I appreciate it. Others may disagree... Is that one of the changes you refer to? I don't know...
But I've had to go through a LOT of changes on my own, too.
And "losing my belief in God" was one of the more painful experiences.
I, too, am grateful for that change.
How so?
That;s a typical tactic of believers. To claim that a LACK of belief is a belief.
To Quote: "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
But we are not talking about hair colour.
We are talking about your belief that there is no evidence (which is more often than not the case with atheist fanatics, a consequence of the belief that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims)
:shrug:
It is not a belief that there is no evidence. There simply isn't any and even believers admit there isn't any when it suits them.
They claim- As you were doing in the Hawking thread - that God is outside or beyond evidence and testing.
So it really doesn't matter - You will claim that there is no evidence when it suits you and claim that I BELIEVE that there isn't any whether there is or isn't when it suits you.
THAT is the kind of circular, contradictory and self delusion I pointed out above.
It's called cherry picking and all you are doing is trying to cast doubt on the other persons points instead of supporting your own.
and that's simply your belief
:shrug:
you seem to repeatedly fail to acknowledge that designating "empiricism" as non-different from "evidence" is also a belief
:shrug: