Why do want to place limits or constraints on how the evidence is presented to you? Intellectually it doesn't make sense to me to place limits on something like god.
Rationality versus religion
- Thread starter Skeptical
- Start date
Why do want to place limits or constraints on how the evidence is presented to you? Intellectually it doesn't make sense to me to place limits on something like god.
you keep saying there is evidence but you never state what it is.
do you think that because life and the universe exists, that means there is a god?
why didn't you say so? either way, that is your point of view.
not everyone regards that as proof, especially as it's considered an entity by relgionists.
furthermore, it's an issue of what religion thinks they are right and what version of god is right.
this is what keeps happening that people speak for the concept of god in relation to their particular take and religious views.
Because what you are claiming is evidence is NOT. It is just your belief. It can't be confirmed or demonstrated any more than the pink elephants that mental patients see in the corner of their room.
But you are right in that it make no sense to even discuss limits when you are talking about something that can't be validated.
I think that Lori has been honest about her 'evidence'. The problem is that her evidence is subjective and personal. ie. She had a religious internal experience.
Sadly, such evidence means little or nothing. It does not mean much to her, either, if she was honest about it. Such experiences can be induced with drugs, or a wide range of other factors that impact on brain function.
It certainly does not mean anything to me, or to any other of the more rational people in this forum. Rationality requires evidence that is credible. Subjective internal experiences are not credible evidence.
As I have said before, if a deity exists who is concerned about people's belief, then it would be the easiest thing in the world for that deity to supply utterly convincing evidence. So we are left with the alternatives that either
- no deity exists
- a deity might exist but actually does not give a damn about people.
Sadly, such evidence means little or nothing. It does not mean much to her, either, if she was honest about it. Such experiences can be induced with drugs, or a wide range of other factors that impact on brain function.
It certainly does not mean anything to me, or to any other of the more rational people in this forum. Rationality requires evidence that is credible. Subjective internal experiences are not credible evidence.
As I have said before, if a deity exists who is concerned about people's belief, then it would be the easiest thing in the world for that deity to supply utterly convincing evidence. So we are left with the alternatives that either
- no deity exists
- a deity might exist but actually does not give a damn about people.
so do so many others, now ask her and other theists here why they think "their" god is the true one and others are not? it's opening a whole can of worms. let's see how tolerant they really are, instead of throwing the issue with a pretense of intolerance against atheists.
ask them if they are polytheists or monotheists or if they are christian, krishna, islamists, buddhists, judaists, bahai, hinduists, sikhism, confucianists, juche, jainism, shinto, cao dai, zoroastrianism, tenrikyo, neo-paganism, unitarian/universalist, spiritism, african-traditional, rastafarianists, taoists, protestants, catholics, evangelicals or scientologists etc.
lol. the truth is they are just as prejudiced or have their own beliefs and views as anyone else just like an atheist or agnostic.
god is not a religion.
Then quit beating around the bush and tell us what god IS instead of what god ISN'T.
the evidence is the meaning you find in it, and what that does to you. the bible calls it "fruit". i lived in this universe for a long time before i knew if there was a god. we all have a unique perspective, and all of those perspectives are subject to change according to our unique experience. that doesn't mean that god is not the same.
then why are you christian? are other religions or versions of interpreting the universe wrong to you? isn't you belief that there is one monotheistic god? there are those who are polytheists or of different philosphical bents.
and some people don't believe in a god/gods.
when the only reason it can't be validated is because you place limits?
god's existence has been validated by the lives of many people and i'm one of them.
there are those of other religions or philosophies that would disagree with your views about god or what you think god is. what makes you think they are right or wrong more than you are right or wrong?
doesn't mean this is just your take on what you think god or even if it exists?
isn't christianity putting limits on god? they describe god and what rules to follow and what rituals to perform.
Nope. Not my limits. The boundries of reality.
Existence is only validated by objective verifiable proof. You don't have that, you only have what you believe, no different than the mental patient that certainly believes in the blue elephant.
All you're doing is wagging your tongue with nothing to back it up.
Lori, unless you are will to honestly address this topic and quite beating around the bush and moving the goal posts, I'm done.
See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2654074&postcount=108
See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2654074&postcount=108
i am being honest. i'm not saying i've never told a lie, and i'm not even saying i would never even though i know it's wrong, but from what i've seen god do, i'd have to be fucking retarded to ever lie about god. i'm serious. i'd be martyred.
but since we're talking about honesty, be honest with me skeptical, do you really want something like GOD up your ass 24/7? following you around with a fucking mirror saying "why'd you do that? why do you think that? that's not true. don't lie. be kind. forgive that person. be humble. and on and on...". trying and testing you and in doing so teaching you that what it's saying is correct. and changing you! and what would it change you into?
a theist? you want to be a theist?
a religious person? now i know that's gotta be on your top ten list of things you want to be. and with good reason.
good news is, that from what i know of god, i don't think god likes religion any more than you do.
bad news is, that having a real relationship with god is much harder than being religious.
i can't define god any more than i can define my father, but i can tell what i've been able to observe characteristically.
i think god is a multi-dimensional entity that permeates everything because a part of what god is, is law. i think it is intelligent and has a will. it is able to communicate with me personally and seems to not be constrained by things like time, or limited knowledge, or me, or you.
Then let's have it, give us your evidence or quit talking about it if you are unwilling to say what it is.
have you noticed the theists don't answer questions regarding the validity of other religions or philosophies?
they push just their "own" as being worthy to be taken seriously.
if they did answer, it would either betray what they really believe or it would show them to be bigots which would make their contention that atheists are intolerant pointless.
it seems that freedom of religion is not enough for fundamentalists and they think they deserve center stage.
So, god is everything.
god communicates with you personally. Is this by projecting thoughts into your mind or do you hear the words. Do you write down what it says? What has it said to you?
Why do you believe it is not constrained by time or knowledge (what's knowledge got to do with it anyway?).
If god is everything then god is me, why would I be asking you these questions if I already know?
all their experiences are subjective but they think that everyone is supposed to know and feel what they feel.
it's not enough that there are others of similar faiths that they can get confirmation from. it really is pretty fascist.
it's like one expecting everyone to understand drug or alcohol addiction if they've never experienced it. they wouldn't expect everyone to and that is why there are those who have had similar experiences and support groups.
or if one is enamored with a certain hobby, there are those who have similar tastes and appeal. that is why there exists different organizations for this purpose for people to get together and it be validated.
it's not enough that there are others of similar faiths that they can get confirmation from. it really is pretty fascist.
it's like one expecting everyone to understand drug or alcohol addiction if they've never experienced it. they wouldn't expect everyone to and that is why there are those who have had similar experiences and support groups.
or if one is enamored with a certain hobby, there are those who have similar tastes and appeal. that is why there exists different organizations for this purpose for people to get together and it be validated.