The gig is up.

[arfa brane]

The OP asks you WHY you believe without proof.

I'd like to ask you why you believe that theists believe without proof.

I'd also like to know why you believe that the existence of God can be proven true or false, using logic.

You may not be aware of it, but everything you've posted demonstrates that you aren't looking for answers, because you believe you already know all the answers.

If you also think that this isn't really obvious, that you somehow have cleverly concealed your own solipsistic attitude you might not be as clever as you think you are. Your apparent belief in logic as the sole arbiter of truth isn't very clever, for starters.

 

[wynn]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the piece you responded to, but it sounds more of a social, psycological, issue, than an actual theistic one.

Theistic discourse does not happen in a vacuum, but is embedded in social, psychological and possibly other issues, which affect the theistic discourse.
Even if it takes place on a highly academic level.

One having to justify their belief to some group of people claiming to be the standard of what it is to be human, sounds like a communist type of approach to society. In this, you are deemed deleuded if you cannot produce God to the board of directors. Once you are deemed as such your value as a human being diminishes. Dangerous stuff.

And yet it is fairly common, theistic communities being anything but exempt from that.

Why shoild you expect testimonies to be the same?

''A theist'' is ''A person''.
Every single person is different.
To judge ''theism'' on the testimony of ''some'' people, is NOT what ''theism'' is about.

To a person who is not a theist and/or who is not a member of a theistic society, things look strikingly different, though.
They have an acute sense of being an outsider, of not belonging, and those who are members therefore appear the same in some crucial way.
Members tend to enforce this impression - "We are in, and you are out."
Doctrine often enough enforces this too - "Nobody gets to God except through this religious/spiritual organization."
An outsider cannot meaningfully distinguish between the grades of devotees and such.
This is how to an outsider, being hurt by one member is like being hurt by all/any members; if one member claims something, it is like they all do.
And when members appear to disagree or differ, this creates insurmountable-seeming confusion for the outsider.

I think one has to somehow come to a rather advanced level in order to become individualistic and to see members of a group as individuals, but such individualism does not seem to be the default for most people.

If that is so, then many atheists are irrational, which flies in the face of
their claim to righteosness.

Atheists have to save face too.

 

[Lori_7]

The OP asks you WHY you believe without proof. This is definitely a WHY that can be answered.

i already answered you...twice. i told you that i have proof that you can't appreciate, because you didn't experience it, so you don't recognize it.

now, if you will, answer my question...address my point. please.

 

[wynn]

I repeat: If a satisfactory exchange includes me allowing people to pedal their beliefs as facts to support the argument they use to take issue with my statements then no, I am not ready for that.

Nobody said that this is what a "satisfactory exchange" is about.

What I mean by "satisfactory exchange" is that there would be less anxiety, less ill will, less resorting to name-calling, more insight, more harmony, more goodwill.

 

[universaldistress]

I'd like to ask you why you believe that theists believe without proof.

This thread shows it. Offer some proof then dumbass. Do you really think that if theists had some proof they wouldn't share it? LOL.

I'd also like to know why you believe that the existence of God can be proven true or false, using logic.

A subject has to be proven before it can transition from possibility/belief in god, to a fact. I am open to the possiblity that god exists. Evidence is needed for logic/science to prove god's existence.

You may not be aware of it, but everything you've posted demonstrates that you aren't looking for answers, because you believe you already know all the answers.

How so? I am looking for verifiable answers. I do not know whether Christ is debating in this forum or not. I just ask for him to show his proof. LOL.

If answers to the OP are forthcoming then I have and will analyse them. Truth is you are just frustrated that you have nothing but word games and BS to skirt the issue of, proof for belief.

If you also think that this isn't really obvious, that you somehow have cleverly concealed your own solipsistic attitude you might not be as clever as you think you are. Your apparent belief in logic as the sole arbiter of truth isn't very clever, for starters.

How is exercising the tried and tested methods of verification the scientific community peppering this earth have proven to be valid above all else solipsistic? It is indeed an extroverted view, and nothing like a solipsistic POV.

Believing in a god because "I want tooooooo!" is the only solipsistic POV around here.

I can sense your frustration creeping in. Oh, and thanks for saying I am clever. I thought I was just outlining the fundamental elements/requirements of sane thought processes.

 

[universaldistress]

i already answered you...twice. i told you that i have proof that you can't appreciate, because you didn't experience it, so you don't recognize it.

now, if you will, answer my question...address my point. please.

I just did.

Your solipsistic proof is BS because you do not present it. Why not present your proof?

 

[universaldistress]

Nobody said that this is what a "satisfactory exchange" is about.

What I mean by "satisfactory exchange" is that there would be less anxiety, less ill will, less resorting to name-calling, more insight, more harmony, more goodwill.

Whatever. You want me to change and accept someone's belief as fact, just so they can feel better? Are you nuts?

 

[wynn]

Whatever. You want me to change and accept someone's belief as fact, just so they can feel better? Are you nuts?

You are playing the victim here, and you are being rude.

Several members have calmly replied to your posts, while you continue to hurl insults.

I can understand if you feel upset over this or that.

But you need to improve your attitude, or we will have no choice but to take action against you, such as by reporting you.

I suggest you learn to make I-messages.

 

[universaldistress]

You are playing the victim here, and you are being rude.

Several members have calmly replied to your posts, while you continue to hurl insults.

I can understand if you feel upset over this or that.

But you need to improve your attitude, or we will have no choice but to take action against you, such as by reporting you.

I suggest you learn to make I-messages.

LOL. Whatever. Got nothing left hey! There is substance in my posts and zero substance in you lot's. So I have a right to be slightly frustrated with the idiocy of theists.

 

[Lori_7]

I just did.

Your solipsistic proof is BS because you do not present it. Why not present your proof?

you're lookin' at it. you're talking to it. you just don't recognize it, because you did not live through it.

now if you would, address the question as to whether or not you understand the difference between how and why, and how it relates to your pursuit, or the lack thereof.

it's like you're looking for the sun underground. you can see the tree roots, and you may be able to feel it's warmth, but you don't know it's there, because you're not looking in the right place, and you're like, "damnit, if i can't find the sun underground, then it doesn't exist".

i want you to address what i said about how and why. i want you to acknowledge that i have a damn good point. can you do that please? and if not, then why not?

 

[universaldistress]

you're lookin' at it. You're talking to it. You just don't recognize it, because you did not live through it.

Now if you would, address the question as to whether or not you understand the difference between how and why, and how it relates to your pursuit, or the lack thereof.

It's like you're looking for the sun underground. You can see the tree roots, and you may be able to feel it's warmth, but you don't know it's there, because you're not looking in the right place, and you're like, "damnit, if i can't find the sun underground, then it doesn't exist".

I want you to address what i said about how and why. I want you to acknowledge that i have a damn good point. Can you do that please? And if not, then why not?

lol

 

[universaldistress]

I will take another look. Is it legible?

 

[universaldistress]

do you know that how and why are two different questions? how is "by what manner or way, or by what means", and why is "what is the cause, reason, or purpose". science answers "how" but it doesn't answer "why", and it never will. it's not supposed to.

Ha Ha. Science doesn't prove why/how a human evolved?

If you are trying to use this as a context to frame a need for intelligent design then you have already made the assumption that there is an intelligence behind the universe.

people use science in the same way they use anything, for bad or for good depending upon the intentions of those using it. it does not however, determine what is bad or good or why. it doesn't assign meaning to anything, so theoretically at least, you're dooming yourself to a meaningless existence, regardless of what you know. though i find it hard to believe you really do that.

BS. Science is all about why. Why does a dog need sharp teeth? To rip meat. This is proven by looking at other carnivores and observing the trend. This is science.

Why does the sun rise? because the earth spins it in and out of view.
Why is hydrogen so volatile?
Why do cat eyes glow in the dark?
Why do the oceans rise and fall periodically?

The reason I didn't address this point is beacuse it is BS.

 

[Lori_7]

Ha Ha. Science doesn't prove why/how a human evolved?

If you are trying to use this as a context to frame a need for intelligent design then you have already made the assumption that there is an intelligence behind the universe.




BS. Science is all about why. Why does a dog need sharp teeth? To rip meat. This is proven by looking at other carnivores and observing the trend. This is science.

Why does the sun rise? because the earth spins it in and out of view.
Why is hydrogen so volatile?
Why do cat eyes glow in the dark?
Why do the oceans rise and fall periodically?

The reason I didn't address this point is beacuse it is BS.

so you're in a public forum, in writing, in front of everyone, dictionaries in hand, asserting that there's no difference between the questions why? and how?

i gave you the flippin definitions, straight outta websters.

FAIL.

 

[universaldistress]

so you're in a public forum, in writing, in front of everyone, dictionaries in hand, asserting that there's no difference between the questions why? and how?

i gave you the flippin definitions, straight outta websters.

FAIL.

I didn't assert that they are the same. You said science doesn't deal with WHY. I said it does. The ball is in your court.

 

[arfa brane]

How silly.

In physics, how and why amount to the same thing.
Philosophy (and language) see a difference between how and why; the latter suggests a "purposefulness".

Physicists say "this is how electrons flow in a conductor", or "this is why electrons flow in a conductor" and know that both sentences say the same thing. Why = how.

Why do humans ask questions? is not the same as: How do humans ask questions?

yeah?

 

[universaldistress]

How silly.

In physics, how and why amount to the same thing.
Philosophy (and language) see a difference between how and why; the latter suggests a "purposefulness".

Physicists say "this is how electrons flow in a conductor", or "this is why electrons flow in a conductor" and know that both sentences say the same thing. Why = how.

Why do humans ask questions? is not the same as: How do humans ask questions?

yeah?

And? There are different meanings in different contexts. One must word the sentence how one wishes for said meaning. What does this have to do with anything?

Lori is just looking (badly) for some way to justify belief. By demanding there must be a purpose behind the universe. LOL.

 

[universaldistress]

I repeat: I DID NOT assert they are the same. That is just the twisted interpretation of a god botherer.

 

[arfa brane]

What does this have to do with anything?

What does explaining the "difference" between why and how have to do with the last couple of pages of this thread?
Or what does it have to do with your mission--to boldly go where a lot of idiots have gone before?

That is just the twisted interpretation of a god botherer.

That is just the dismissive bumpf of a deluded solipsist. I bet you don't even know what a solipsist is?

 

[universaldistress]

What does explaining the "difference" between why and how have to do with the last couple of pages of this thread?
Or what does it have to do with your mission--to boldly go where a lot of idiots have gone before?
That is just the dismissive bumpf of a deluded solipsist. I bet you don't even know what a solipsist is?

All told, zero content. You seriously entertain the notion that someone as eloquent as myself would not understand this difference? LOL. The point is Lori hasn't pointed out the relevance of her statements. Though I see it as an attempt to build a case to attribute an intelligent purpose to existence without PROOF.