Are you going to withdraw your accusation?
jan.
Jan, it wasn't meant as an attack on you, or an accusation. It was an observation on the current state of the church. Sarcastic as hell, but not personal.
My apology.
Are you going to withdraw your accusation?
jan.
Jan, it wasn't meant as an attack on you, or an accusation. It was an observation on the current state of the church. Sarcastic as hell, but not personal.
My apology.
Theists tend to believe that they have special access to "facts" that are "not of this world". There must be a reason why they have this belief. I'll have to think about it some more.Theists accept facts, whether they conform to their world, or not.
Theists tend to believe that morality comes from God. The underlying psychology, I guess, is that theists feel a need for a "higher authority" when it comes to morality. They tend to distrust the human capacity to make and maintain moral frameworks.[Atheism] would mean we can create our own morals. That would be nightmare. That is the stuff of sociopaths, psychopaths, and folk devoid of good human intelligence. It's a good thing your atheism, isn't real, otherwise I would be inclined to think you mean what you say.
Taking the God hypothesis as a given, the theist typically dismisses without thought the possibility that he is wrong on the question of God's existence. When pressed, the tendency is to rationalise that a person who does not share the belief must be "in denial". There is a kind of block apparent in the theist's thinking, where the theist goes to great lengths to avoid examining the belief itself. This could be a self-protection mechanism.Your position is merely one of denial and rejection. You have given up the opportunity to accept God, and have become wilfully forgetful.
///Without God there are no roller-coasters. Without ice cream there are no radios. Without mountain bikes there is no play-doh.
Non-sequiturs are fun.
///Just maybe the search for a god drove some of the people whose shoulders we stand on today.
But they're probably crazy too. It's turtles all the way down.
Theists tend to believe that they have special access to "facts" that are "not of this world". There must be a reason why they have this belief. I'll have tothink about it some more.
People actually doing science say otherwise.Without God, there is no science.
And look out when they are: http://www.spunk.org/texts/prose/sp000212.txtMany of those turtles must be horribly tired by now.
The claim was: "Theists accept facts, whether they conform to their world, or not."If God is "not of this world", why would that strike you as an claim that would require extra thought from your side?
If we aren't, no deity known can help.An interesting thought, I found - who, or what, would define what is moral - are we supposed to (or, for that matter, are we able) to self-determine and self-police?
Is God an object that can be observed and studied? What are the properties of God which have given rise to science in humans?
Jan, it wasn't meant as an attack on you, or an accusation. It was an observation on the current state of the church. Sarcastic as hell, but not personal.
My apology.
Man, it was really an honest mistake. We don't have the benefit of expression or tone of voice here.
I'm embarrassed by the way it read, looking back.
Person 1: So what you're saying that we need a God to be moral that a moral atheist is an impossibility?
Person 2: No but with no God there's no real reason to be moral. I mean there's not even a a standard of what moral behavior is.
An interesting thought, I found - who, or what, would define what is moral - are we supposed to (or, for that matter, are we able) to self-determine and self-police?
I accept your apology Dr. Toad.
jan.
Theists tend to believe that they have special access to "facts" that are "not of this world". There must be a reason why they have this belief. I'll have to think about it some more.
Theists tend to believe that morality comes from God.
The underlying psychology, I guess, is that theists feel a need for a "higher authority" when it comes to morality.
They tend to distrust the human capacity to make and maintain moral frameworks.
Taking the God hypothesis as a given, the theist typically dismisses without thought the possibility that he is wrong on the question of God's existence.
When pressed, the tendency is to rationalize that a person who does not share the belief must be "in denial".
There is a kind of block apparent in the theist's thinking, where the theist goes to great lengths to avoid examining the belief itself. This could be a self-protection mechanism.
Thank you. Again, it was never my intent to attack you that way.
Just for the record, it isn't "doctor". The D and R are my initials, for Donovan Ready, and Toad is a nickname my friends laid on me when my mom called me a toad in front of them once..
Oh I figured that out thats why I dont understand why it should carry weight today.
Are you talking about Starlin the green grocer?
I have often said your game is "lets talk about god to make him real" so your comment is expected.
Unfortunately the more I think about it the more I conclude theisism etc is rubbish and each time I visit here and see the same old same old I realise the universe could never have been created so even the fuzzy idea of God becomes less...in fact I cant even visualise the old man with a beard these days so thanks.
I am now neither an atheist or a theist as each term in an eternal universe is meaningless.
An eternal universe needs no creator so there is nothing to reject, nothing to deny ... it has always been and therefore even that last place you could squeeze in God before the big bang no longer is available.
People actually doing science say otherwise.
The daily and routine considerations of science support their claim.
Meanwhile, all of your claims about any aspect of science that anyone can check for themselves have been falsehoods, on this forum. Every single one.
Plus, you have repeatedly posted elementary and obvious errors in your understanding of specific scientific findings and claims - such as Darwinian evolutionary theory, which on the evidence of your posting you do not understand.
So that claim - without Jan's God there would be no science - appears to be more of a psychological indication than a statement about the world. It is evidence, on this thread, rather than a piece of a missing argument.