To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?

[KennyJC]

atheists keep there beliefs (sorry - non-beliefs) to themselves?

There's no equal comparison. Religious people are usually the first to bring up the subject, since they want to make it public at every opportunity, and atheists simply have to counter it.

Atheism is not a belief in the sense that it will lead towards someone bringing it up unprovoked.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

certainly

When it is wrong, why does that happen?

from the scenario I just gave you, you could probably answer the question yourself ....

Presumably... but then again why would I answer for you?

Only if they sound truthful

yes, all by wearing the cloak of truthfulness - just experiment by telling a lie that does not sound truthful in one situation and tell a lie that does sound truthful in another ....

Does any of this sound truthful?

http://www.psipog.net/qna-pk-1.html

If not, then why so many believers?

yes - philosophy indicates the existence of an objective phenomena - it all depends on us adopting the proper means to test it (so if I say fire does not burn having done experiments with matches and candles in a bucket of water - its not deemed as sound - even if I have carried out such tests hundreds of thousands of times

That experiment would be invalid because matches and candles in water do not produce fire... which is a prerequisite for the experiment.

which is why I said a good starting point would be to explain how you deal with issues such as selfishness, pride, lust, etc, since by the influence of these and many more discerning the separations between subjective and objective is greatly impaired

How I personally deal with emotions and the subjective is rather simple. I recognize them for what they are.

it could be worse - at least there are cookies

And no milk no doubt.

.... still they get eaten alive on occasion

People do too.

so in short they lead a life of constant fear

They don't appear to be lviing fearfully... just realistically.

and what about the mating rituals?

Boy meets girl, girl meets boy, they get it on. Males get jealous if they have bonded with a female and will sit all over them when the females are in heat.

there's a good chance that this guy was just as much an animal before he visited the dentist and the tattoo parlor - the foundation of animal life is to be completely engaged in activities of sleeping, eating, mating and defending - in other words animals don't have the capacity to be religious (of course one can take religious principles as a means of fulfilling these four animal requirements, but that says more about the nature of our materialistic/animalistic modern society than actual religious principles)

Do you think that guy gets a religious experience living the way he does?

put it this way .....
..... it doesn't inspire me to follow in his foot prints

Do you think he is getting more out of life than those garage door worshippers?

I don't know why you think a theist stands as more attracted to these things - I vaguely recall some demographic research on the subject and religiosity certainly didn't clock up on the charts (number one was babies and number two was baby animals)

I am just saying that most of the people whom do this type of thing are theists. Don't you find it interesting that they want to look and behave like other animals and yet they do it with hope?

anyway, I would say it says more about materialistic culture (idle people with idle money in their hands) than anything intrinsically religious ... and even then its still not clear why you bring this up, since people who buy cute little stuffed leopards with no genitals and big eyes are not likely to get a full body tattoo and their teeth ripped out

I bring it up because you think humans would behave like animals in the absence of theism and yet there's a ton of theists who want just that.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Kenny JC

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
atheists keep there beliefs (sorry - non-beliefs) to themselves? ”

There's no equal comparison. Religious people are usually the first to bring up the subject, since they want to make it public at every opportunity, and atheists simply have to counter it.

so your logic is that it takes one and not two to have an argument?

Atheism is not a belief in the sense that it will lead towards someone bringing it up unprovoked.

then why are you lurking around in a religious sub forum ..... unless you are just itching for the opportunity to be provoked

”

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly
”
When it is wrong, why does that happen?

bad philosophical foundations/processes - what else?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
from the scenario I just gave you, you could probably answer the question yourself ....
”
Presumably... but then again why would I answer for you?

because the nature of asking what would be the result if one's philosophical foundations were upturned would draw a uniform response as indicated (ie - madness or adopting the new paradigm)

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Only if they sound truthful

yes, all by wearing the cloak of truthfulness - just experiment by telling a lie that does not sound truthful in one situation and tell a lie that does sound truthful in another ....
”
Does any of this sound truthful?

http://www.psipog.net/qna-pk-1.html

If not, then why so many believers?

obviously the contributors find something truthful – what else?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
yes - philosophy indicates the existence of an objective phenomena - it all depends on us adopting the proper means to test it (so if I say fire does not burn having done experiments with matches and candles in a bucket of water - its not deemed as sound - even if I have carried out such tests hundreds of thousands of times
”
That experiment would be invalid because matches and candles in water do not produce fire... which is a prerequisite for the experiment.

that's my point (proper means = prerequisite)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
which is why I said a good starting point would be to explain how you deal with issues such as selfishness, pride, lust, etc, since by the influence of these and many more discerning the separations between subjective and objective is greatly impaired
”
How I personally deal with emotions and the subjective is rather simple. I recognize them for what they are.

how so given that selfishness, pride, lust etc reduce one's very ability to recognize (or even take affirmative action upon recognizing) such things?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it could be worse - at least there are cookies
”
And no milk no doubt.

cheer up
something is better than nothing

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
.... still they get eaten alive on occasion
”
People do too.

Meerkats do at a higher ratio
(how many people do you know live in an atmosphere surcharged with fear like your average meerkat colony?)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so in short they lead a life of constant fear
”
They don't appear to be lviing fearfully... just realistically.

in other words its realistic that they live a fearful life
(from your and others descriptions of meerkats, their lifestyle certainly doesn't seem to leave much room for complacency)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and what about the mating rituals?
”
Boy meets girl, girl meets boy, they get it on. Males get jealous if they have bonded with a female and will sit all over them when the females are in heat.

you've forgotten what I referenced earlier how their is no courtship ritual - the male attacks the female until she submits – how quaint ....

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there's a good chance that this guy was just as much an animal before he visited the dentist and the tattoo parlor - the foundation of animal life is to be completely engaged in activities of sleeping, eating, mating and defending - in other words animals don't have the capacity to be religious (of course one can take religious principles as a means of fulfilling these four animal requirements, but that says more about the nature of our materialistic/animalistic modern society than actual religious principles)
”
Do you think that guy gets a religious experience living the way he does?

no

if you think he does, I think you need to explain yourself

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
put it this way .....
..... it doesn't inspire me to follow in his foot prints
”
Do you think he is getting more out of life than those garage door worshippers?

Its not clear how a human doing a rather unconvincing portrayal of the behavior of a leopard begins to even approach claims of transcendence.

In the case of the garage door worshippers, there exists a certain transcendental foundation (god exists, the pure devotee of god exists - jesus - and things connected to the pure devotee of god exist - Mary - all these three partake of the same spiritual quality - ie freedom of material ignorance/enlightenment etc)
I would argue that they are making a few errors on the platform of practice that could more readily discerned if they had a more solid foundation in theory

(in other words questions like what is the inextricable connection between strange lights/reflection and mary, what qualities manifest from taking association of things connected with transcendence as opposed to taking association of things connected with the mundane universe, etc need to be addressed)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I don't know why you think a theist stands as more attracted to these things - I vaguely recall some demographic research on the subject and religiosity certainly didn't clock up on the charts (number one was babies and number two was baby animals)
”
I am just saying that most of the people whom do this type of thing are theists.

what do you mean by the word "most"?
Given that in some parts over 90% of people advocate some sort of theistic ideal (based in varying degrees of theoretical soundness, as previously indicated) does that mean we can also say things like

"most people in jail are theists"
"most people who watch television are theists"
"most people who pick their noses are theists"
etc etc

Don't you find it interesting that they want to look and behave like other animals and yet they do it with hope?

anthropomorphism seems to be more about making animals adopt human qualities (like for instance the Lion King displays qualities more akin to paragon nobility than something to be encountered on the african savannah)

Actually I would argue that the leopard man was probably more influenced by ideas of evolution or contemporary scientific ideas (presented either in the medium of fiction or nonfiction - he seems to have quite a few books on his shelf) to take such drastic steps – you know, kind of in the category of people who get stainless steel surgically implanted to make themselves look more like star trek props

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
anyway, I would say it says more about materialistic culture (idle people with idle money in their hands) than anything intrinsically religious ... and even then its still not clear why you bring this up, since people who buy cute little stuffed leopards with no genitals and big eyes are not likely to get a full body tattoo and their teeth ripped out
”
I bring it up because you think humans would behave like animals in the absence of theism and yet there's a ton of theists who want just that.

I mean in the sense of adopting qualities, not appearances - for instance the leopard man gets full marks (at least for earnesty) for adopting the appearance of a leopard but he hits the deck when it comes to qualities (he buys baked beans, goes to the pub and enjoys the odd novel)

similarly stuffed toys and the whole disney trip reflects human qualities with the appearance of animals (take your clicker with you the next time you get dragged to a disney production and count the didactic suggestions)

In other words my argument is all that we have in the way of distinctions between the qualities of animals and humans lies in qualities that are deeply seated in theism

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Most atheists would happily believe in a god if only some evidence could be provided for its existence. Don't blame them for your inability to do so.

What is wrong with the argument from design?

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Seems he was giving an example of the ocean of difference to (real) science, and atheism.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

“ Kenny JC


so your logic is that it takes one and not two to have an argument?

No, you are skirting around the fact that religion is something that is forced on almost everyone before they are even old enough to make up their own minds. You have presidents who claim that atheists are not even citizens because it's one nation 'under god'. It's on your money, there are signs in the street that claim Jesus died for you, there are group prayers before sports events which you are expected to join, you can not get in to certain public schools unless you belong to certain religions.

I could literally go on forever. But how can atheism not react to it? I'll remind you that the original quote by emptyforceofchi started this... so why should "religion be left alone" when it, by design, is in our face every day.

then why are you lurking around in a religious sub forum .....

See above. If religion was something personal for people then there would be no issue. A lot of superstitious behavior is relegated to peoples personal lives and their own time, but religion is different because it has more respect. And that has to stop.

What is wrong with the argument from design?

A lot of things. Science goes with simpler more elegant explanations, and a sentient/intelligent first cause does not a simple explanation.

 

[Photizo]

No, you are skirting around the fact that religion is something that is forced on almost everyone before they are even old enough to make up their own minds...It's on your money, there are signs in the street that claim Jesus died for you, there are group prayers before sports events...why should "religion be left alone" when it, by design, is in our face every day...why should "religion be left alone" when it, by design, is in our face every day...I could literally go on forever.

You will literally go on forever...rehearsing these comments of yours over, and over, and over again all the while amazed at your own stupidy/blindness...but alas, it will be too late.

Science goes with simpler more elegant explanations, and a sentient/intelligent first cause does not a simple explanation.

:roflmao:

 

[SnakeLord]

What is wrong with the argument from design?

Argument from poor design is a starting place. This could turn into a very very long discussion if you want to get deeper than that.

There's this puddle sitting in a hole in the ground. It looks around the hole and notices that it fits the hole comfortably. "The hole must have been designed just for me!" he exclaims, not realising that the hole wasn't made for him, he just adapted to fit it.

From a personal perspective I can only recall the time when I crashed my car because some designer had given me a blind spot. Intelligent design indeed :bugeye:

 

[KennyJC]

You will literally go on forever...rehearsing these comments of yours over, and over, and over again all the while amazed at your own stupidy/blindness...but alas, it will be too late.

Talk about being cryptic. I'm not interested in back-handed insults, if you have anything sensible to add then go ahead.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat
“
bad philosophical foundations/processes - what else?

And what foundation is philosophy built on?

because the nature of asking what would be the result if one's philosophical foundations were upturned would draw a uniform response as indicated (ie - madness or adopting the new paradigm)

Are madness or adopting a new paradigm the only options?

obviously the contributors find something truthful – what else?

Do you personally find it truthful?

that's my point (proper means = prerequisite)

I see... odd choice of wording. If a child whom knew nothing about philosophy put a piece of paper on fire, it burns, and the child learns the fire burns, is that philosophy?

how so given that selfishness, pride, lust etc reduce one's very ability to recognize (or even take affirmative action upon recognizing) such things?

Emotions might distract a person but they certainly dont nullify the ability to recognize them for what they are. Intelligence and education are likely key.

cheer up
something is better than nothing

Now thats phiolosphy... other theists such as Yorda would outright disagree with that statement too.

Meerkats do at a higher ratio
(how many people do you know live in an atmosphere surcharged with fear like your average meerkat colony?)

Every Christian I know lives in fear of going to hell.

in other words its realistic that they live a fearful life
(from your and others descriptions of meerkats, their lifestyle certainly doesn't seem to leave much room for complacency)

I've seen them live, the don't appear very fearful. They simply understand that predators exist and they have lookouts to help identify threats.

you've forgotten what I referenced earlier how their is no courtship ritual - the male attacks the female until she submits – how quaint ....

I've seen 4 of their courtship rituals. They all seemed to be mutually interested. Maybe that information you have is outdated.

no

if you think he does, I think you need to explain yourself

He said this:

“As far as I’m concerned, if there is a paradise on Earth, I’m in it. You’re welcome to what you’ve got. I’ll keep this.”

What do you think of it?

Its not clear how a human doing a rather unconvincing portrayal of the behavior of a leopard begins to even approach claims of transcendence.

In the case of the garage door worshippers, there exists a certain transcendental foundation (god exists, the pure devotee of god exists - jesus - and things connected to the pure devotee of god exist - Mary - all these three partake of the same spiritual quality - ie freedom of material ignorance/enlightenment etc)
I would argue that they are making a few errors on the platform of practice that could more readily discerned if they had a more solid foundation in theory

(in other words questions like what is the inextricable connection between strange lights/reflection and mary, what qualities manifest from taking association of things connected with transcendence as opposed to taking association of things connected with the mundane universe, etc need to be addressed)

That's an interesting response and it doesn't answer the question. Does you think the leopard man or a garage door worshipper are getting more out of life?

what do you mean by the word "most"?
Given that in some parts over 90% of people advocate some sort of theistic ideal (based in varying degrees of theoretical soundness, as previously indicated) does that mean we can also say things like

"most people in jail are theists"
"most people who watch television are theists"
"most people who pick their noses are theists"
etc etc

Maybe an example will help clear things up:

http://www.virtualhermit.net/~ottercomics/monastery/fred.htm

Religious leaders whom are 'furries' host real or virtual places of worship and they have plenty of attendees. So again, what do you think about that? Theists whom want to look and act like other animals?

anthropomorphism seems to be more about making animals adopt human qualities (like for instance the Lion King displays qualities more akin to paragon nobility than something to be encountered on the african savannah)

Actually I would argue that the leopard man was probably more influenced by ideas of evolution or contemporary scientific ideas (presented either in the medium of fiction or nonfiction - he seems to have quite a few books on his shelf) to take such drastic steps – you know, kind of in the category of people who get stainless steel surgically implanted to make themselves look more like star trek props

Antropomorphism is about putting human qualities on *something* or putting *somethings* qualities on a human. You might recognize some of these examples. Bugs Bunny (human qualities on rabbit), Herbie (human qualities on a car), Mother Nature (human qualities on nature), Father Time (human qualities on time), and 'God' (human qualities on reality).

I mean in the sense of adopting qualities, not appearances - for instance the leopard man gets full marks (at least for earnesty) for adopting the appearance of a leopard but he hits the deck when it comes to qualities (he buys baked beans, goes to the pub and enjoys the odd novel)

similarly stuffed toys and the whole disney trip reflects human qualities with the appearance of animals (take your clicker with you the next time you get dragged to a disney production and count the didactic suggestions)

Do you think leopard man would adopt more physical and behavioral similarities to leopard if there was a means to do so?

In other words my argument is all that we have in the way of distinctions between the qualities of animals and humans lies in qualities that are deeply seated in theism

What qualities would a dominantly non-Theistical society such a Britain have that are deeply seated in theism?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Crunchy cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Crunchy cat
“
bad philosophical foundations/processes - what else? ”
And what foundation is philosophy built on?

reasoning

for instance the reasoning of empiricism is
1) that the cause (noumenal) is objective
2) the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause

hence empiricism is held as unreasonable

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
because the nature of asking what would be the result if one's philosophical foundations were upturned would draw a uniform response as indicated (ie - madness or adopting the new paradigm) ”
Are madness or adopting a new paradigm the only options?

yes
denial of the truth
or acceptance of the truth

(can you think of a third?)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
obviously the contributors find something truthful – what else? ”
Do you personally find it truthful?

what in particular?
the claim that psychic powers exist?
or the claim that their means of testing and attainment are valid?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
that's my point (proper means = prerequisite) ”
I see... odd choice of wording. If a child whom knew nothing about philosophy put a piece of paper on fire, it burns, and the child learns the fire burns, is that philosophy?

yes
(break downs of "this is true/not true" is a major aspect of what philosophy is all about)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how so given that selfishness, pride, lust etc reduce one's very ability to recognize (or even take affirmative action upon recognizing) such things? ”
Emotions might distract a person but they certainly dont nullify the ability to recognize them for what they are. Intelligence and education are likely key.

you've never encountered or experienced intelligence losing out to to lust/wrath/etc

for instance a jealous husband who kills his wife and her lover wasn't aware that murder carries a jail sentence?

or a person with diabetes doesn't know that eating an icecream will mess up their blood sugar levels?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
cheer up
something is better than nothing ”
Now thats phiolosphy... other theists such as Yorda would outright disagree with that statement too.

if he comes to the cookie factory we won't give him anything to eat until he changes his mind

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Meerkats do at a higher ratio
(how many people do you know live in an atmosphere surcharged with fear like your average meerkat colony?) ”

Every Christian I know lives in fear of going to hell.

actually most christians I know are complacent about committing sins ("Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so we've got the green card to heaven") and strike me as too complacent (I've even heard one guy describe himself as being in a state of contaminated purity)

but anyway, since you bring it up, fear has its proper application, even in spiritual life, however the nature of giving up sin (which is the green card for hellish existence) is actually pleasure and not fear

BG 2.59The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in other words its realistic that they live a fearful life
(from your and others descriptions of meerkats, their lifestyle certainly doesn't seem to leave much room for complacency) ”
I've seen them live, the don't appear very fearful. They simply understand that predators exist and they have lookouts to help identify threats.

so in comparison to your household, would you say that meerkats have a greater or lesser number of devices and social structures to help deal with the issue of other living entities coming along and eating them?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you've forgotten what I referenced earlier how their is no courtship ritual - the male attacks the female until she submits – how quaint .... ”
I've seen 4 of their courtship rituals. They all seemed to be mutually interested. Maybe that information you have is outdated.

perhaps

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no

if you think he does, I think you need to explain yourself ”
He said this:

“As far as I’m concerned, if there is a paradise on Earth, I’m in it. You’re welcome to what you’ve got. I’ll keep this.”

a worm could say the same thing about living in a dog turd

What do you think of it?

the pleasure of the senses are relative
the pleasures of the spiritual realm are transcendental and absolute
big difference

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not clear how a human doing a rather unconvincing portrayal of the behavior of a leopard begins to even approach claims of transcendence.

In the case of the garage door worshippers, there exists a certain transcendental foundation (god exists, the pure devotee of god exists - jesus - and things connected to the pure devotee of god exist - Mary - all these three partake of the same spiritual quality - ie freedom of material ignorance/enlightenment etc)
I would argue that they are making a few errors on the platform of practice that could more readily discerned if they had a more solid foundation in theory

(in other words questions like what is the inextricable connection between strange lights/reflection and mary, what qualities manifest from taking association of things connected with transcendence as opposed to taking association of things connected with the mundane universe, etc need to be addressed) ”
That's an interesting response and it doesn't answer the question. Does you think the leopard man or a garage door worshipper are getting more out of life?

I thought it was obvious
the garage door worshippers are getting more
at least they have some degree of knowledge

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what do you mean by the word "most"?
Given that in some parts over 90% of people advocate some sort of theistic ideal (based in varying degrees of theoretical soundness, as previously indicated) does that mean we can also say things like

"most people in jail are theists"
"most people who watch television are theists"
"most people who pick their noses are theists"
etc etc ”
Maybe an example will help clear things up:

http://www.virtualhermit.net/~otterc...stery/fred.htm

Religious leaders whom are 'furries' host real or virtual places of worship and they have plenty of attendees. So again, what do you think about that? Theists whom want to look and act like other animals?

but once again, are they acting like animals
or are they using animals (in particular ones that don't have genitals and have big cute eyes, that don't urinate and pass stool where ever the fancy takes them, who don't get the blood sucked out of their punctured eyeballs by predators, who don't engage in sex with total disregard to surrounding - actually with no genitals, they don't have sex at all - who don't vomit, who don't smell each others back sides, etc etc) as a device of narrative (eg - parable) to discern that have inherent relevancy to humans or as an introduction to how one can get into the groove of chewing on an antelope's throat naked on all fours?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
anthropomorphism seems to be more about making animals adopt human qualities (like for instance the Lion King displays qualities more akin to paragon nobility than something to be encountered on the african savannah)

Actually I would argue that the leopard man was probably more influenced by ideas of evolution or contemporary scientific ideas (presented either in the medium of fiction or nonfiction - he seems to have quite a few books on his shelf) to take such drastic steps – you know, kind of in the category of people who get stainless steel surgically implanted to make themselves look more like star trek props ”

Antropomorphism is about putting human qualities on *something* or putting *somethings* qualities on a human.

are you arguing that science doesn’t have anthropomorphic themes running through it ?
How about Eurocentric?

You might recognize some of these examples. Bugs Bunny (human qualities on rabbit), Herbie (human qualities on a car), Mother Nature (human qualities on nature), Father Time (human qualities on time), and 'God' (human qualities on reality).

if god has a human form and if we are constitutionally eternal fragmental parts and parcels of him, it would certainly explain why in the ignorant mode of life (ie this world we exist in at the moment) we have the habit of endowing other objects with ideal human qualities in a mood of awe, attachment and superiority

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I mean in the sense of adopting qualities, not appearances - for instance the leopard man gets full marks (at least for earnesty) for adopting the appearance of a leopard but he hits the deck when it comes to qualities (he buys baked beans, goes to the pub and enjoys the odd novel)

similarly stuffed toys and the whole disney trip reflects human qualities with the appearance of animals (take your clicker with you the next time you get dragged to a disney production and count the didactic suggestions) ”

Do you think leopard man would adopt more physical and behavioral similarities to leopard if there was a means to do so?

he doesn't have the means to not read books and not go to the pub?
I bet if there wasn't a film crew there he would sit on his butt and pick his nose like any other run of the mill hermit

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In other words my argument is all that we have in the way of distinctions between the qualities of animals and humans lies in qualities that are deeply seated in theism ”
What qualities would a dominantly non-Theistical society such a Britain have that are deeply seated in theism?

lol - its a bit hard to say, since theistic foundations are well and truly part of the cultural landscape (unless for instance the legal system has been radically revamped so that it doesn’t bear a single trace of semblance to biblical reference points, eg – the 10 commandments) - if you really want to know the answer to such a question, try going to a place like africa or PNG, which has a long history of rather low level religious principles - there you can encounter people who's ideas of "goodness" is that they can kill you and be the good guys (and that makes you the bad guy since after killing you they can take all your possessions)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

“ Crunchy cat

reasoning

for instance the reasoning of empiricism is
1) that the cause (noumenal) is objective
2) the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause

hence empiricism is held as unreasonable

And what foundation does reasoning sit upon?

“
yes
denial of the truth
or acceptance of the truth

(can you think of a third?)

I think you just found a third. Insanity, denial of the truth (another truth substitute), and acceptance of the truth. Any more options?

what in particular?
the claim that psychic powers exist?
or the claim that their means of testing and attainment are valid?

The page as a whole. Does it sound truthful?

yes
(break downs of "this is true/not true" is a major aspect of what philosophy is all about)

When a chimp does the same thing, is it practicing philosophy? What about a bird?

you've never encountered or experienced intelligence losing out to to lust/wrath/etc

for instance a jealous husband who kills his wife and her lover wasn't aware that murder carries a jail sentence?

or a person with diabetes doesn't know that eating an icecream will mess up their blood sugar levels?

I've never experienced emotional extremes which I could not recognize.

if he comes to the cookie factory we won't give him anything to eat until he changes his mind

Is Yorda a he or she? I think 'it' would rather die than have a change of mind.

actually most christians I know are complacent about committing sins ("Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so we've got the green card to heaven") and strike me as too complacent (I've even heard one guy describe himself as being in a state of contaminated purity)

but anyway, since you bring it up, fear has its proper application, even in spiritual life, however the nature of giving up sin (which is the green card for hellish existence) is actually pleasure and not fear

BG 2.59The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

That's interesting as I know alot of Christians whom are terrified they wont make the cut. It has been my observation that this fear limits their ability to experince pleasure in general.

so in comparison to your household, would you say that meerkats have a greater or lesser number of devices and social structures to help deal with the issue of other living entities coming along and eating them?

I would say they have a greater awareness of predators than my household.

perhaps

a worm could say the same thing about living in a dog turd

I am not sure if a worm would have the mental capacity to comprehend 'paradise'.

the pleasure of the senses are relative
the pleasures of the spiritual realm are transcendental and absolute
big difference

Do you think leopard man is just living a pleasure-of-senses life? I can't imagine bathing in a cold stream naked is very pleasurable.

I thought it was obvious
the garage door worshippers are getting more
at least they have some degree of knowledge

I don't know. I am willing to bet that the leopard man has enough knowledge to understand light and shadow.

but once again, are they acting like animals
or are they using animals (in particular ones that don't have genitals and have big cute eyes, that don't urinate and pass stool where ever the fancy takes them, who don't get the blood sucked out of their punctured eyeballs by predators, who don't engage in sex with total disregard to surrounding - actually with no genitals, they don't have sex at all - who don't vomit, who don't smell each others back sides, etc etc) as a device of narrative (eg - parable) to discern that have inherent relevancy to humans or as an introduction to how one can get into the groove of chewing on an antelope's throat naked on all fours?

Heh, that subculture goes way beyond cutsie / sexless costumes. I would say that 95%+ of it is the attraction to predatorial features, violence, and sex. Don't let limitations in costume design and budget fool you. Take a look at some of these images from the mind of a typical member of the subculture:

http://www.rabbitvalley.com/department_1221_0_0.html

Also, go into any search engine and type 'Yiff' and see what kind of images come up. If these people had the means of altering themselves further and enjoyed eating raw flesh, you can certain be assured they would be engaged in bloody feasting orgies with a healthy does of sodomy. Then off they go to worship 'God'.

if god has a human form and if we are constitutionally eternal fragmental parts and parcels of him, it would certainly explain why in the ignorant mode of life (ie this world we exist in at the moment) we have the habit of endowing other objects with ideal human qualities in a mood of awe, attachment and superiority

Of course, putting everything in human terms by slapping human features on it is a survival tactic that allows for things such as prediction of intent.

he doesn't have the means to not read books and not go to the pub?
I bet if there wasn't a film crew there he would sit on his butt and pick his nose like any other run of the mill hermit

If he could change his physiology and psychological makeup some more so he could hunt deer and eat them raw, do you think he would?

lol - its a bit hard to say, since theistic foundations are well and truly part of the cultural landscape (unless for instance the legal system has been radically revamped so that it doesn’t bear a single trace of semblance to biblical reference points, eg – the 10 commandments) - if you really want to know the answer to such a question, try going to a place like africa or PNG, which has a long history of rather low level religious principles - there you can encounter people who's ideas of "goodness" is that they can kill you and be the good guys (and that makes you the bad guy since after killing you they can take all your possessions)

Ok, then let me re-ask the question. What qualities does this mini-African society have that are deeply rooted in theism?:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0821/p01s02-woaf.html

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Crunchy cat

reasoning

for instance the reasoning of empiricism is
1) that the cause (noumenal) is objective
2) the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause

hence empiricism is held as unreasonable
”
And what foundation does reasoning sit upon?

reasoning is a function of intelligence (discrimnination)
intelligence is a function of ego (what I think I am)
ego is a function of the consciousness (being alive as opposed to dead)
consciousness is a a function of the soul (eternal fragmental part and parcel of the absolute)
the soul is a contingent potency of god
god is the cause of all causes

ok?

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
yes
denial of the truth
or acceptance of the truth

(can you think of a third?)
”
I think you just found a third. Insanity, denial of the truth (another truth substitute), and acceptance of the truth. Any more options?

if one denies something that is truthful because it doesn't appear truthful, that is not a different state of being (even though it may confer different results)
for instance I could accidentally give you $5 instead of $10 because of two reasons
1) I was trying to cheat you (duplicity , an aspect of madness)
2) I sincerely thought the 5 was a 10, but made an error of judgment, thus my state of being in giving you a 5 would be nondifferent from me giving you a 10

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what in particular?
the claim that psychic powers exist?
or the claim that their means of testing and attainment are valid?
”
The page as a whole. Does it sound truthful?

I didn't investigate it too thoroughly but there are various claims being made at various levels - if you are asking whether something is truthful you have to be specific (for instance if I ask "Is the sky truthful", people probably wouldn't even begin to understand how to answer that)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
yes
(break downs of "this is true/not true" is a major aspect of what philosophy is all about)
”
When a chimp does the same thing, is it practicing philosophy? What about a bird?

certainly

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you've never encountered or experienced intelligence losing out to to lust/wrath/etc

for instance a jealous husband who kills his wife and her lover wasn't aware that murder carries a jail sentence?

or a person with diabetes doesn't know that eating an icecream will mess up their blood sugar levels?
”
I've never experienced emotional extremes which I could not recognize.

if you had an emotional extreme that you couldn't recognize, how would you know?

furthermore, even with the emotional extremes you did recognize, was recognition sufficient to control the influence that they exerted on your senses and intelligence?

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if he comes to the cookie factory we won't give him anything to eat until he changes his mind

”
Is Yorda a he or she? I think 'it' would rather die than have a change of mind.

oh you would be surprised - a hungry person can very easily change their opinion

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually most christians I know are complacent about committing sins ("Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so we've got the green card to heaven") and strike me as too complacent (I've even heard one guy describe himself as being in a state of contaminated purity)

but anyway, since you bring it up, fear has its proper application, even in spiritual life, however the nature of giving up sin (which is the green card for hellish existence) is actually pleasure and not fear

BG 2.59The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.
”
That's interesting as I know alot of Christians whom are terrified they wont make the cut.

To be fearful of falling into illusion (that is falling under the control of vice), is the proper state for a theist. It helps sharpen the discrimination

It has been my observation that this fear limits their ability to experince pleasure in general.

pleasure has many avenues of expression - some in the medium of illusion and some in the medium of proper awareness

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so in comparison to your household, would you say that meerkats have a greater or lesser number of devices and social structures to help deal with the issue of other living entities coming along and eating them?
”
I would say they have a greater awareness of predators than my household.

perhaps

and what do you think is the likely reason for that?
(How many people have been eaten by roaming animals in your house over the past 15 years?)

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a worm could say the same thing about living in a dog turd
”
I am not sure if a worm would have the mental capacity to comprehend 'paradise'.

certainly has the capacity to comprehend pleasure - let me tell you they won't just make camp in any old piece of poo - they have standards

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the pleasure of the senses are relative
the pleasures of the spiritual realm are transcendental and absolute
big difference
”
Do you think leopard man is just living a pleasure-of-senses life? I can't imagine bathing in a cold stream naked is very pleasurable.

distinction is also a pleasure
there are also pleasures of austerity

(ever had an uncle who always asks you to punch him in the guts regardless of how big you grow up to be or how aged and sick he becomes?)

regardless, its all a case of different strokes for different folks

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I thought it was obvious
the garage door worshippers are getting more
at least they have some degree of knowledge
”
I don't know. I am willing to bet that the leopard man has enough knowledge to understand light and shadow.

whether he understands the significance or god, the significance of god's pure devotee and the significance of thing's related to god's pure devotee, we can only speculate .....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
but once again, are they acting like animals
or are they using animals (in particular ones that don't have genitals and have big cute eyes, that don't urinate and pass stool where ever the fancy takes them, who don't get the blood sucked out of their punctured eyeballs by predators, who don't engage in sex with total disregard to surrounding - actually with no genitals, they don't have sex at all - who don't vomit, who don't smell each others back sides, etc etc) as a device of narrative (eg - parable) to discern that have inherent relevancy to humans or as an introduction to how one can get into the groove of chewing on an antelope's throat naked on all fours?
”
Heh, that subculture goes way beyond cutsie / sexless costumes. I would say that 95%+ of it is the attraction to predatorial features, violence, and sex. Don't let limitations in costume design and budget fool you. Take a look at some of these images from the mind of a typical member of the subculture:

http://www.rabbitvalley.com/department_1221_0_0.html

not sure what you are you arguing here ....
they're mostly theists?

Also, go into any search engine and type 'Yiff' and see what kind of images come up.

ditto above

If these people had the means of altering themselves further and enjoyed eating raw flesh, you can certain be assured they would be engaged in bloody feasting orgies with a healthy does of sodomy. Then off they go to worship 'God'.

once again, I'm not sure how you would go from here to any serious discussion of religion
.... I mean the alternative that people possessed of different desires use animals as a function of narrative to suit their various whims is somehow not tenable?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if god has a human form and if we are constitutionally eternal fragmental parts and parcels of him, it would certainly explain why in the ignorant mode of life (ie this world we exist in at the moment) we have the habit of endowing other objects with ideal human qualities in a mood of awe, attachment and superiority

”
Of course, putting everything in human terms by slapping human features on it is a survival tactic that allows for things such as prediction of intent.

perhaps - perhaps not

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
he doesn't have the means to not read books and not go to the pub?
I bet if there wasn't a film crew there he would sit on his butt and pick his nose like any other run of the mill hermit
”
If he could change his physiology and psychological makeup some more so he could hunt deer and eat them raw, do you think he would?

I don't know, but he does have the means not to read books and not go to the pub.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
lol - its a bit hard to say, since theistic foundations are well and truly part of the cultural landscape (unless for instance the legal system has been radically revamped so that it doesn’t bear a single trace of semblance to biblical reference points, eg – the 10 commandments) - if you really want to know the answer to such a question, try going to a place like africa or PNG, which has a long history of rather low level religious principles - there you can encounter people who's ideas of "goodness" is that they can kill you and be the good guys (and that makes you the bad guy since after killing you they can take all your possessions)
”
Ok, then let me re-ask the question. What qualities does this mini-African society have that are deeply rooted in theism?:



http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0821/p01s02-woaf.html

probably similar ones that he would have been socialized around during his youth - to say whether that involves things other than christianity requires further research

 

[Crunchy Cat]

“ Crunchy cat

reasoning is a function of intelligence (discrimnination)
intelligence is a function of ego (what I think I am)
ego is a function of the consciousness (being alive as opposed to dead)
consciousness is a a function of the soul (eternal fragmental part and parcel of the absolute)
the soul is a contingent potency of god
god is the cause of all causes

ok?

So the hierarchy is:

Philosophy
Reasoning
Intelligence
Ego
Consciousness
Soul
God

If the hierarchy was:

Philosophy
Reason
Brain
Reality

Would reason or philosophy be affected?

“
if one denies something that is truthful because it doesn't appear truthful, that is not a different state of being (even though it may confer different results)
for instance I could accidentally give you $5 instead of $10 because of two reasons
1) I was trying to cheat you (duplicity , an aspect of madness)
2) I sincerely thought the 5 was a 10, but made an error of judgment, thus my state of being in giving you a 5 would be nondifferent from me giving you a 10

If there are only two states then, can a person re-establish hope if the truth is known, they hate it, and lack the cognitive agility to deceive themselves into further denial?

I didn't investigate it too thoroughly but there are various claims being made at various levels - if you are asking whether something is truthful you have to be specific (for instance if I ask "Is the sky truthful", people probably wouldn't even begin to understand how to answer that)

More specific it is. Do you find the claims of the existence and behavior of telekensis on that page as sounding truthful?

certainly

What about a computer that can simulate bird learning?

if you had an emotional extreme that you couldn't recognize, how would you know?

Feedback most likely; however, I am not sure it's possible for me to encounter an emotional extreme and not recognize that an emotional extreme is present at the very least. What about you? Have you ever experienced an emotional extreme and not recognized it for what it was?

furthermore, even with the emotional extremes you did recognize, was recognition sufficient to control the influence that they exerted on your senses and intelligence?

Yes. In fact in my childhood, I would sometimes "play the part" because other people expected a certain behavior from me in the presence of an emotional extreme. Naturally, I stopped doing that when I decided to place my values above the expectations of others.

“
oh you would be surprised - a hungry person can very easily change their opinion

Hunger is an illusion according to Yorda.

To be fearful of falling into illusion (that is falling under the control of vice), is the proper state for a theist. It helps sharpen the discrimination

Between the passing fear of being eaten by a predator and the constant fear of being tortured eternally, I wonder which is more preferable?

pleasure has many avenues of expression - some in the medium of illusion and some in the medium of proper awareness

Could theism hinder the ability to experience pleasure to the point of rendering one psychologically unhealthy?

and what do you think is the likely reason for that?
(How many people have been eaten by roaming animals in your house over the past 15 years?)

There's simply more of us and we're group-based predators.

“
certainly has the capacity to comprehend pleasure - let me tell you they won't just make camp in any old piece of poo - they have standards

I am sure they do and yet they cannot envision paradise.

distinction is also a pleasure
there are also pleasures of austerity

(ever had an uncle who always asks you to punch him in the guts regardless of how big you grow up to be or how aged and sick he becomes?)

regardless, its all a case of different strokes for different folks

I agree, and for someone to say they are living in paradise suggests something a little deeper than distinction and austerity. How many people do you know think their life is paradise? I personlly don't know any.

whether he understands the significance or god, the significance of god's pure devotee and the significance of thing's related to god's pure devotee, we can only speculate .....

Well he is human regardless of his body modifications... and he anthropormphizes everything like the rest of us.

not sure what you are you arguing here ....
they're mostly theists?

ditto above

once again, I'm not sure how you would go from here to any serious discussion of religion
.... I mean the alternative that people possessed of different desires use animals as a function of narrative to suit their various whims is somehow not tenable?

Not only do all those theists want to look and behave like other animals... they are entralled by the sex and violence of their animals of choice. They want it. You asserted that if a society's hope is demolished then people would live like animals... yet here is a group of theists whom really really wants to do just that above and beyond... and they're full of hope. From a Christian standpoint, such behavior is immoral, evil, and of the devil... yet the Christians of that culture seem to be immune to that contradiction. They seem to have invested their hope in an even more complex infrastructure than theism alone. The supposed 'truth' of theism that tells them they are evil is overridden by this hope is devalued. What do you suppose does this where these bizzare theists values their hope over their theistical truths?

perhaps - perhaps not

That one can be objectively tested and proven against your own subjectivity btw.

I don't know, but he does have the means not to read books and not go to the pub.

That's true, and does it make him any less genuine for not doing so?

probably similar ones that he would have been socialized around during his youth - to say whether that involves things other than christianity requires further research

You might find it an interesting study then. I won't provide any spoilers

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Crunchy cat

reasoning is a function of intelligence (discrimnination)
intelligence is a function of ego (what I think I am)
ego is a function of the consciousness (being alive as opposed to dead)
consciousness is a a function of the soul (eternal fragmental part and parcel of the absolute)
the soul is a contingent potency of god
god is the cause of all causes

ok?
”
So the hierarchy is:

Philosophy
Reasoning
Intelligence
Ego
Consciousness
Soul
God

If the hierarchy was:

Philosophy
Reason
Brain
Reality

Would reason or philosophy be affected?

depends whether one requires statements of truth to validate such hierarchies (in other words is there any one making a claim of directly perceiving such a hierarchy or are we just talking concepts - if we are just talking concepts we could slap anything down in a game of word association

philosophy
Reason
rulers
tinned spaghetti

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
if one denies something that is truthful because it doesn't appear truthful, that is not a different state of being (even though it may confer different results)
for instance I could accidentally give you $5 instead of $10 because of two reasons
1) I was trying to cheat you (duplicity , an aspect of madness)
2) I sincerely thought the 5 was a 10, but made an error of judgment, thus my state of being in giving you a 5 would be nondifferent from me giving you a 10
”
If there are only two states then, can a person re-establish hope if the truth is known, they hate it, and lack the cognitive agility to deceive themselves into further denial?

yes, through the agency of number one

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I didn't investigate it too thoroughly but there are various claims being made at various levels - if you are asking whether something is truthful you have to be specific (for instance if I ask "Is the sky truthful", people probably wouldn't even begin to understand how to answer that)
”
More specific it is. Do you find the claims of the existence and behavior of telekensis on that page as sounding truthful?

no

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly
”
What about a computer that can simulate bird learning?

simulate or imitate?
(given that outside of science fiction novels, computers are yet to even come close to anything like consciousness, and that consciousness is the prime requisite for learning, I think you have to explain yourself)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you had an emotional extreme that you couldn't recognize, how would you know?
”
Feedback most likely;

feedback from what?

however, I am not sure it's possible for me to encounter an emotional extreme and not recognize that an emotional extreme is present at the very least.

if you couldn't recognize it, how would you know?

What about you? Have you ever experienced an emotional extreme and not recognized it for what it was?

the whole issue strikes me as absurd
How can I recognize something I can't recognize?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
furthermore, even with the emotional extremes you did recognize, was recognition sufficient to control the influence that they exerted on your senses and intelligence?
”
Yes. In fact in my childhood, I would sometimes "play the part" because other people expected a certain behavior from me in the presence of an emotional extreme. Naturally, I stopped doing that when I decided to place my values above the expectations of others.

so you have never had the experience of say, over eating more than what your body dictates as sufficient?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
oh you would be surprised - a hungry person can very easily change their opinion

”
Hunger is an illusion according to Yorda.

well no more cookies for Yorda

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
To be fearful of falling into illusion (that is falling under the control of vice), is the proper state for a theist. It helps sharpen the discrimination
”
Between the passing fear of being eaten by a predator and the constant fear of being tortured eternally, I wonder which is more preferable?

hence there is a difference between anticipating hell and participating in hell

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
pleasure has many avenues of expression - some in the medium of illusion and some in the medium of proper awareness
”
Could theism hinder the ability to experience pleasure to the point of rendering one psychologically unhealthy?

not if applied properly

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and what do you think is the likely reason for that?
(How many people have been eaten by roaming animals in your house over the past 15 years?)
”
There's simply more of us and we're group-based predators.

guess there are few pros that come with the human form of life then

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
certainly has the capacity to comprehend pleasure - let me tell you they won't just make camp in any old piece of poo - they have standards
”
I am sure they do and yet they cannot envision paradise.

apart from participating in an environment ideal to his senses, what is leopard man's notions of paradise?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
distinction is also a pleasure
there are also pleasures of austerity

(ever had an uncle who always asks you to punch him in the guts regardless of how big you grow up to be or how aged and sick he becomes?)

regardless, its all a case of different strokes for different folks
”
I agree, and for someone to say they are living in paradise suggests something a little deeper than distinction and austerity.

why?

How many people do you know think their life is paradise? I personlly don't know any.

lol - I know quite a few

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
whether he understands the significance or god, the significance of god's pure devotee and the significance of thing's related to god's pure devotee, we can only speculate .....
”
Well he is human regardless of his body modifications... and he anthropormphizes everything like the rest of us.

There's no such thing as only one extreme - there is always two
(have you heard of the word mechanomorphic)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not sure what you are you arguing here ....
they're mostly theists?

ditto above

once again, I'm not sure how you would go from here to any serious discussion of religion
.... I mean the alternative that people possessed of different desires use animals as a function of narrative to suit their various whims is somehow not tenable?
”
Not only do all those theists want to look and behave like other animals... they are entralled by the sex and violence of their animals of choice.

given the links you provided I can't see how you come to that conclusion

They want it. You asserted that if a society's hope is demolished then people would live like animals...

no
I asserted that issues of religion is the only thing that separates human society from animal society

yet here is a group of theists whom really really wants to do just that above and beyond... and they're full of hope.

what are you talking about?

From a Christian standpoint, such behavior is immoral, evil, and of the devil... yet the Christians of that culture seem to be immune to that contradiction.

because they sometimes use cute bunnies as a narrative device to explain issues of higher human values?

They seem to have invested their hope in an even more complex infrastructure than theism alone. The supposed 'truth' of theism that tells them they are evil is overridden by this hope is devalued. What do you suppose does this where these bizzare theists values their hope over their theistical truths?

given our previous points of discussion, I don't understand what you are talking about

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
perhaps - perhaps not
”
That one can be objectively tested and proven against your own subjectivity btw.

testing whether god is an anthropomorphic phenomena?
I doubt it

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I don't know, but he does have the means not to read books and not go to the pub.
”
That's true, and does it make him any less genuine for not doing so?

considering that real leopards don't do these things, I guess so

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
probably similar ones that he would have been socialized around during his youth - to say whether that involves things other than christianity requires further research
”
You might find it an interesting study then. I won't provide any spoilers

given that he mentions having association with christianity as a child, it appears the cat is already out of the bag

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Argument from poor design is a starting place. This could turn into a very very long discussion if you want to get deeper than that.

Those personal opinions of "poor design" are irrelivant, as they make no difference to the fact that things do look designed.

From a personal perspective I can only recall the time when I crashed my car because some designer had given me a blind spot. Intelligent design indeed :bugeye:

It was designed, that's the point.
Why don't you agree that "argument from design" is possible evidence of God?

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

Those personal opinions of "poor design" are irrelivant, as they make no difference to the fact that things do look designed.

Those personal opinions of 'design' are irrelevant as they make no difference to the fact that only simpletons think they've been designed.

Why are you trying to espouse your personal opinion as 'fact'? I'm sorry, I see nothing that indicates design - and, to those that claim that it is, one can start with ID, (incompetent design). If there was a designer, it's an idiot.

It was designed, that's the point.

Says who?

Why don't you agree that "argument from design" is possible evidence of God?

If you were to conclude that there was some form of design, I don't see how you get from there to jesus/allah etc etc.. One could just as easily assert that the universe was farted into existence by an omnipotent invisible penguin or some smart aliens that did it merely for kicks.

However, I don't see 'design'. That you do is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Don't then assume that everyone else must agree with you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Those personal opinions of 'design' are irrelevant as they make no difference to the fact that only simpletons think they've been designed.

Based on what we understand as "design", the portion of the universe which we can comprehend seems designed for a purpose, despite our personal opinion. Even your humanist god, Dick Dawkins agrees that some things seem to imply design.
The "argument from poor design" you dug up, is yet another nonsense attempt by some atheists to make light of this simple fact.

I'm sorry, I see nothing that indicates design -

Liar! :bugeye:

and, to those that claim that it is, one can start with ID, (incompetent design). If there was a designer, it's an idiot.

Your opinion, outside, of my enquiry, is of no importance.

From a personal perspective I can only recall the time when I crashed my car because some designer had given me a blind spot. Intelligent design indeed

It was designed, that's the point.

Says who?

So your car wasn't designed?
It evolved from nothing?

If you were to conclude that there was some form of design, I don't see how you get from there to jesus/allah etc etc..

That's because you are inimical to God, and anything to do with God.
In short, you are anti-God, whether you believe he exists or not.

One could just as easily assert that the universe was farted into existence by an omnipotent invisible penguin or some smart aliens that did it merely for kicks.

Anything but God, eh?

However, I don't see 'design'. That you do is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Don't then assume that everyone else must agree with you.

Stop lieing!
You do see design, but you deny it because you know it could lead to more acceptance of God, than denial.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

the portion of the universe which we can comprehend seems designed for a purpose, despite our personal opinion.

That is your personal opinion and you're entitled to it. Stop trying to stick it on me.

Even your humanist god, Dick Dawkins agrees that some things seem to imply design.

Humanist god what? Have you ever seen me quote him etc? I've not even read one of his books. Try again.

The "argument from poor design" you dug up, is yet another nonsense attempt by some atheists to make light of this simple fact.

Ah I see. :bugeye:

So your car wasn't designed?
It evolved from nothing?

I was talking about my eyes.. duh.

That's because you are inimical to God, and anything to do with God.

Yeah, and inimical to leprechauns and mermaids and floaty invisible turnips too :bugeye: Stop being silly. I do not have a belief in gods - there is simply nothing to be inimical to.

Anything but God, eh?

Anything but? That wasn't the argument. Try again.

Stop lieing!
You do see design

Oh I see. Do yourself a favour and just make my reply for me.

[Jen] You believe in design

[Snake] Yes I do, I am your servant *ohmmm*

Would save us both some time and give you the only answer you're going to accept.

When one sees design it is because they have mistaken the hole in the ground as a perfect match for the puddle without realising the puddle has just adapted to fit the hole.

Enjoy it.

 

[maxg]

I'm not a theist (although I'd prefer the label agnostic to atheist) but I'd like to try to answer the original question. I'll stand with Kant in saying you can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so it really becomes a matter of pragmatism. There are some real benefits to believing in a diety of some sort as well as some drawbacks. Research suggests that it helps with recovery from illness. Believing in god (although not attending religous services) is associated with greater productivity (at least at a population level). It appears to be a good way of warding off certain fears/anxieties that might otherwise prey on one's mind (serving as an opiate for those who can't afford tranquilizers, etc.).

I imagine there are some other benefits as well. I can't see it becoming such an important part of human culture without it having helped some people.