I believe in God because its just something I've arrived at personally....my sister and dad are both atheistic...
*************
M*W: Are your sister and dad just atheist-like or are they true atheists?
I believe in God because its just something I've arrived at personally....my sister and dad are both atheistic...
*************
M*W: If you came to believe in god because you "were told," you really didn't need a god before that. I think it is pointless to need someone/something you didn't need before the time you "were told." As I see it, you believed what you "were told," so "down the road," you were programmed to expect your need for a god.
Why do I believe in God?
Because of:
1) My Eductaion.
2) It makes sense.
Wishful thinking and all that jazz.
Richard Dawkins put it well when he stated that he doesn't fear death because before he was conceived he'd been dead for billions of years, what's to be afraid of?
Kendall: M*W: Okay, then, I thought you said you "heard god's voice." Then, please explain in detail how you "have seen god's voice throughout history." Please clarify how the sound of a voice can be visualized. Also, what evidence do you have that "one's own throughts are corrupt?"
Can you provide documentation (extra-biblical evidence) where "god says stuff like 'beware of those who say there is no god, they will do no good." I take it that you are not familiar with ideologies and philosophies other than christianity.
Are you also aware that christianity is dying worldwide? Even christian congresses are concerned and have publically addressed the declining number of adherents.
Kendall: Lots of people do not know the meaning of the word god, but they know god. Some know the meaning and know god and pretend becouse they dont like the truth, they have little time.
Your what? e-d-u-c-t-a-i-o-n? LOL!!! I wouldn't put too much trust into that edumacashun of yours if I were you.
If that was the case we would have to delite over 97% of all posts on sciforums
are you asserting that the claims of atheism are not based on education?Yea! MOSTLY theists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
are you asserting that the claims of atheism are not based on education?
spidergoat asserted that to be educated how to perceive god indicates that such perceptionis obviously false - i thought that was strange to post on an intelligent forum since most posters attribute their knowledge to education.Well take another look at your question, and then tell me what is supposedly atheistic claims are?
and where is the question of evidence without education?Theist are the one! who make claims. Atheist just ask for you to back them up with evidence.
strange - I have heard this from several atheists (usually the type that frequently resort to ad homs) for a reiteration of this brilliant argument, or even a reference link to it.And please non-of-this-non-sequirtus Bs of yours that one has to have certain epistemological methology to understand theism! BEEN there done that!
in that reading did you ever encounter a passage that asserts quantifying the number of scriptures one has read as indicating anything of merit?I probably have read more religious books than you have!
*************
M*W: Are your sister and dad just atheist-like or are they true atheists?
Don't know what a true athiest is but they say that they're atheist and always tell me there is no afterlife, no God, no heaven , hell, etc...however I still independantly seek the actual truth...unlike most atheists who just accept whatever science says...no independant mind at all...no questioning anything....
Don't know what a true Christian is but they say that they're Christians and always tell me there is an afterlife, a God, a heaven, hell, etc...however I still independantly seeked the actual truth...unlike most theists who just accept whatever religion creed they follow..no independant mind at all...no questioning anything...
with or without a theistic foundation for one's knowledge, there is no question of avoiding the basic requirements for inductive knowledge (faith)
in either case this doesn't prohibit 'free thinking'
you can encounter fat cat academics who are attached to their accredited positions of empiricism .... and just like you can encounter philosophically inclined theists, you can also encounter persons striving to uncover the permanant amongst the transient in academic circles - on the whole though, the former tends to be in higher numbers than the later
you completely missed it, spider was being sarcastic, because the map stated, it was his education, the lead him to god. well now read the maps post and note the spelling of education.its not clear what is wrong with being educated how to perceive god
For instance would it be a fitting rebuttal to any piece of information presented that it can be refused simply because a person attributes their perception to it due to 'education'?
and then take a better look at spiders reply, and again note the spelling of education, and the extremely funny spelling of education by spider.the Map said:Why do I believe in God?
Because of:
1) My Eductaion.
2) It makes sense.
spidergoat said:”
Your what? e-d-u-c-t-a-i-o-n? LOL!!! I wouldn't put too much trust into that edumacashun of yours if I were you.
whatever it may or may not be, there is no question of coming to the platform of direct perception, either in science or theism, without itwith or without a theistic foundation for one's knowledge, there is no question of avoiding the basic requirements for inductive knowledge (faith)
”
FAITH is nothing more then the acceptance of utterances rhetorical, non-sequirtus BS of some one else!
there are also taboo subjects in science that encroach upon their dogmas - like you are free to think that life came from matter but you are not free to think that life came from consciousness“
in either case this doesn't prohibit 'free thinking'
”
Free thinking with belief in religious dogma is an oxymoron!
perhaps I was a bit unclear - I was meaning that the tendency to find intellectually lazy persons (in science, theism, or any field of knowledge) is higher than the occurences of sincere enquirers of knowledge in the same fields - thus the former is victorious over the latter in terms of numbers - the reason should be obvious“
you can encounter fat cat academics who are attached to their accredited positions of empiricism .... and just like you can encounter philosophically inclined theists, you can also encounter persons striving to uncover the permanant amongst the transient in academic circles - on the whole though, the former tends to be in higher numbers than the later
”
Appealing to argument by consensus again aren't you Lg.
Perhaps you really need a lesson on logical fallacies, you comit them often enough! Red Herring, argumentum ad populum, appeal to authorative figures, i.e. popular idealogies, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
whatever it may or may not be, there is no question of coming to the platform of direct perception, either in science or theism, without it
there are also taboo subjects in science that encroach upon their dogmas - like you are free to think that life came from matter but you are not free to think that life came from consciousness
perhaps I was a bit unclear -
I was meaning that the tendency to find intellectually lazy persons (in science, theism, or any field of knowledge) is higher than the occurences of sincere enquirers of knowledge in the same fields