Religion
Related: About this forumScience explains the existence of God.
Science explains the existence of God.
Without a personal apotheosis, all who claim that God is real without any personal knowledge --- without a clear logic trail --- are just lying to themselves as well as others.
All who claim a God are also idol worshipping. They have just pasted their bible pages onto a golden calf. They think they have hidden the calf’s shape but it is still discernible under the manmade WORD of God. To have a Godinabook is to idol worship.
Most that follow a religion do not really follow it. They only follow tradition and cultures based on old tribal ways.
Are you an idol worshipper or do you fall under the first link’s definition?
If not, give the logic trail to your God.
Regards
DL
P. S. Most will see this O P as an attack on those who believe. If you do, then you should know that I am not an atheist but call myself a Gnostic Christian and do believe in a Godhead. It is just not supernatural and is not immoral the way the bible God is portrayed to be.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)"Through the Wormhole," that asks if we invented God.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)There can only be one answer for such a question FMPOV.
In this instance, since I believe in a cosmic consciousness, I would say we created it.
Somewhat like saying that a tadpole created the frog it became.
Yes.
Regards
DL
rug
(82,333 posts)Science has explained the existence of the God or religion concepts quite well.
It stems from a delusional mentality and ritualistic behavior.
Regards
DL
rug
(82,333 posts)If you are saying that the existence of God is the product of a delusional mentality, then science is not explaining God at all, just the workings of the human brain.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I think it's more that stupid questions and lame remarks are found to be sidetracks.
rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Fact.... with empirical evidence to prove it.
rug
(82,333 posts)We wouldn't want to believe an assertion without evidence.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How about this! From this very thread!
re Mendel:
You: Yes, he studied genetics because he liked to eat peas.
Me: Could it be he didn't know he was studying genetics...because no one knew what that was then? Could it be he was just actually studying what happened when he cross bred peas? Could it be you don't seem to understand that was the mid 19th century? Maybe you think the monks just ran down to the Krogers for food?
You: Could it be he used science while, horrors, he believed in a religion.
See? (you won't but everyone else will) Nothing to do with the fact you don't seem to understand life in the mid 19th century at all.... which is the subject of my post.
Your turn to post... since you always must have the last word.... no mater what!
rug
(82,333 posts)You realize, I hope, that it is in response to this bit of nonsense of yours.
"If of course growing things to eat (like peas) was part of his duties.... or do you think monks live on air.... and just say mass 24/7"
edhopper
(33,576 posts)GOD does not exist.
Do you understand that simple concept?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's a new one on me. Where canI read more about that?
edhopper
(33,576 posts)and where in human psychology and evolution that fits in.
Inversely, all explanations of Gods really existing go against what science tells us about the Universe.
Be aware that this is stemming from Rug not understanding this premiss and my replying. Not a blanket statement on my part
Oregonian
(209 posts)....but he/she/it is certainly not necessary for the earth and the cosmos to exist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-god-not-n_n_703179.html
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Thanks for the link.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)is subjective and certainly hypothetical.
Oregonian
(209 posts)Meaning, why discuss it? Is a McDonald's frachise on Neptune? Another question along the same lines.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)a McDonald's frachise on Neptune. That's the difference.
Oregonian
(209 posts)You're conflating "record" with "evidence". There is no evidence of God, no evidence of Russell's Teapot. The mad delusions written by people during the Bronze Age harldy qualifies as a "record", or else we're de-fictionalizing Homer's Odyssey, too.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and objective evidence. No believer can claim objective evidence as proof of deity.
Your reference to mad delusions of course is only subjective.
Then "there is no Santa Claus" is a totally subjective opinion. "Gravity is meaningless" is a totally subjective opinion. "The Tooth Fairy has not tickled anyone's mansack" is a totally subjective opinion. You render all evidence worthless when you believe that evidence can be "subjective" or "objective". Evidence is evidence. Period.
Everything else is in your head.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)circumstantial evidence does not exist, nor any other type that is not 100% objective. That is the futility of atheism.
Oregonian
(209 posts)There is no such thing as "subjective" evidence. It's a ridiculous term. By calling it "circumstantial", you are making a qualitative judgment about "objective" evidence.
Again, evidence is evidence. As any religious person will tell you, their conclusions are ALL about faith. They have to be. The dream I had last night about slam-dunking over Hakeem Olajuwan is not objective evidence, it is not subjective evidence, it's not even "circumstantial evidence". It's merely thoughts in my head, sort of like God, religion, etc.
FWIW, I'm looking at this from a former trial-attorney's perspective.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)objective evidence. Objective evidence is empirical, observable, and indisputable. Totally quantitative. No room for any alternatives. Anything short of that, even your circumstantial evidence, is subjective. There 's room for doubt.
What you're saying is that all "evidence" is created equal. That's absurd, and no professional in any discipline that uses evidence to come up with conclusions (whether it be law, science, law enforcement, academia, or a Mcdonald's fry cook) would agree with that.
Evidence is objective: "The doorknob has fingerprints on it that match the resident, and also the resident's uncle, ergo either the resident or the uncle killed the person inside." There is no disputing that the fingerprints belong to one person or another, there's just a dispute about how strong the evidence is (is the uncle a frequent visitor?) and whether conclusions can be drawn from it.
Think about it: If a black box recorder from a plane crash suggests the pilots confused a runway with a highway, is that "subjective" evidence? No, you have the statements of the crew, the file on the crew, and observable facts. Whether you draw a certain conclusion from it depends on the STRENGTH of the evidence.
With respect to God, there is no evidence. Nothing objective whatsoever. Hence, faith. Faith is not evidence at all, but a justification used by those who choose to believe.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)If I am distinguishing between subjective and objective evidence, clearly I am differentiating between the two. I am not the one claiming all evidence is objective.
" no professional in any discipline that uses evidence to come up with conclusions (whether it be law, science, law enforcement, academia, or a Mcdonald's fry cook) would agree with that." Then why the need for a scientific method, which has a built in mechanism for the presentation of new evidence. If new evidence is required then quite obviously the old evidence was not totally objective, therefore to a degree it was subjective. When ever evidence has the potential of pointing to more than one outcome, or is not obvious to everyone it is subjective evidence. Historians, scientists, lawyers, business people all use subjective evidences in their professions.
And as far the legal profession recognizing only objective evidence as existing, then why does the legal profession ( and many other professions) make a distinction between the two?
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/subjective-evidence/
And with respect to God, most Christians, and Christianity in general, do not claim objective evidence, but certainly do recognize the subjective evidence.
Your opinion that all evidence is objective is quite subjective, and the evidence that you put forth to prove your claim is quite subjective. Obviously not all agree with your assertion, therefore it is subjective.
Oregonian
(209 posts)I think I'd have better luck explaining quantum physics to my cat. There is no such thing as "subjective evidence." It's a silly phrase. It's an oxymoron. Like jumbo shrimp. That's just the plain truth.
Christians don't have ANY evidence. I mean, you can CALL IT "subjective evidence" if you want, but that means it's NOT evidence.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2012, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)
the exception of some atheists. Certainly the legal profession does not share your opinion. But maybe you can convince your cat.
Oregonian
(209 posts)"Subjective evidence" is a phrase you never hear in a courtroom. The phrase you would hear is "inadmissible" or "circumstantial." Reliability of a witness, coupled with what the witness claimed to observe, is "objective".
humblebum
(5,881 posts)the assertion being made. Calling subjective evidence by any other name doesn't belie the fact that it is indeed subjective.
Oregonian
(209 posts)Uh, how would you prefer I take that sentence? Fine, it's accepted by the legal community, but never accepted in a courtroom. It sounds like you are not at all familiar with the legal profession, because "evidence" is ONLY used in a coutroom, and the word "subjective evidence" is never used in a courtroom, at least not by any judge who knows what he or she is talking about, or by any lawyer attempting to get evidence admissible.
You're right, calling "subjective evidence" something else doesn't "belie" that it is "subjective." That was never my claim anyway. My claim is, purely, that it is not "evidence."
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Argumentum ad populum
LTX
(1,020 posts)While subjective evidence or symptoms cannot be contradicted, they are nevertheless regularly accepted as part of the evidentiary equation. In law, for example, intent, party-attributed meanings of contractual terms, and pain and suffering are evaluated on subjective bases. And in medicine, the art of diagnosis very often depends on analysis of entirely subjective symptoms.
Oregonian
(209 posts)is the only way to evaluate said symptoms. A hypochondriac may have provide "subjective" evidence for diagnosis, but it is viewed through the prism of objectivity.
Similarly, as it relates to religion, a religious person claiming to have a personal relationship with Christ is viewed through the prism of their mental illness/delusion.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)that is where you display a tremendous bias, which renders your opinion not to be objective, but rather to be heavily influenced by your own very biased, and therefore subjective opinion.
Oregonian
(209 posts)...to deem it strange for someone to have a "personal relationship" with an imaginary friend as an adult. Under normal circumstances, said person either seeks treatment from a psychiatrist for such an illness, or they are committed.
But when it comes to this magical fictional character from 2,000 years ago, we deem it normal. Why? Pretty arbitrary. It is objectively reasonable to assume that imaginary friends are not real, not observable, and therefore a human being cannot have a "personal relationship" with them and claim to be sane.
Look, you came into the atheists/agnostics forum with an obvious agenda to challenge the idea that God isn't real, or Christ isn't real. What the fuck did you expect?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)This isn't the atheists/agnostics forum and it's pretty obvious who has an agenda.
Oregonian
(209 posts)Yes, I normally post in the atheist/agnostic forum.
That said, none of your points regarding "subjective evidence" have any merit. It is not evidence.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)in agreement with yourself. Can't get much more subjective than that.
Oregonian
(209 posts)You keep claiming that no one agrees with me. I didn't ask for a popular vote, and arguing on that basis during a 1-on-1 conversation is pretty stupid. I've provided the substantive argument I believe suffices for why subjective evidence is not "evidence" at all. You disagree. Fine. But you have no basis on which to tell me that no one agrees with me, unless you're committed to sounding like a whiny child.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and another poster has agreed with me. There are many more sources referring to subjective evidence, as well as it being taught in the classroom. You have supplied no sources except the very subjective evidence that is your own opinion.
However, it is a very common response from atheists that subjective evidence doesn't exist because that is a sure to validate the atheist POV. Without it your case becomes much more difficult to perpetuate.
Oregonian
(209 posts)You will be given about a half-dozen religious websites and forums on which to discuss "subjective evidence" on the first page of results. This tells me that the foundation of religious superstition (which we know to have zero evidence supporting it) is "subjective evidence."
Ergo, zero evidence = subjective evidence.
You've had ONE person weigh in with some weak example regarding a person's subjective description of pain to obtain a medical diagnosis. Let me ask you this: Does the doctor typically stop the examination there?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)most Christians admit their beliefs are indeed based upon subjective evidence. No big surprise there.
Also, subjective evidence is hardly confined to religion. Just about any discipline I can think of uses it.
"Does the doctor typically stop the examination there?" Huh? Anytime symptoms point to more than one particular diagnosis, the symptoms represent subjective evidence. Objective evidence is only obtained when everything else has been ruled out, except one specific medical condition.
Oregonian
(209 posts)Therefore, doctors go PAST the "my foot hurts" confession from the patient, and do an X-ray, an MRI, or a blood test to confirm something -- aka obtaining objective evidence. Why do they do this? Because "subjective evidence" is not evidence at all until it's confirmed, so it can be treated.
Same with law: A witness says they saw something. Unless you use other factors to bolster the testimony (witness' apparently, objectively reasonable reliability, physical evidence), you have circumstantial evidence that is not objectively verifiable.
Christian beliefs are even worse than eyewitness beliefs. Christians literally see nothing. Sure, they may claim to talk to a God, but that isn't prima facie evidence of a God. It's evidence a Christian "saw" something that was either there, or was in their head. But the admission wouldn't be offered for its truth. That's called hearsay (and thus, NOT evidence).
humblebum
(5,881 posts)And you also demonstrate an extreme bias against the religious that taints you POV. If evidence is not subjective, it can only be objective.
Oregonian
(209 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)that it is heavily utilized.
Oregonian
(209 posts)So is inadmissible hearsay. If that's the test for "evidence", then I guess a psychotic person's delusions qualify as reality by your standard.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Wow, that's some fine broad brush insensitivity going on there. I guess we will just have to hospitalize most of the world's population.
By the way, you are in the religion forum, where both believers and non-believers are welcome, but there is an expectation of some degree respect and tolerance. There is an Atheist/Agnostic group and you might want to find it.
Oregonian
(209 posts)I, like many (maybe most?), atheists was brought up religious. Devoutly so. However through some education and some exposure to the non-fundamentalist world, I worked through my problem.
But yes, if you believe in ghosts, there is something wrong with you. "Faith" is not an inherently good thing, as any decent airline pilot will tell you.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That is an inherently good thing.
While you experienced religion and rejected it, others have not.
And they are not necessarily more or less sane than you.
Oregonian
(209 posts)Faith is really an overrated "virtue" that has no applicability to any skill. The only thing it might do is comfort you if superstition makes you warm & fuzzy.
And no, telling your child about faith is not operating on faith: we know from experience that children will mostly believe us no matter what we say. Hence all these childishly religious children growing into childishly religious adults.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You may not have faith in a deity, but you will probably experience faith that they are going to be OK, responsible, and get home.
I'm not talking about teaching them faith. I'm talking about having faith in them. You may have some data to base it on, but not much.
Your continuing to speak of believers as either psychotic or childish is annoying. Is it ok if I talk about atheists using similar terms?
Oregonian
(209 posts)You've posted over 100,000 times on this forum, and 1800 in the past 90 days alone in the religious forum alone. Sounds like you've probably disparaged atheists about 1,000 times in 3 months, and it sounds like you're getting frustrated because we're not all agreeing with you. I'm sorry if I annoy you with the truth. I didn't say believers are psychotic, or childish. But I do believe their beliefs are. Believing in a magical zombie deity who can hear your whispers and gets involved in your daily life like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is, by any definition, childish.
I will not use "faith" when my 2 sons begin to drive. I will teach them to drive safely; I will restrict their driving hours; I will force them to tell me where they are going; I will make sure they are driving a safe car and educate them on safety and defensive driving.
None of this involves faith. If I were 100% "faithful", I would merely toss them the keys at age 13 and hope for the best. That's the childish lunacy I'm talking about.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am not a hostess of this group, so I do much of my posting here.
But I would challenge you to find posts in which I disparage atheists, let alone 1,000's of them.
Anti-theists, on the other hand, I do freely disparage, as I find them to be as bigoted as any other group that hates people for what they are, how they look, who they love or what they believe.
Since you don't have a clue about what I believe or don't believe, you are making some wild assumptions based on your own fantasies. Not very scientific.
You don't have the truth anymore than anyone else does. But it is becoming increasingly clear that you are an anti-theist who thinks that you do.
Oregonian
(209 posts)And part of the reason is because of some of the hogwash you, and others of similar minds, post and say. See your latest article written by a Christian homophobe who complains about the "rights" of Christians to discriminate against gays. You proffered this piece of shit article in an effort to demonstrate why Christians have it rough in Europe without a First Amendment. You seem to present an appalling lack of knowledge regarding science, the First Amendment, and foreign governments here. And that observation is based on quantifiable evidence, not assumption.
If you disparage anti-theists, then you disparage atheists, and I am 100% correct in my "assumption".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Oregonian
(209 posts)Although I've heard that about you. Repeatedly.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)gods are not needed for explanatory purposes, and if by some improbable quirk these alleged deities do exist they have no interaction with the universe, and are thus unimportant and irrelevant.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)invisible part).
rug
(82,333 posts)And what were the parameters used to test that hypothesis?
edhopper
(33,576 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)And how did they test it?
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Your definitive statement is a logical fallacy the same way God exists is a logical fallacy to a believer. You should try not to use the same foolish language that believers use. You are supposed to best them. Not match them.
Regards
DL
edhopper
(33,576 posts)but sometimes I don't have time for anything but a notation.
Most understand what I mean, some do not and some want to argue based on semantics or side issues.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Yes. The human brains that are inventing the fantasy and delusion.
Regards
DL
humblebum
(5,881 posts)To say that science can objectively prove or disprove deity is ridiculous. In order to do that they also have to define their own idea of god.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Secondly, you're wrong. If one were interested in attempting to disprove a particular deity, they would not need to come up with their own idea of it first, as their are plenty of ideas available that could be chosen from and worked on. Does that mean there are many (or any?) scientists interested in pursuing such a venture? Not in the least.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Science is not a religion. It is a method of investigation using observations, experimentation and confirmation. That's all it is.
You don't even know what "science" means. Therefore the lies you tell yourself about science have no authority except in your head. You are delusional that you think you know what science even is.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)They have, as delusion.
I admit it goes further than that though.
At the end of the day, it is not to science to prove that God does not exist. It is to those that make the claim that he does exist to prove their case.
Regards
DL
humblebum
(5,881 posts)not claim objective empirical proof of God, not are they admonished to do so by their religion. So the entire consideration is up to those who say "it is not to science to prove that God does not exist." As much as they to try if they care to try, they will always fail, due to the limitations of Science. And believers should not even concern themselves with the matter.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)When someone comes to MY door to try to convert me or someone tells ME I'm going to hell because I'm a heathen the ball is in their court to back up their claim with some evidence of what they are saying. It's not my responsibility to counter them or prove them wrong.
When the door to door vacuum salesman comes calling it's on him to explain why I need to buy his product, not on me to try and explain why it's not worth the money.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or, at least SOME evidence. Just, maybe, ONE piece of evidence would be a great start.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)often very different. I have seen and experienced enough in my life to no longer doubt, but can I objectively, empirically prove the existence of deity? No. Have I experienced enough subjective evidence to believe? Yes.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)I would never begrudge you in believing in something that you have witnessed or experienced first hand.
However there are people from EVERY religion that say the same as you. That, due to some personal experience, that their god is real and their religion is the one true religion. So, who's do we choose when there is first hand (though unverified) testimony from all of them?
There are people who will swear up and down that they have astrally projected to Jupiter and some that say that they have been kidnapped by aliens and anal probed with a straight face. Since they swear up and down it happened does that mean I should just take that at face value and believe it really happened?
But you are correct, evidence to a believer is different than it is to a non-believer. Unfortunately, if you wish to convince the non-believer, you have to produce evidence that matches THEIR standards, not give them what you consider to be 'evidence' and then tell them that they are 'blind' or don't 'understand' because they don't agree with you.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I would.
That's because no matter what "experience" one has had, if unexplained, there are many places to go besides the one fed to you from childhood. There are always many many alternatives to any experience other than the default "god" or any supernatural explanation. The proof of this is every "god" experience is based and depends on whatever culture the deluded victim was brought up in or is currently in..... or at least knows about. Do Christians see Shiva? Do Muslims experience the presence of Ebisu? Do Somali fishermen contemplate the Quantum vibrations "gods" of Deepak Chopra or the Universal consciousness fairytales of the modern western world?
"god" and all supernatural ideas come from a guess made long long ago by early men living in profound ignorance of the natural world around them.... a powerful world that impacted them greatly (it still does us too). Why run to the default setting of "supernatural" now that we have very powerful tools of science at our disposal? The supernatural is old news, and superfluous. Try a modern approach instead of a stone age one.
If the experience is still a mystery.... then just call it a mystery. Don't attempt to "explain" it with notions made up by cave men.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)However, as I said, I wouldn't begrudge anybody who had this experience or call them a liar as it may have seemed incredibly real to them. The mind is a powerful thing.
Like you said, though, The explanation is more than likely something else or everybody, in every religion around the world, would be seeing visions of Jesus and Mary rather than their local god(s).
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Indeed.
Like Carl Sagan said about alien abductions: There weren't alien abductions, but SOMETHING did happen to these people. Their fear(usually) is quite real. But they were not abducted by aliens. A hallucination is a real thing, maybe not the events in it, but a hallucination is real. So they aren't lying. That is a better explanation than aliens, and not any kind of insult as we all have hallucinations all the time... it's the way our brains work.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)
"whatever culture the deluded victim was brought up in" - in fact, it is only your opinion that they are deluded. One can consider hard atheists totally deluded, also. Perspective.
"notions made up by cave men." - In fact, you do not know that all religious beliefs or experiences were "made up by cave men." Perspective
If you feel that anyone who believes or has claimed a supernatural or spiritual experience to be deluded, then you may be deluded. You have absolutely no proof that all such notions were "made up" by cave men.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Again...I would!
The eye and the mind play tricks on you all the time.... indeed every time you use them. Eyewitnesses are often more wrong than right. I can make you see things that aren't there by merely giving you a drug. Or just diverting your attention.
There was an experiment where subjects watched a film of people in a circle throwing a ball to one another. Each person in the film had a number. The observers were to remember who threw to whom and when. They were given a test afterward. "How many times did #5 have the ball?" "Who threw the ball to #3 the most?"... questions like that.
The last question was "Did you see the gorilla?"
No one saw it.
Then they were shown the film with no expectations of having to answer questions.
A guy in a gorilla suit walks out to the center, waves at the camera and leaves.
NO ONE SAW IT THE 1ST TIME.
So phooey on what you think you may have seen and experienced....without some other evidence.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That's because, like you, they don't even know the definition of the words they are using. 
humblebum
(5,881 posts)I am fairly sure the standard you use is pretty exclusive to many atheists. If all evidence is indeed considered to be objective, then there would be no reason to use the phrase "objective evidence," which is often used.
In fact, subjective evidence is used on a regular basis in mostly all disciplines.
The only discipline that is based on 100% objectivity is mathematics. And though science itself comes very close it leaves open the possibility for the admission of new evidence, which renders it not to be quite based 100% objective evidence, but as close as humanly possible.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No one does.... but you.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)1. objective evidence : Definition - Life Science Glossary
Definition of objective evidence : information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be ...
www.everythingbio.com/glos/...word=objective+evidence - Cached
2. What is objective evidence? definition and meaning
Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/objective-evidence... - Cached
3. Objective evidence - Razing-Wiki - SIGSNO - Crowdsourced ...
Information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained through ...
uto.sigsno.org/index.php/Objective_evidence - Cached
4. Objective Evidence
Objective Evidence: Evidence needs to be provided to verify that Preventive Corrective Actions were put into place and that they are effective in ...
www.pri-network.org/training/evidence.htm - Cached
5. Objective versus Subjective Evidence - God On the Net
Evidence for Christianity: Objective vs. Subjective -- What is the difference? Why isobjective evidence important?
www.godonthe.net/evidence/objctive.htm - Cached
6. What Is the Difference Between Narrative & Objective Evidence ...
Evidence must be gathered before an investigator can solve a problem. This is true for a medical doctor diagnosing a patient, a police officer solving a crime or an ...
www.ehow.com/...between-narrative-objective-evidence.html - Cached
More results from ehow.com »
7. Objective Evidence - ISO 9001, TS 16949, Quality Assurance ...
Folks, auditing is ALL about Objective Evidence. As in a police investigation, you have to have evidence and it has to be objective. I cannot say this often enough.
elsmar.com/Audit/sld022.htm - Cached
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)They say one exists. What else could that mean if not empirical proof of one?
Your word games are getting tiresome. It's like you're a teenager trying to get out of being caught in a lie.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Conversely, what objective empirical proof is there that deity doesn't exist exist? There is none. Purely subjective assertion.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I've certainly never said or claimed such a thing. And some atheists may do so, but the majority do not. I merely claim gods (actually anything supernatural) are superfluous, not needed in any way and just ancient superstition.
This "objective empirical proof that deity doesn't exist" as a major aspect of atheism is a theist claim, not an atheist one. Atheists mostly go with the Russell's Teapot thing.... which is basically what my claims are.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)basing such a claim upon? Certainly not objective evidence.
Could it possibly be subjective evidence?
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)the god would have to be there in order for them to observe it. After they have found this anomaly in the universe they would have to study it more and then the god would define itself. If they go looking for a white bearded guy they ain't gonna find him. If god would leave any trace of existing at all they may be able to figure out what god is.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)to fit your own paradigm of proving same. That is an adhoc argument designed to supply a ready answer for your own argument. In such a case as this it is a logical fallacy.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Quite a mis characterization. An individual might seek to disprove the existence of a god using the scientific method I suppose though I'm not sure how that would work since it's dealing with a belief that has no observable or physical characteristics of which to disprove.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...the existence of a god? But you are correct, it is indeed difficult to disprove the existence of that which does not physically exist. 
Greatest I am
(235 posts)It is more of proving where such delusional thinking comes from.
I just posted a vid above. Pleas have a look.
Regards
DL
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and it cannot.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)But what scientist has ever been stupid enough to waste his time trying?
You seem to think that some out here are waiting for them to find God for those who believe but have been unable to show even a tiny glimpse of that absentee landlord.
Regards
DL
humblebum
(5,881 posts)opinion often. IOW, unsubstantiated baseless blather.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)And if they do, they are just as baseless as those who claim there is a God without showing any logic trail to him.
At least with scientist or non-believers we can say that they are just miss-using language because they can never prove a negative but with believers who say there is a God without proof, we can say that they are lying.
Regards
DL
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)but I think instead the poster is really referring to the many recent efforts (e.g. Krause, Hawkins) to provide general audience explanations for the work being done in advanced physics that eliminates many arguments for supernatural agency as a requirement for the existence of this universe. This is not an effort to disprove 'god', it is an effort to understand the physics of the universe, but in doing so it is leaving the theists in an uncomfortable place. It is not "no gap no god", it is "you can no longer claim 'therefore god' for that bit, as there is no gap there anymore. In particular, how this universe emerges from 'nothing' is now mostly understood.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)when it is realized that the definition of "nothing" has actually been changed to lend credibility to the new hypothesis. LOL
You can fool some of the people some of the time ...
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)
Some incorrectly claim that our Universe came from nothing. But there had to have been at least some existing physics for our Universe to begin. That's not nothing.
It seems some scientists play loose with the definition of nothing. But they make it clear what they really mean with their explanations - and no god is needed.
There is no reason to believe that the process that created our Universe was unique. It seems likely that there have been infinite universes through the infinite time of existence. With all of these universes, it is inevitable that there will be universes with the capability to evolve life.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)That is an opinion and to make such a statement one needs to define exactly what or who "god" is.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)But they do have some partial plausible explanations. It's hard (impossible?) to test scientifically.
Filling in our gaps in knowledge with a god is only begging the question. It doesn't in any way explain the unknown, plus it creates a far bigger unknown and question: where did this god come from and how does it operate?
It is the believer that needs to define their god. But the word 'god' does have some meaning, so the believer must define their god within some limits.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Everything is still hypothetical and they do "define their god within some limits," but those limits are defined as far beyond what limited human minds are able to understand.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)We still have a lot to learn, but science still deals with a known reality.
Science does its best to come up with plausible explanations using our known reality. The process that produced our Big Bang is difficult to study, but we can reasonably assume it was a natural process dealing with matter and energy - no entirely separate reality needs to be imagined.
One needs to produce a lot of evidence for a completely new reality, or it should be dismissed. God is a completely new reality so it requires a high burden of proof - without which, god can be ignored.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 03:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Logical Empiricism, which automatically excludes deity and on which the SM is based.
LTX
(1,020 posts)That's a curious statement. Can you point me to the physics particle? Or the mathematics particle? And you do realize that what we understand about our construct of physics breaks down rather completely once you get to the big bang. Resolutions to infinity are not resolutions, at least within physics.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)They use the definition that any sane person would accept... a space absent all particles and all energy.
The only redefining of "nothing" has come from the theists who now want to define "nothing" as "that which only god can create from"
Actually the scientific definition of "nothing" is a mathematical concept.... and the math has been proven accurate to many decimal points.... it produces some of the most accurate predictions in all of science.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)all anti-particles and anti-matter. That is the part that seems to have been conveniently ignored. Yes it has been changed.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Not to my understanding. There had to be something there to go bang.
Where it came from is the question that they say cannot be answered.
Regards
DL
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Only in your world.
Not in the quantum world of a singularity.
The "beginning" of the universe is not "your world".
It's like asking "What is the universe expanding into?" because in our would, when something expands, like a balloon, it expands into the space around it. But with the universe it is space itself that is expanding, so it need not expand into something, it can merely expand.
Also in our world of medium size stuff that move relatively slowly, energy and matter are not readily perceived to be different states of the same thing....but in the fast moving, violent worlds found in elementary particle and the vastness of space, this is not the case.
The majority of the universe is not "your/our world" and the universe was not made for you. You cannot survive in it except on 1/3 of a small planet orbiting an common type of star in an ordinary galaxy out of billions and billions.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And in doing so we are gradually removing all the reasons given for why there must be a supernatural explanation for what is. There might be gods, but they aren't necessary and have no function in the real world.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)And if I did or didn't, what difference could it possibly make to you?
onager
(9,356 posts)And I've been seeing it in this group for years.
Ask almost anyone in here who seems to be a believer about their beliefs, and all you get is clouds of black ink and frantic thrashing:
"OK, over here in this post, you referred to yourself as a religious believer and you're always touting Jesus as a good liberal. So does that make you some sort of Xian?"
"Mumble-mumble...Sophisticated Theology...hand-waving...awe and majesty...Gandhi and Martin Luther King..."
"Well, maybe that question was too hard. Do you actually believe (insert any standard item of Xian belief)?"
"None of your business! What are you, some kind of Inquisitor?!"
"So what do you think about the latest arrest of Catholic priests for molesting children?"
"THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!!!"
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)While many here decry how religious people wear their religion on their sleeves, try to push it on others and often call believers bible-thumpers or god-botherers, the same people often insist on labeling those who have not labeled themselves or not shared their labels.
What I will tell you about myself is that I have respect for individual beliefs and practices, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of or harm others. That includes christians, jews, muslims, atheists and just about anyone else.
One can tout Jesus as a good liberal, adopt some of his teachings and even participate in some christian traditions without actually being a theist.
In this group, it is much more likely that someone will declare their atheism than their theism. But many keep their personal beliefs or lack of beliefs in themselves while promoting both theistically and atheistically driven common causes.
No frantic thrashing going on at all.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2012, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)
and one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are entirely relevant to those discussions. So do you believe in a god that acts in this world?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)of beliefs is necessarily relevant at all.
If one wants to talk about ideas and stay away from making it personal, it makes perfect sense to keep one's own beliefs or lack thereof to oneself. What possible difference does it make?
What I believe or don't believe in is none of your business, unless I choose to share it with you.
Which is highly unlikely.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'm an atheist.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
I already knew how you defined yourself. You are a nogod-botherer!
Seriously, I am not trying to make a game out of this. My personal beliefs or lack of beliefs are just that - very personal. I have shared them with very, very few people. In addition, my ideas have been evolving and changing for my entire life.
I do not wish to be pegged down, defined or categorized. I do wish to defend those with all kinds of personal beliefs or lack of beliefs, as long as they harm or impinge on no one else. I particularly want to defend those who may use their beliefs or lack of beliefs to further the causes that I care most about.
longship
(40,416 posts)I also do not know cbayer's theological alignment. And I do not care. we have become respectful friends on these forums. This, in spite that we do not agree on all things religious.
The religious forums are here so that people can have reasonable discussions on these topics with respect.
I may be a militant atheist, but I always try to be respectful of others' beliefs here. I despise organized religion, especially fundementalists of any sort, and especially the religious scammers, like fucking Binnie Hinn or the Crouch's or the many others. (Jimmie Bakker is back from federal prison, scamming as usual.)
But cbayer is a friend. And I don't give a fuck what she believes. I suggest you all treat people here with that in mind.
That's what the Religion forum here is about.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)my time here attacking atheists, lol.
You are a very positive presence in this group, no matter what you believe or don't believe. Like you, I don't care. If we all treated each other with respect, tolerance and understanding, we'd be a formidable force against the religious right in politics.
See you in church, my friend.
longship
(40,416 posts)After all, I am a bit of a crank myself.
But I believer that the DU Religion forum is a safe sanctuary where people can express their religious opinions without personal attacks, or some such.
I have great respect for all who post here, whether I agree or not. I may not always be successful, but I try to be ecumenical.
I tip my hat to all the DU Religious forum moderators. I am in awe of your cat herding abilities.
And to you, cbayer, who has helped with my continued education here. I raise a glass.
Indeed, see you in church.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)was science's quest either. Kinda falls in the same category. Of course science is trying to understand reality and publish it's findings so we know how the universe and the natural world works.
SarahM32
(270 posts)I agree with these two statements:
"Without a personal apotheosis, all who claim that God is real without any personal knowledge --- without a clear logic trail --- are just lying to themselves as well as others."
"Most that follow a religion do not really follow it. They only follow tradition and cultures based on old tribal ways."
However, I disagree with this statement:
"All who claim a God are also idol worshipping. They have just pasted their bible pages onto a golden calf. They think they have hidden the calf’s shape but it is still discernible under the man-made WORD of God. To have a Godinabook is to idol worship."
To worship an idol is to worship an image, or a man or woman, or an image of a man or woman, or a statue or object or monument, and therefore anyone who believes that God is a Man (or Woman) or a particular thing or entity are indeed idol worshipers.
However, actual witnesses of what God truly is realize that God is not a man or woman, or a particular entity or thing. In Kabbalistic and Qabalistic terminology God is "No Thing" -- formless or prior to form.
Certain religious language and terminology simply leads people to believe that God is a "Almighty Superman," but that is a misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
A man who has actually witnessed and experienced and realized what God is has written that God is the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Divine Light Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, the unspeakable primordial "Word" that is made flesh in all of us, the Great Spirit-Parent of us all.
You can find his work published here.
.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Nice to have your around.
SarahM32
(270 posts)I'm just trying to share, and to learn.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)And do you believe him?
Idol woship FMPOV is also believing as true and real the words written by men.
Again, without a personal apotheosis, it is all hearsay and book says and those are idols.
Regards
DL
SarahM32
(270 posts)As I understand it, "apotheosis" means: 1. "the elevation of a person to the rank of of a god" and 2. "the ideal example, epitome."
That's what the original Christians did in the early first century, elevating Jesus of Nazareth to the rank of God and Savior --- even though the Torah and Tanakh made it very clear God is not a man nor a son of man, and that we should not compare or liken any man to God.
Therefore, like most Jews, like Thomas Jefferson and all other like-minded men of the Enlightenment, and like a growing number of liberal progressive Christians and many others, I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was "God Himself." I believe he was a Mashiach (Messiah) who broke Judaic tradition trying to reform and advance Judaism, and I believe he was a son of man who realized the true nature of God within (the unspeakable primordial vibration or "Word" made flesh in all of us).
I agree with the view expressed in an article called The Nature of God.
.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)This is A definition of SOME kind of god....
But it is not what most people here would call a god. And it is not the god of the Bible, Koran, Torah.... the main religions here.... nor do I think it covers the definition of gods from the Vedas or even Buddhism. That covers the 5 main world religions.
And they worry about redefining "nothing"!
SarahM32
(270 posts)Albert,
What God actually is may not be what some people here would call a god. But the God described at http://messenger.cjcmp.org is actually the God of the Torah and Tanakh, of Jesus and Muhammad, also called Brahman by the Hindus, the Supreme Consciousness by the Buddhists, The Absolute Tao by the Taoists, etc.
Even Moses wrote that "God is not a man, nor a son of man." Isaiah wrote that we should not compare God to a man. And Jesus said: "God is greater than I," and "You have not heard God's voice or seen God's shape at any time."
God is, according to all the major religions, infinite, omnipresent, and eternal. And just because there are some words in scriptures that use gender or personhood to describe God to provide a frame of reference, such word do not take away from that fact.
Read http://messenger.cjcmp.org/natureofgod.html
.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I don't even know if Moses existed so who cares what he said?
Hindu gods are not eternal, BTW. Greek gods weren't omnipresent or infinite.
Your idea of a god is based on Judeo/Christian notions and they do not appear in every religion.
All you can say about gods in general is they are supernatural.
And the supernatural doesn't exist. It is superfluous.
stop this fascism
(10 posts)This is mental masturbation. The intellect is a joke.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Jokes and masturbation are fun.
Try some.
Regards
DL
xchrom
(108,903 posts)I always hate to miss that.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)It is a waste of breath. They are in thrall to their delusions and will do intellectual back flips to avoid questioning them. It's better to simply regard them as mentally ill and be done with it.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Then you agree with my first clip. We are one on this.
We cannot cure them by ignoring them.
Do you not have a sense of morality and social conscience?
Imagine the stupidity of the world if we did not correct each other.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
&feature=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
Promoting death to Gays.
&feature=related
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.
Regards
DL
mike_c
(36,281 posts)But there is only so much anyone can do-- if "believers" won't listen to reason, or respond to logic, then there really isn't any legitimate tool left for shaking them free of their delusions. So I don't have any answers other than to acknowledge that we live among the willfully delusional.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)viewed and evaluated through that very narrow epistemology, then I have to say that such people are also delusional.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)No argument.
Regards
DL
SarahM32
(270 posts)But then, I don't know whether you consider me "religiously insane" or not.
I'm not really religious and I regard most organized religion as missing the point. But I do realize there is actually a God -- not as the concept most religious people believe it, but as what It really is, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:43 PM - Edit history (1)
It seems natural for humans to believe in religions. Most of these believers are not close to being mentally ill, no matter how frustrating it is to deal with their beliefs.
Most believers seem to be able to compartmentalize their religious beliefs. They live life just like everyone else, as if their religion wasn't true. They can then call on their religion when they need it. Everyone is different so it's hard to generalize.
I think most people are capable of irrational beliefs of some sort. The religious don't have a monopoly.
No monopoly.
It is just that their irrationality is institutionalized by their dogma and traditions.
Spirituality is good. Religions that lock the mind to a given reality based on fantasy, miracles and magic are evil. Where the intelligent see myth, those who will not think see a literal story.
Regards
DL
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...what we're talking about here is an irrational belief in supernatural, omnipotent, invisible beings that guide our lives or judge them after death. And they cling to those irrational beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. "Mental illness" is perhaps too strong a description, although I'm not entirely convinced of that. Certainly "delusional to the point of being unable to distinguish reality from fantasy" would be an accurate description-- that might escape being called mental illness only because it appears to be part of the human condition.
It seems like we're mostly wired that way, given the ubiquity of human religious experience and its utter lack of consensus regarding religious dogma. That circumstance alone suggests that it's all "in our heads," but the fact remains that while religious believers certainly share that human propensity for delusion, they cannot agree on a fantasy to hold in common. And institutionalized delusion is perhaps the most dangerous kind.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Yes. I am not an American but I see what your religious right is doing.
Certainly not what a Jesus would do.
Regards
DL
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2012, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Christianity has invisible superheroes; human and god sacrifices; god supported slavery, rape, and genocide; third party forgiveness; infinite punishment for honest belief; etc. But other religions have their own elaborate belief systems that cannot possibly be true. So religions surely are "part of the human condition."
Believers are clearly very normal, and there's little that's mentally ill about them.
I react strongly when someone dehumanizes others for their religion. Some well known atheists (and many believers) do this selectively to Muslims. They promote war and fantasize about genocide against Muslims as if Muslim irrationality was so much worse than Christian irrationality. These selective bigots show themselves to be irrational and also dangerous. This bigotry is the result of dehumanizing 'the other.'
Perhaps, before civilizations, religion was less elaborate and had survival benefits for tribal society. As civilizations grew, religions evolved and became stronger and more elaborate. Christianity developed a heaven and hell, third party forgiveness, and only simple belief required for membership. Christianity might be an attractive alternative for the religiously inclined. Besides: who wants to go to hell? Christianity prospered, but the benefits to humans seem questionable. That's just speculation on my part.
SarahM32
(270 posts)I think the people who realized Divinity within, whose efforts to tell people about it eventually became religions, would not like what religion is today.
Over the course of time most religions became institutions of control, established by men for the benefit of men. But, nevertheless, they originated from the realization and revelation that there is within us an innate divinity that is overshadowed by the ego, which produces the "forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Egotism.)
Spiritual rebirth is about transcending ego and realizing what is deeper, and amazingly brighter ... the Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence.
.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
Karmasue
(95 posts)I would certainly have no incentive to reveal it to this crowd of insensitive posters. I would already, at this point, have been labelled delusional, mentally ill, insane, and attached to systems that are EVIL.
Maybe this is why no one wants to "out" themselves here. Kind of like being being gay in the midst of a Republican Fringe Rally.
I feel the need to go take a shower and reassess my first impression of this forum.
Sigh.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)function and stick around.
The number of members who resort to open hostility and attacks is limited and the place takes on a whole new feeling when they disappear.
There are many good people posting here, both believers and non-believers. If you leave, the bullies have won.
Karmasue
(95 posts)and am feeling cleaner now. LOL!
I guess I just don't like being baited or misled. I am too old for that. If it had been entitled "Religion is a Mental Disorder" after the video it led off with, I might have picked a different thread to read. I might not have - but I would have been more prepared to read the nastiness that followed.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Nastiness towards both believers and non-believers has been an ongoing problem at DU. The rules concerning this have been clear but difficult to enforce.
In general, I would say that most people here are open to discussion and tolerant of other POV's. The ones who are cemented in their position, either on one side or the other, are not likely to really want to engage and discuss. So why bother?
It's just like real life, lol!
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Except mine was in the regular world, where being an atheist in the US means non-atheists are more likely to trust a rapist than they are me.
So sorry if I don't have a ton of sympathy for your situation on an internet forum where a extremely small handful of posters made your initial impression slightly uncomfortable. There is a handy ignore feature if you feel the need to make use of it. I would suggest doing so instead of drawing comparisons between your situation here and a gay person having to out themselves in any situation, much less an obviously hostile one.
Karmasue
(95 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)
I said I would have no incentive to reveal a connection to any traditional religion here...which is quite relevant since this is the "Religion" group, under a topic entitled "Religion and Spirituality".
Unfortunately, I don't yet have enough experience with the posters and their tactics here. I did not know going into it, that the topic title "Science explains the existence of God" was disingenuous. The actual topic was pretty obviously designed to inflame and provoke reactions from posters, and facilitate a "hostile" (your word) environment of slamming. And it worked. I was taken in.
Edit - I apologize and have edited my reply. I got the two articles mixed up. It is THIS topic - Science explains the Existence of God" - I was referring to, and not "Should Atheists slam religion or show respect?" I was reading several topics when I replied here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)in which many members have very civilly engaged.
One of the issues here is whether we should be working together to achieve common goals and how best to achieve that.
The article, imo, is well balanced and provides respectful rationale for a variety of approaches. It was not intended to facilitate a hostile environment at all. That environment existed well before this article and has been slowly changing as more civil members from all perspectives engage more.
Karmasue
(95 posts)Sorry. I hope you know I never meant that comment to be directed at your topic, and have edited it to reflect the right title. It was solely meant to reflect THIS topic - "Science explains the existence of God" - which is disingenuous and crass.
Your article is respectful and informative, and in fact I think I did comment there as well.
I wish I could blame it on getting old, but I think it was just because I am getting old. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I find myself having to use the "running through the alphabet trick" to remember friend's names more and more!
On the other hand, I have more excuses for being wrong!
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)However, that's not to say somebody wasn't looking for it anyway.
Here's an idea; the OP makes various statements that are pretty straight forward. Instead of complaining about how you found the content of those statements to create a "hostile" environment, how about actually trying to challenge them? Maybe try to gather some evidence of your own that runs counter to that provided in the OP?
This is a discussion forum where various contentions topics are put through the wringer every day. If you think that's done without creating a "hostile" environment for ideas/beliefs, then you are sadly mistaken. In fact, I'd say it is necessary for there to be a "hostile" environment for ideas/beliefs, otherwise those ideas/beliefs can't possibly be challenged, and challenging them is one of the reasons we're here. Any idea/belief that is not capable of withstanding a bit of a "hostile" environment isn't much of an idea/belief in the first place, in my opinion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)confrontational environment for ideas and beliefs and a hostile environment for those that express them.
Some members can not discuss ideas without making it personal, and that is not an environment that lends itself to discussion.
While you can be extremely challenging, you are generally not hostile. I strive to be that way as well.
It seems to me it is important to make that distinction, because this new member is experiencing something that is very real here, whether you are aware of it or not.
Karmasue
(95 posts)Science explains the existence of God. It could have been an intellectual discussion. Several people attempted that in the thread, but found that intellectual discussion was discouraged by derision. Some gave up. Some devolved. And I posted my disgust.
You want me to offer evidence of what? I made no statement for which evidence need be offered.
Are you looking for me to make some statement for you to pounce on? Do you want me to defend a position that you disagree with so that you feel justified in berating that position?
Why is it you want to fight with me when you don't even know what my philosophies about the existence of God are?
My comments were about the disingenuous title and the hostile nature of the thread itself. Read the title, watch the videos, read the thread - there is your evidence.
Oregonian
(209 posts)No one wants to fight with you. It appears that your own religious beliefs may just be too fragile to hold up to any real scrutiny. Perhaps you should go somewhere "safer".
Greatest I am
(235 posts)If you fear being thought of as foolish for your beliefs, why maintain foolish beliefs?
Regards
DL
marew
(1,588 posts)After being raised Catholic and seeing all the hypocrisy- not only in Catholicism but in most religions, I became a Buddhist/agnostic. I see pain and suffering- human and animal- and intervene whenever I can.
This is why I am a liberal.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Nice to see your senses were with you.
Regards
DL
ocean of bliss
(15 posts)You believe in a Godhead but it's not "supernatural?" Then what is it--material?
God proves science. "God" is a term for That. It cannot be contained within explanation because it is All that Is.
The intellect is quite ineffectual and trips people up when they cling to it to provide them with "proof" and "answers" regarding "God." It's just the egoic self (small 's') that needs to label things.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Yet all religions have for their hundreds of Gods.
They tend not to have small egos.
If as you say God is all, then he has nothing special about him now does he?
Regards
DL
The River
(2,615 posts)but he's too busy being us to notice.
Greatest I am
(235 posts)Exactly.
Regards
DL
