Why is god so hard to believe?

Why do I have to explain this to you? It kind of confuses me to have to explain myself in detail to someone who calls him or her self "philosopher". That used to imply some sort of superior perception I'd swear.

I didn't call YOUR bluff. It was an analogy relevant to your accusations toward Cris. Do you see the point now? I'll spell it out for you. If you tell me something is true that I am strongly convinced is not - then I tell you "that's a common fantasy" or something to that effect... who is the jerk? Who is offending who? That's a good display of why the question "who is offended" is pointless to indulge at that level of conversation. If someone were calling you names it might be debatable. Otherwise "they might be offended" is an incredibly WEAK argument.

You didn't see my point. You didn't see Cris's point. Did you miss some other ones too? I didn't catch it. Seems like evidence that at least in some capacity your mind isn't particularly "open".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are a funny guy wesmorris.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Philosopher,

Thanks for continuing. Your comments are really very useful.

Perhaps, to some extent. My approach now and for some time has been deliberately provocative since I have noticed during my 3.5 years here that such an approach generates the strongest competitive arguments and debate. Look at your own response, you became frustrated and yet you felt driven to continue to argue your case against my perspective. I suspect it is all about adrenalin. If there are holes in my arguments and theists can find them then I know they thoroughly enjoy attempting to destroy me. The end result is that I can refine and improve my arguments accordingly. Without a challenge and some controversy the debates would become stale and boring.

I will agree, but that isn’t really my agenda. My primary reason for being here is to learn and to develop my own arguments. If others become convinced and change their minds because of things I say then that is a pleasant bonus, and I know of two members who have PM’d me to tell me just that. But that isn’t my objective; I am not an ‘atheist evangelist’. I believe that is a superb oxymoron BTW.

I was a practicing Christian some 30 years ago for several years when I chose an atheist style path and I have been questioning what I believe and the basis for my beliefs ever since, but it has been these past 4 years and especially at sciforums where I have been able to make more progress than in any other time in the past 30 years.

You’d think so wouldn’t you but that isn’t what happens in practice. Yes there are some bonehead theists here who can’t string a logical sentence together, but then there are some atheists here with equal problems. Their comments are really irrelevant. But there are and have been some theists who can see past the fake insults and who do genuinely attack the argument, and who do make me think harder. It is those moments and thoughts that I seek and where I find the real value of sciforums.

There have been times when theists outnumbered the atheists, and several polls of a few months ago showed an almost exact number of theists to atheists. At the moment I am not sure of the mix. The perception is that atheists are at least the most vociferous at the moment and I have a very healthy respect for the courage of the theists who jump in amongst that bedlam.

And this is where we have to disagree somewhat. I believe human life is too short to simply wait for answers to arrive, and I believe we should make decisions now based on what we know and build a world and a life for ourselves based on that knowledge, and not on what we don’t know. Religions are based on things that are not known and I strongly suspect are totally false. I also strongly believe that that approach is dangerous, defeatist and fatalistic and what is worse is that it severely distracts far too many people from focusing on finding real solutions to life’s problems.

As for science: I am a scientist and a technologist since I manage an R & D department for a major computer maker. I have long term plans and an agenda where I foresee religion as being a significant obstacle for me in the future. I have no intention on taking a complacent approach and hope that things improve when that might not occur. My general approach to life is to be proactive.

Yes I understand.

So here I need to clean up some confusion between us.

You are right in that we don’t know if there is a god or not. It is that total lack of knowledge that makes the theist ideas imaginative fantasy. But that observation is not the same as stating that gods do not exist, which is what I think you think it means.

The statement concerning the concept of gods being fantasy is true whether gods exist or not. It is because no one can know that gods exist or not that makes the theist claims fantasy. If god(s) actually exist the theist concept will still be a fantasy since their concept is not based on knowledge of gods but on their human imagination.

From Webster again – fantasy: a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived.

Note that if god(s) exist and actually match the theists fantasy for them then that would be no more than a "miraculous" cooincidence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You would have to understand the entire nature of the universe before you could establish your statement as true. Think carefully about your statement. It is not simply that we don’t know that gods exist or not but that we also don’t know whether they could exist or not, or whether there is any possibility that gods can exist.

Please note again that I have never said in this entire debate that gods do not exist.

This is the same issue as above. We do not know that there might be gods. Your statement is still premature.

I hope at this point that you have a better understanding of why I am not dismissing any such thing.

So I am not sure about your last statement. I think the two clauses are mutually exclusive.

It’s now 1:27am and time for bed.

Take care and I hope you find my comments helpful. They are not intended to be combative.
Cris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Philosopher,

Note that TJ was a Deist.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm

 

Cris, thank you for your point of view. I think we are almost on the same page now.

We need to start convincing people that they shouldn't hold any of their beliefs about our creation seroiusly. We need to try and start really convincing the world that it is time to change for the better. These ideas are not the way to lead a good life. They don't mean anything, so it all comes down to when you argue over them you're fighting over nothing.

About TJ being a diest, oh well. His quote was really good to show the side of an athiest/agnostic.

 

Philosopher,

Close enough. Many thanks for the debate.

 

Wesmorris
Yes I did see your point and cris's point. I felt that you didn't see my point either. So whats the difference. I think the only way one really thinks they saw their point is if the others mind is changed. Cause I'm sure you guys think you are absolutely right. Well so do I. And you'll think I'm dumb somehow for it. It goes both ways.

Well if you argue with people that aren't particularly intelligent, and you don't realize that you could offend them, then you are the unintelligent one. You have to realize where people are coming from to convey your message better. If you fail to do this then you don't know how to debate. I was pointing this out. It went right over your head obviously to call it a weak argument. The point of a debate is not to merely debate, but to convince others that they're wrong and make it alright for them to admit it and change their mind about it. When you start insulting them in little ways and don't realize, then it is a stalemate. Neither side is going to be swayed. So the debate meant nothing.

So you really didn't see my point. And you didn't offend me, I felt that others could be offended. I was once an athiest just like you were.

 

I am not trying to start a pissing contest, but why did you ask for clarification if already understood? You said "someone might take offence" and I said "that's not a relevant point and is thusly a very WEAK argument". Hopefully this post will finally clarify my end of the argument.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I said before, pertinence. Your argument as to "whom might be offended" is somewhat accurate, but erronious as to the content of the argument you address with it.

That's fine, but debate technique is not the issue here. I think it's simply cheap to come in here and criticize the debate technique when there was no reason to do so besides your apparently unwarrented superiority complex.

So you think yourself intellegent for having figured that out? Let me ask: What place do people who wear their heart on their sleeve have in debate? What place does someone who thinks "you said my god is just a fantasy and that offends me" have in a rational debate?

No you don't. If people are earnest in their debate your point is vacuous.

You sound like more of a politician than a philosopher.

No, it's a weak argument.

Now you are pretending you're some kind of authority figure. That's a great debate technique.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If a person is a hypersensitive and does not give the benefit of the doubt, then debate is apparently not their interest. They're probably just a politician eh?

They don't have to be do they? Some people can enjoy a debate and still maintain their own perspective eh? IMO, the point is that both sides are enhanced for the effort. Sometimes, one has to risk being offended to benefit from interaction eh? Crazy talk, I know.

Brother, I know you can see farther than that. Please open your eyes.

I don't mean to, but it's not my utmost concern either.

And I think that's irrelevant.

I am agnostic and a 'weak aithiest" as I have always been.

 

Well, you speak honestly, and i never looked at it like that. I never thought of myself as having a superiority complex, its opened my eyes.
You're right that emotions have no place in a debate. But try telling that to 99 percent of the world. And you're right, this is no place to discuss debate techniques.(this thread at least)

Thank you...

 

*kowtow*

 

A brief note... there is also the possibility that a die can land on an edge. The appearance of the numbers 2-12 are the most likely occurences. Consider that and a whole realm of possibilites come into view. Once it can be imagiend it is distinctly possible, that doesn't mean it can or ever will happen. Point is, we don't know except through our faith.

 

Why? Is it any more possible than if it weren't imagined? NO, it isn't. Possibility is fixed and ruled by what our universe allows. Your imagination may effect whether something is tried or not.

If it can't happen then it's not possible right?

Faith in what? You seem to imply that your conception of 'god' is pertinent. I exactly disagree.

 

Agreed, whatever that is.

Don't get this.

Right. The point is we don't know. We can talk about impossibility when we have absolute knowledge of the exact nature of our environment. 'Highly unlikely according to current knowledge' is a more accurate term when describing 'impossibilities' I think.

Whatever you hold true.

If you saw 'god' in my post up there I'd advise you to check again Wes. Lata.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seeing is believing.

If you can see God you are looking at a Graven Image.

God is Nameless, hidden, not Readily apparent, a Mystery.


A No Name atheist that believes is God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Atheists don't believe in the Christian god in the sense that it is an entity that commands how we act, think and do stuff. In a way I may be thought of as an athesit because I can't get it into my head that we have to worship this made up idea when I know we are all the same "one". It is not that it is hard to believe in a god but the importance that people put to it is kind of hilarious.

 

ok,
I really only read the beginning and the end of this thread, but I got the gist of it.

Chris,
you know those theists you talked about that you like because they are bold enough to jump in and give you things to think about. I may be just what you're looking for. Give me a chance to get used to this sight and we can talk some more. For now I would just like to pose a few questions. First of all you said you were a Christian at one point. I'm just curious, so If you wouldn't mind could I have the full story. Such as: how long were you a Christian? why did you become a Christian? Did you ever talk to God? Did you develop a friendship with Him? What made you turn from Christianity? What exactly do you believe now? This is mostly just my own curiosity so humor me ok?

For the rest of you,
No, we can not have proof that there is or is not a God, but I do know with 100% assurance down to the core of my being that there is a God who loves me. For those of you who can't understand this think of it this way. God is love He has told us that; it's truth. How do you know someone loves you? Ok they do corny cute stuff like write love letters (The Bible), show off (miracles), and give us gifts (salvation, life, family, food, the list could go on). But the most important way that we know it is true love is because we can feel it. It's indescribable. It's love. That's how I know God is real. He is love, and I believe in love.

Love,

Mystee

 

A faulty argument, as you have not submitted evidence to support your premise "God is love".
I believe in love too. That does not mean God exists. You must provide evidence to show that love and God are related.

 

Originally posted by MarcAC
Agreed, whatever that is.Don't get this.

One may choose to attempt something derived of one's thoughts, but its possibility limited by the "laws of physics" however incomplete our verifiable knowledge thereof.

Right. The point is we don't know.


That's simply not true. If right now I were have my head separated from my body, I can gaurentee I would die. . If you hit me in the head with a sledge hammer, it will surely hurt. If I stand at ground zero of the detonation of a 40 megaton nuclear bomb, I gaurentee I'll be vaporized. I'm sure you see the point.

We can talk about impossibility when we have absolute knowledge of the exact nature of our environment


On some level, it takes faith to believe the environment is real or rather.. that one's perception of it is in any way reliable, but that doesn't exclude you from the rules of the environment regardless of what you think is "real".

Highly unlikely according to current knowledge' is a more accurate term when describing 'impossibilities' I think.

Depends on the impossiblity in question eh?

Whatever you hold true.

Still doesn't get you off the hook if your plane is about to explode.

If you saw 'god' in my post up there I'd advise you to check again Wes. Lata.

Pardon brother, but I assumed with you "faith = god". My apologies if I was mistaken.

 

Mystee,

Absence of facts.

The same as you, the hope of immortality. You believe a fantasy will achieve it, whereas I hope that hard work, science and technology will achieve it.

Without proof all you have is a fictional fantasy. Can you demonstrate how your claim to knowledge of God is any different to delusion?

And your proof is?

It can also be a self induced emotional state, especially since it is not accompanied by any objective factual basis.

 

A fantasy is something someone made up such as invisible rabid squirrels attaking from all sides. That is fiction. A belief that has lasted since the beginning of time is not a fantasy. Did you know that there is more physical evedence (that which would hold up in court) for the resurection then for Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo? Though I don't have the proof sitting in my hand to show to you, it is there. Does that mean Waterloo is a fantasy because there is a lack of physical evedence?

I am not wise enough or worthy to defend love like you want me to. It fights its own battles for the soul. We all have equal acces to God. If you want to know more about his love, ask him. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you.

Christ's love,

Mystee