CG: deliver proof of god existence please?
-
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
viaducting wrote:
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
Reading his first three or four posts, I believe he does report the views you mentioned. Do you also believe that survivor was spitting in the faces of the families of the dead passengers? Or do you see how extreme his blogging is? If you do not, you are on the same level as you paint the 'you have no morals if you are not Christian' group.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
viaducting wrote:
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
Reading his first three or four posts, I believe he does report the views you mentioned. Do you also believe that survivor was spitting in the faces of the families of the dead passengers? Or do you see how extreme his blogging is? If you do not, you are on the same level as you paint the 'you have no morals if you are not Christian' group.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I am well aware that he is an extremist the other way and read his blog with that in mind, but consider it a good blog on balance. I think that "spitting in the face of" is an extreme way of phrasing it, but if the survivor really thinks that way, I think he should explain what it was about each of the other passengers which so offended God that he didn't consider them worthy of saving.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
We are on the lounge, and this is a philosophical discussion. I see I am wrong. How much sway is my personal evidence going to have with you, and what would you do other than ridicule it? Anyway, I much more enjoy arguing on your home turf, as it is where you should have the best ability to fight. :) But the quick story is that as an engineering student, the combo of physics, calc, engineering and personal experience caused me to believe there is a god, a designer. Study of different philosophies and religions, as well as personal experience, caused me to believe it was the Christian God. I catch a hard time for it from both Christians and atheists.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that.
As I asked in the other post, is this your opinion, based on research, or is this you not liking Christianity and picking up available stones? I will address that site in an upcoming post. It might be long. :) I will arbitrarily only address the first 10. It might still be long. If you have any favorites, let me know. :laugh:
harold aptroot wrote:
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable.
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Of course it isn't, the whole issue is unresolvable that way, but the onus lies with the people who introduced the idea of a god, not with the people they're trying to convince. That is why it's relevant that god was not invented until "later". If he had been there from the beginning, the atheists would have to disprove his existence, and probably have a hard time. You may hide your god in higher dimensions, and give yet an other "we just don't understand it" argument (in your other post) but that just extends a long history of "hiding god". First he would be up in the sky, but people went to take a look and he wasn't there so he had to be somewhere else, etc, and now in higher dimensions that we can not see? Do you believe in the invisible pink unicorn? Stories about her are usually internally consistent as well as consistent with reality. I guess we'd have to be agnostic about her as well then.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
God was not known to man until, well, choose your year - before that we were simply wrong? It's not entirely impossible.. just weird. It's a god we're talking about, he could have made his presence known at any moment.
Going back to the story you are complaining about, it says that the very first humans know God, in a very personal way, as I stated in the last post. The story is the story of those who knew God from the beginning of human kind.
harold aptroot wrote:
Why don't you believe in Allah then? He's the "newer insight", maybe he is the real god? (why wouldn't he be?)
Maybe he is, but he is not consistent with himself, and that kills it for me. I will look at the site you posted about later, and discuss it with you, if you want.
harold aptroot wrote:
I am especially opposed to the christian god, you know, the one who created man after his own image and is supposed to care about what people do down here.
Then you are not an atheist, you are an antichristian. :laugh: I think if you look Islam has those same 'issues', given how much of it was taken from judeo-chritianity.
harold aptroot wrote:
We're not all that special.
Just from a statistical standpoint, intelligent, tool building races are unusual. But special? I'm not sure what you mean.
harold aptroot wrote:
And I'm opposed to a non-physical magical being cable of thought. How would that work? It can't have a brain. And magic, if it exists at all, can not violate the laws of physics, because nothing can - how did god what he did?
You call it magic, I think of it as the thing that created something changing it, from the outside. It may look 'magic' to you, but that is us not being aware of whatever the 'space' is that space-time was created in. String theory says there are more dimensions that we can't see. If changes occur in those dimensions that effect ours, how would they be reflected in those we see? Could look magic to us. Think about stretching a piece of rubber, folding it or cutting it. To a flatlander, those changes could look like magic, yet they are obvious in our dimensions. So, given how much you don't know, how can you say it could not have something analogous to a brain?
h
RichardM1 wrote:
Would it matter to you if someone started applying pain to your person?
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
RichardM1 wrote:
Which translation are you talking about? Do you have personal reason to believe it is poorly translated, or are you taking on faith what someone else has said? Have you gone back the the most original manuscripts you have available and checked them against the 'poorly translated' version?
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
RichardM1 wrote:
Then you are not an atheist, you are an antichristian. I think if you look Islam has those same 'issues', given how much of it was taken from judeo-chritianity.
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him. The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?
We are on the lounge, and this is a philosophical discussion. I see I am wrong. How much sway is my personal evidence going to have with you, and what would you do other than ridicule it? Anyway, I much more enjoy arguing on your home turf, as it is where you should have the best ability to fight. :) But the quick story is that as an engineering student, the combo of physics, calc, engineering and personal experience caused me to believe there is a god, a designer. Study of different philosophies and religions, as well as personal experience, caused me to believe it was the Christian God. I catch a hard time for it from both Christians and atheists.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that.
As I asked in the other post, is this your opinion, based on research, or is this you not liking Christianity and picking up available stones? I will address that site in an upcoming post. It might be long. :) I will arbitrarily only address the first 10. It might still be long. If you have any favorites, let me know. :laugh:
harold aptroot wrote:
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable.
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good? Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after. Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after.
That's not belief... That's fact. Assuming a "normal" childhood, you ARE being looked after... Until a certain point. At some point, you learn to stand on your own two feet, metaphorically speaking, and no longer depend on your parents to look after you.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Good attitude... If only more people followed it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I think you might be misreading some of them. If someone says morals come from God, that is not the same as saying only Christians have morals. But I am only saying that some of them can't articulate the thought well. Others can't, or won't, understand it themselves, let alone express it. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I could give you piles of them, but some are misread. Lately it's more common just to insist that atheists know there is a god, and simply hate him. So they still have morality, because they know there's a god, but they hate him so they don't follow it the exact way that the given individual thinks they should. Typically including but not limited to allowing women to wear pants, not lynching and/or ostracizing gay people, and my personal favorite, understanding science. They typically enjoy looking down on others from their platform of being the only moral creatures, generally including anyone who doesn't completely agree with them as not real Christians and thus not moral. So pretty much they're just assholes who use religion as a way to prop themselves up. But I've never really worked out if that means you're still Christian or not, seems a bit murky.
-
*grin* that's not confronting at all. In the Bible, God acts in the lives of His people. The proof is not of the sort that one could make a TV documentary on, it's personal. Having said that, there have been people who have joined my church because they did what the Bible says to try to prove that God would not answer, and He did. What the Bible specifically offers the non believer is that if they repent ( which means they are willing to let God prove He is real and, if He is, that they are willing to do things His way ), and be baptised ( that is, be submersed in water, which indicates a willingness to bury the old way of life, when God proves Himself and proves the wherewithall to create a new and better way of life for the individual ), then when someone becomes a Christian, they will have a physical experience which will always include ( but is rarely limited to ) the ability to speak a language that God gives, which is commonly known as speaking in tongues. In my case, when this happened to me, I immediately felt different in many ways, I did literally become a new person. I had gone to many churches before hand, and had 'given my heart to Jesus', and I'd meant it, but I'd been unable to change the negative things in my life. So, if blind faith is all that we're talking about, why didn't my blind faith work before ? You know, there have been down times in my life, and times where I've been disconnected from my faith to a degree, but I can't imagine ever denying what happened to me. In fact, my atheist mother admits that something real enough happened to change me totally, she too would point to that moment as a time of change, and not my other religious experiences that came to nothing. So, yes, the proof God offers is not of a nature that is easy to observe as an outsider. It's not meant to be. God does offer proof to the individual, but He still wants us to have faith. I'm not saying it only works if people are already converted, but I would also say it would not 'work' if someone was not serious enough about it to be willing to consider that God might well exist, simply because I don't see how anyone could be seriously asking Him in those circumstances. That is, it's not a party trick or a joke. And, because it doesn't conform to what people would like God to do, they tend to simply reject it without looking into it at all. Which I would accept if it was done honestly, but 'I don't like the nature of the proof God offers so I will reject it and mock you' doesn't seem like a reasonable
Well put, though I'd have to disagree about Speaking in Tongues - it's not a gift that is given to all by any means (in all honestly, I've never seen it happen in any of the Churches I've attended, though plenty of other spiritual gifts are obvious amongst my co-ministers if you look). In case you're wondering, the gift I (seem to, as if it could be quantified) score highest on appears to be Evangelism. Which just just goes to show that God has a sense of humour and likes to challenge us. ;)
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
-
viaducting wrote:
I subscribe to PZ Myers' Pharyngula[^] blog. There have been plenty of instances there where he has reported exactly the views I mentioned.
Reading his first three or four posts, I believe he does report the views you mentioned. Do you also believe that survivor was spitting in the faces of the families of the dead passengers? Or do you see how extreme his blogging is? If you do not, you are on the same level as you paint the 'you have no morals if you are not Christian' group.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
How exactly is that extreme, it's pretty self centered to walk away from a pile of dead bodies and declare god wanted you to live. It's not god let me live, it's not god spared me, it's god wanted me to live. Humility, it's a wonderful tool in not tap dancing on other people, particularly their graves.
-
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good? Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after. Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good?
So you believe gods 'good' is weaker than mans 'evil'?
RichardM1 wrote:
Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after.
True. Many children are abused because they place their trust in their so called betters.
RichardM1 wrote:
He wants people to do it.
So he has walked away and left Hitler to kill innocent 5 year old children eh? What a cunt. If he exists I would like to punch his fucking lights out the twat.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
The fact that Hitler did what he did proves there isnt a god. Or the Serbs, or Stalin, or the English in Ireland. Or pol pot.
No, it proves free will, AND that there isn't the God that you'd like there to be. But, if there WAS a God who constrained our actions, and forced us to live a certain way, you'd probably not like that, either.
fat_boy wrote:
Fact is believing in god weakens man. It deludes him intio believing he is looked after. He isnt. The sooner people realise it is up to them to create a better life on earth the sooner we will get on and do it.
I would agree that some people are happy to destroy the earth because they think God will fix it. I don't think that's a correct way of looking at things. But hey, there's nothing wrong with the earth anyhow, right ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
if there WAS a God who constrained our actions, and forced us to live a certain way
What? So you are saying there isnt a god who constrains our actions? So just what os the point of god based morality then? Is the whole point of hell about dissuading us from, and thereby controling, certain actions?
Christian Graus wrote:
But hey, there's nothing wrong with the earth anyhow, right ? :P
Ha ha, feeble joke, feeble logic. We never left the garden of eden dude. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good?
So you believe gods 'good' is weaker than mans 'evil'?
RichardM1 wrote:
Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after.
True. Many children are abused because they place their trust in their so called betters.
RichardM1 wrote:
He wants people to do it.
So he has walked away and left Hitler to kill innocent 5 year old children eh? What a cunt. If he exists I would like to punch his fucking lights out the twat.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So you believe gods 'good' is weaker than mans 'evil'?
No. I believe men get what is coming to them when they die. I believe God has already won, and that there was never a doubt in it. But enough about me. You claimed proof of God's non-existence. Do you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good?
fat_boy wrote:
True. Many children are abused because they place their trust in their so called betters.
Is this part of the reason for your ongoing bitterness? Some Priest made a horrible choice and you blame your Mom? Another approach is to make the choice to be more caring for children. You can turn most anything painful into a net positive experience. Or you can decide to be bitter and hurtful.
fat_boy wrote:
So he has walked away and left Hitler to kill innocent 5 year old children eh?
He did not walk away, but yes, He let Hitler and his subordinates make their choices. People making bad choices leads to bad things happening to people. A long painful death is nothing compared to eternity spent in heaven or hell. If you are going to hell, then it is just a little more of your punishment. If you are going to heaven, it will be used for good. Like exercise being painful, but making you stronger. From your perspective, with no afterlife, I understand how horrible it looks. From mine, the pain scares me, but I'll just have to get through it and die.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after.
That's not belief... That's fact. Assuming a "normal" childhood, you ARE being looked after... Until a certain point. At some point, you learn to stand on your own two feet, metaphorically speaking, and no longer depend on your parents to look after you.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Good attitude... If only more people followed it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's not belief... That's fact. Assuming a "normal" childhood, you ARE being looked after... Until a certain point. At some point, you learn to stand on your own two feet, metaphorically speaking, and no longer depend on your parents to look after you.
That is fact for some children. For others, you get mothers who don't protect enough, and mothers who never cut the umbilical. Both of those are destructive. God, after a certain point, makes us responsible for our actions. Before that, we are not.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Good attitude... If only more people followed it.
Ain't that right! And if only I followed it more.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
fat_boy wrote:
So you believe gods 'good' is weaker than mans 'evil'?
No. I believe men get what is coming to them when they die. I believe God has already won, and that there was never a doubt in it. But enough about me. You claimed proof of God's non-existence. Do you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good?
fat_boy wrote:
True. Many children are abused because they place their trust in their so called betters.
Is this part of the reason for your ongoing bitterness? Some Priest made a horrible choice and you blame your Mom? Another approach is to make the choice to be more caring for children. You can turn most anything painful into a net positive experience. Or you can decide to be bitter and hurtful.
fat_boy wrote:
So he has walked away and left Hitler to kill innocent 5 year old children eh?
He did not walk away, but yes, He let Hitler and his subordinates make their choices. People making bad choices leads to bad things happening to people. A long painful death is nothing compared to eternity spent in heaven or hell. If you are going to hell, then it is just a little more of your punishment. If you are going to heaven, it will be used for good. Like exercise being painful, but making you stronger. From your perspective, with no afterlife, I understand how horrible it looks. From mine, the pain scares me, but I'll just have to get through it and die.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
He let Hitler and his subordinates make their choices
He let Hitler and the rest of them kill innocent children? Causing immense suffering to not only them but their families? And to what extent? Just so Hitler can become aware of his actions? Got kids have you? You are sick you know. And so is your god.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
He let Hitler and his subordinates make their choices
He let Hitler and the rest of them kill innocent children? Causing immense suffering to not only them but their families? And to what extent? Just so Hitler can become aware of his actions? Got kids have you? You are sick you know. And so is your god.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I am well aware that he is an extremist the other way and read his blog with that in mind, but consider it a good blog on balance. I think that "spitting in the face of" is an extreme way of phrasing it, but if the survivor really thinks that way, I think he should explain what it was about each of the other passengers which so offended God that he didn't consider them worthy of saving.
What makes you think God was more or less offended by them? Maybe they had done what God planned for them, but not the survivor. Maybe he was just slower than the rest. On a larger time line, all people die. The survivors are not saved, they just die later.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
How exactly is that extreme, it's pretty self centered to walk away from a pile of dead bodies and declare god wanted you to live. It's not god let me live, it's not god spared me, it's god wanted me to live. Humility, it's a wonderful tool in not tap dancing on other people, particularly their graves.
How us it extreme? It is extreme like pointing out every little flaw a person has is extreme. It is extreme as in 'bitter as can be', I'm not talking just about the guy surviving story, I mean read the first four or five stories. It's extreme like Jesus walks on water and he writes 'Jesus can't swim'. Does he report on World Vision helping in Haiti? Or did he report on the Christians trying to steal kids? Did he report on Mother Teresa, except to say she picks her nose? Is he bitching at any of the family members who say they wish the guy had died in place of their loved one? No, this is religious, let me find all that could be bad with it. Do you understand yet what I mean by extreme? As for the poor bastard who survived, you just crashed and everyone around you died, you tell me how rational are your words going to be as your battered brain tries to come to grips.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Would it matter to you if someone started applying pain to your person?
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
RichardM1 wrote:
Which translation are you talking about? Do you have personal reason to believe it is poorly translated, or are you taking on faith what someone else has said? Have you gone back the the most original manuscripts you have available and checked them against the 'poorly translated' version?
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
RichardM1 wrote:
Then you are not an atheist, you are an antichristian. I think if you look Islam has those same 'issues', given how much of it was taken from judeo-chritianity.
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him. The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
harold aptroot wrote:
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
Then why do you bring it up?
harold aptroot wrote:
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
If you want better tools, you can go to crosswire.org/sword, and there are Hebrew version text of OT, as well as best Greek versions of NT, and tools that allow you to contrast and compare. The comparison of King James and the more original texts may come up hosed, but the point is not to defend King James, it is to get the best translation and the most understanding. Some of the newer ones are better translations, but some of them were done with an agenda - make it more gay friendly - make God seem more loving - show that women were in power. I'm not putting any of their agendas down, I just believe you translate it with as close to a blank slate as possible.
harold aptroot wrote:
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him.
I don't hear you bitch about them, but I guess I don't hear you say anything good about them either. If the discussion is only about God, I can't blame you for not complaining about Allah or Ba'al.
harold aptroot wrote:
The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
He does not human properties, He gave us some of His. It all depends on what you are willing to perceive, and I mean that in both directions, yours and mine. I believe one thing, and have biases based on it, you believe a different way and bias accordingly.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
Then why do you bring it up?
harold aptroot wrote:
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
If you want better tools, you can go to crosswire.org/sword, and there are Hebrew version text of OT, as well as best Greek versions of NT, and tools that allow you to contrast and compare. The comparison of King James and the more original texts may come up hosed, but the point is not to defend King James, it is to get the best translation and the most understanding. Some of the newer ones are better translations, but some of them were done with an agenda - make it more gay friendly - make God seem more loving - show that women were in power. I'm not putting any of their agendas down, I just believe you translate it with as close to a blank slate as possible.
harold aptroot wrote:
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him.
I don't hear you bitch about them, but I guess I don't hear you say anything good about them either. If the discussion is only about God, I can't blame you for not complaining about Allah or Ba'al.
harold aptroot wrote:
The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
He does not human properties, He gave us some of His. It all depends on what you are willing to perceive, and I mean that in both directions, yours and mine. I believe one thing, and have biases based on it, you believe a different way and bias accordingly.
Opacity, the new Transparency.