Total Posts:163|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Eggs in One Basket

EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 9:47:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

That we were poofed into being by God is a ridiculous idea.

That the universe suddenly came into being in a Big Bang from nothing is a ridiculous idea.

There is only one thing left that isn't ridiculous, and that's the concept that the universe is eternal.and we are a part of that eternal, living universe. The universe is constantly creating and destroying in an eternal torus universe.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 10:03:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?

EV, I think a better question is not 'who decides', but 'how is it best decided'. Once there's a common basis for understanding what makes a reasonable and unreasonable claim, anyone can (and should) use those criteria on all claims.

To be clear, all religions contain claims at odds with proven methods used to remove imprecision and error from human thought. The question arises then, why we'd accept those criteria whenever truth is important -- e.g, in science, engineering, law, justice, management, history and public policy; yet relax those criteria for the religion we adopt (typically the one of our parents), while further, upholding those criteria for other faiths.

Or ask it the other way: if you'll accept testimony of conviction and revelation for your family's religion without further evidence, would you also accept it for Doctors? Dentists? Pilots? Bus drivers? Civil engineers? Police? Judges? Electricians? Bomb disposal? Government?

If so, would you also force loved ones to accept the additional risks that entails?

If not, then why privilege one particular faith -- or any faith -- by accepting such claims as evidence, and not demanding the same honesty, transparency, scrutiny, corroboration and independent evidence that we require for claims in other matters?

It's not even that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (though that's fair.) In practice, religious claims seldom even meet evidentiary standards for ordinary claims.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 11:31:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:47:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

That we were poofed into being by God is a ridiculous idea.

Yes, who says God "poofed" anything lol? God framed creation through thought and logic and construction, not a poof....

That the universe suddenly came into being in a Big Bang from nothing is a ridiculous idea.

There is only one thing left that isn't ridiculous, and that's the concept that the universe is eternal.and we are a part of that eternal, living universe. The universe is constantly creating and destroying in an eternal torus universe.

That makes no sense and is founded upon nothing, sorry. How does the universe create and destroy by itself consistently??
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 11:35:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 10:03:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?

EV, I think a better question is not 'who decides', but 'how is it best decided'. Once there's a common basis for understanding what makes a reasonable and unreasonable claim, anyone can (and should) use those criteria on all claims.

Who is to say what criteria I use without asking?

To be clear, all religions contain claims at odds with proven methods used to remove imprecision and error from human thought. The question arises then, why we'd accept those criteria whenever truth is important -- e.g, in science, engineering, law, justice, management, history and public policy; yet relax those criteria for the religion we adopt (typically the one of our parents), while further, upholding those criteria for other faiths.

We have moved the goal post from Creator to religion.

Or ask it the other way: if you'll accept testimony of conviction and revelation for your family's religion without further evidence, would you also accept it for Doctors? Dentists? Pilots? Bus drivers? Civil engineers? Police? Judges? Electricians? Bomb disposal? Government?

You begin with a bare assertion and end with a false conclusion lol...

If so, would you also force loved ones to accept the additional risks that entails?

You have gone into another discussion, how do you always do that with me?

If not, then why privilege one particular faith -- or any faith -- by accepting such claims as evidence, and not demanding the same honesty, transparency, scrutiny, corroboration and independent evidence that we require for claims in other matters?

See above.

It's not even that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (though that's fair.) In practice, religious claims seldom even meet evidentiary standards for ordinary claims.

What have you done here to address the OP?
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 12:20:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 11:31:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/6/2015 9:47:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

That we were poofed into being by God is a ridiculous idea.

Yes, who says God "poofed" anything lol? God framed creation through thought and logic and construction, not a poof....

How did God do that?

That the universe suddenly came into being in a Big Bang from nothing is a ridiculous idea.

There is only one thing left that isn't ridiculous, and that's the concept that the universe is eternal.and we are a part of that eternal, living universe. The universe is constantly creating and destroying in an eternal torus universe.

That makes no sense and is founded upon nothing, sorry. How does the universe create and destroy by itself consistently??

In a torus universe, there is a singularity in the center. Going in, matter is destroyed. Going out,matter is created. This is an eternal process.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 12:26:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
God represents The Ultimate Reality.

If you don't believe in this, any position you have is like a house built on sand.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dee-em
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 12:47:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

Etrn, you are going to die and just like every other living thing on Earth that will be the end of you. You think you are special because you have a bigger brain but big brains die too just like all other brains. When we look out at the cosmos what we see is a cold, uncaring, indifferent universe. You live with a desperate hope that a Sky Daddy will save you from the fate of all other living creatures, to be born, live a short life, and then pass away into non-existence. This is a childish fantasy which appeals to the immature. You need to grow up and accept reality instead of wallowing in wishful thinking.
bulproof
Posts: 25,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 4:49:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 12:47:04 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

Etrn, you are going to die and just like every other living thing on Earth that will be the end of you. You think you are special because you have a bigger brain but big brains die too just like all other brains. When we look out at the cosmos what we see is a cold, uncaring, indifferent universe. You live with a desperate hope that a Sky Daddy will save you from the fate of all other living creatures, to be born, live a short life, and then pass away into non-existence. This is a childish fantasy which appeals to the immature. You need to grow up and accept reality instead of wallowing in wishful thinking.
This
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 5:26:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

almost every religion has a creation myth, and only 1 of them can be correct
however all of them can be wrong.
with christianity, islam, and some others there is an extra penalty of an eternity of pain and torment for making the wrong choice.
to make things more interesting no gods have bothered to even try to convince me that their religion is the correct choice.

so i'll ask some simple yes or no questions
1. is your god capable of convincing me it exists?
2. is your god capable of communicating in such a way that i could understand?
3. does your god need my permission to act?

i'll make things even easier, i give your god permission to give me proof of it's existence. i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes.
so now what excuse do you have for why your god fails to give me that proof?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 12:09:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 11:35:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/6/2015 10:03:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
EV, I think a better question is not 'who decides', but 'how is it best decided'. Once there's a common basis for understanding what makes a reasonable and unreasonable claim, anyone can (and should) use those criteria on all claims.
Who is to say what criteria I use without asking?
What authority can your criteria or your resulting beliefs possibly have unless and until you make your criteria for reasonableness publicly accountable?

To be clear, all religions contain claims at odds with proven methods used to remove imprecision and error from human thought.
We have moved the goal post from Creator to religion.
Firstly, you didn't write 'Creator'; you wrote 'God'. Creation is a philosophical concept; God is a religious one. Not all possible creators are gods. You can be an atheist and still believe in the possibility of a created but godless universe.

Secondly, there is no notion of god without theology, and no theology without religion. You'd like to pretend that the word 'God' can exist without religion, but how could it? The word 'god' itself appears throughout Western Europe, and derives from a proto Indo-European word *ghut meaning 'that which is invoked'.

Or ask it the other way: if you'll accept testimony of conviction and revelation for your family's religion without further evidence, would you also accept it for Doctors? Dentists? Pilots? Bus drivers? Civil engineers? Police? Judges? Electricians? Bomb disposal? Government?
You begin with a bare assertion and end with a false conclusion lol...
The bare assertion was implicit in your thread: that the idea of a god can exist without religion, and so anyone thinking religions silly should nevertheless entertain gods as reasonable.

But there are so many religious assumptions buried in your argument:
1) that there is an intelligent, compassionate creator engaged to its creation;
2) that it knows and cares about humanity and wants to have a patron role;
3) that its favour depends on belief, worship and propitiation;
4) that somehow any of this is knowable without theological adherence; and
5) because of all the above, it's therefore silly to dismiss the idea outright, or to demand reasonable accountability for claims and evidence.

That's just the usual theological burden-shifting masquerading as philosophy under a vague appeal to the biased premise of Pascal's Wager.

If so, would you also force loved ones to accept the additional risks that entails?
You have gone into another discussion, how do you always do that with me?
The premise of Eggs in One Basket presupposes that the question of gods is credible without the credibility of religion. Two problems:

1) The concept of god is meaningless without theology; and
2) Religion cannot be authoritative until it's accountable.

It's not even that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (though that's fair.) In practice, religious claims seldom even meet evidentiary standards for ordinary claims.
What have you done here to address the OP?
Answered.
bulproof
Posts: 25,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 1:26:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
FEAR.
I mean seriously, is poor old Pascal the best you've got.
Just because it scares the bejesus out of you why do you think we should be?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Isaiah58
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 1:36:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:47:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

That we were poofed into being by God is a ridiculous idea.

That the universe suddenly came into being in a Big Bang from nothing is a ridiculous idea.

There is only one thing left that isn't ridiculous, and that's the concept that the universe is eternal.and we are a part of that eternal, living universe. The universe is constantly creating and destroying in an eternal torus universe.

This is an interesting thought. I am curious as to how you would reconcile this idea against Kalam's argument against infinity prior. If infinity stretches into the past, then we would never reach the present...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 1:58:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

There is nothing reasonable about the Biblical depiction of a deity, which comes over as a very nasty psychopath!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 2:25:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not some idea that atheists just made up. It is a description of how any rationally thinking person goes about determining what is believable.

If I told you "I went shopping yesterday" I doubt you would require anything beyond my say-so to believe it. If I told you I met Jay-Z and Beyonce yesterday you would probably be a little more skeptical, however if I add to my say-so with some photos of us together then you would probably believe it. If I told you I bought a time machine and went back and the dinosaurs, my say-so and pictures would no longer be enough.

As each claim gets more extraordinary, so does the evidence you require. So who decides what is extraordinary? The only person who can... you do. And you do it with the only reasonable means you have, your life experiences. Those who argue against E.C.R.E.E. always act like this is some sort of problem. It is not. We all live in the same universe on the same planet shared by the same race. Our life experiences are remarkably similar, so there really isn't much to put us on separate tracks, and where there is that is why we have these debates... to find out where we see things differently.

So getting back to your question, the concept of a God is extraordinary because it does not align with anything we have ever experienced. Have you ever seen a God? Have you ever ventured outside of the universe? Have you ever experienced a timeless existence? I'm guessing not, yet you appear to believe such things are in fact real and expect us to do the same. So what evidence would it take? Good question, but you're the one who seems to think you have it, so you tell us.

And BTW, yes the man 2,000 years ago talking about spaceships would not have had evidence to support his claims. That doesn't make his claims wrong. This isn't a question about whether you're right or wrong. Again, it's a question about whether your claims are rationally supported.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 2:27:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 12:26:50 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
God represents The Ultimate Reality.

If you don't believe in this, any position you have is like a house built on sand.

Nice rhetoric. Useless to anyone interested in rational discourse, but I'm sure it works with the intellectually lazy.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 4:34:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?

Perhaps, you need to understand what "extraordinary" means:

- beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established.

Hence, by claiming the concept of God, YOU yourself have decided what is extraordinary as the concept of God is not 'usual, ordinary, regular, or established' in any way. You have no evidence for the concept of God, extraordinary or otherwise. You have a belief and nothing more, and yes, that belief is as silly as it is outrageous.

Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous?

Yes, they would find those claims outrageous and should demand some evidence to support them. Of course, one has to ask where this "ordinary fellow" came up with those ideas considering no one else ever had such ideas 2000 years ago.

Essentially, you have done little more than create a Strawman argument as your examples are of real things and are nothing more than advancements in technology based on science. Of course, there really was no such thing as science back then, as well. Clearly, this has nothing to do with perception and everything to do with a failed attempt using fallacies.

yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now.

Yes, but the concept of God is not a normal idea as it is still nothing more than an irrational belief.

What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist

That simply isn't true at all, reality is identical for every person on the planet.

for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.

That has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with extraordinary beliefs that have no evidence. Not only that, but theists have a wide variety of assertions for the existence of their particular God, not just yours.

Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary

Again, entirely not true. In fact, YOU yourself have been in many arguments with other theists here in regards to what you assert and the gods you claim exist. YOU have essentially told other theists their claims are outrageous and extraordinary and not normal or logical. You are simply lying here.

actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

That is yet another fallacy, the Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity. Simply, because YOU have no clue what science says about existence doesn't mean others don't have a clue.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology;

And yet, that is exactly what you're doing.

the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception

No, it isn't, perception has nothing to do with it at all. YOU do not perceive any gods, you claim their existence without a shred of evidence.

and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.

Sorry, but the is completely backwards and is based entirely on your ignorance and incredulity of the world around you.

Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

God made me free in thought, but made you a slave to ignorance.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 6:13:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 10:03:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

EV, I think a better question is not 'who decides', but 'how is it best decided'.

- Both questions are relevant.

Once there's a common basis for understanding what makes a reasonable and unreasonable claim, anyone can (and should) use those criteria on all claims.

- Fair enough.

To be clear, all religions contain claims at odds with proven methods used to remove imprecision and error from human thought.

- Correction. All areas of Knowledge contain claims at odds... blahblah...

The question arises then, why we'd accept those criteria whenever truth is important -- e.g, in science, engineering, law, justice, management, history and public policy; yet relax those criteria for the religion we adopt (typically the one of our parents), while further, upholding those criteria for other faiths.

- One: truth is important in religion as well, arguably of higher importance. Two: your question, although rhetorical, is unwarranted. The criteria of reasonableness applies for religion as it applies for every other rational activity.

Or ask it the other way: if you'll accept testimony of conviction and revelation for your family's religion without further evidence, would you also accept it for Doctors? Dentists? Pilots? Bus drivers? Civil engineers? Police? Judges? Electricians? Bomb disposal? Government?

- Legit question, yet unwarranted.

If so, would you also force loved ones to accept the additional risks that entails?

If not, then why privilege one particular faith -- or any faith -- by accepting such claims as evidence, and not demanding the same honesty, transparency, scrutiny, corroboration and independent evidence that we require for claims in other matters?

- See above.

It's not even that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (though that's fair.) In practice, religious claims seldom even meet evidentiary standards for ordinary claims.

- I get the impression you don't know Religion, which is nothing new.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 6:36:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 12:09:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/6/2015 11:35:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Firstly, you didn't write 'Creator'; you wrote 'God'. Creation is a philosophical concept; God is a religious one.

- Both are philosophical AND religious concepts, for both derive from Cosmology.

Not all possible creators are gods.

- Depends on how you define each.

You can be an atheist and still believe in the possibility of a created but godless universe.

- Semantics then.

Secondly, there is no notion of god without theology, and no theology without religion. You'd like to pretend that the word 'God' can exist without religion, but how could it? The word 'god' itself appears throughout Western Europe, and derives from a proto Indo-European word *ghut meaning 'that which is invoked'.

- God can indeed exist without what you refer to as religion. If you believe that the Universe originated itself, then that is your god.

The bare assertion was implicit in your thread: that the idea of a god can exist without religion, and so anyone thinking religions silly should nevertheless entertain gods as reasonable.

- Every cosmological belief, regardless of its nature, is religious as well.

But there are so many religious assumptions buried in your argument:
1) that there is an intelligent, compassionate creator engaged to its creation;
2) that it knows and cares about humanity and wants to have a patron role;
3) that its favour depends on belief, worship and propitiation;
4) that somehow any of this is knowable without theological adherence; and
5) because of all the above, it's therefore silly to dismiss the idea outright, or to demand reasonable accountability for claims and evidence.

- Cherry picking.

That's just the usual theological burden-shifting masquerading as philosophy under a vague appeal to the biased premise of Pascal's Wager.

- I understand your position against the OP, but it isn't true in any general sense.

The premise of Eggs in One Basket presupposes that the question of gods is credible without the credibility of religion. Two problems:

1) The concept of god is meaningless without theology; and

- Depends on how you define each.

2) Religion cannot be authoritative until it's accountable.

- Depends on what you mean by accountable.

- Overall, if the 'irreligious' keep thinking & arguing as you do, they are not gonna go far in perpetuating their worldview, in spite of their self-proclaimed 'rational' approach.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 7:00:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 6:36:51 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 12:09:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/6/2015 11:35:47 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Firstly, you didn't write 'Creator'; you wrote 'God'. Creation is a philosophical concept; God is a religious one.
- Both are philosophical AND religious concepts, for both derive from Cosmology.
This being your only substantive argument in two posts, Yassine, it's also the only one for which I have reply:

There is no reason but the language of religion to call a creator of the universe 'god': a word meaning 'that which is invoked'. [http://www.etymonline.com...]

Not conjectured or imputed -- invoked.

One can have a philosophical argument about a universal creator, but one cannot get from 'creator' to 'god' without theology. This step is typically left unacknowledged by theists, who often use the postulated creation of a universe to argue for the legitimacy of their dogma -- and who may also mistakenly believe that all atheists must uphold an uncreated universe.

(Actually, I argued all that above, but now I'm putting it in your own special post in the hope that this time you'd actually read it. :D)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 7:48:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 7:00:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

There is no reason but the language of religion to call a creator of the universe 'god': a word meaning 'that which is invoked'. [http://www.etymonline.com...]

Not conjectured or imputed -- invoked.

- & 'creator' meaning 'that which makes grow'. Guess neither words are used in their etymological sense, huh! Please confuse someone else with these meaningless semantics.

One can have a philosophical argument about a universal creator, but one cannot get from 'creator' to 'god' without theology.

- Again, depends on how you define each.

This step is typically left unacknowledged by theists, who often use the postulated creation of a universe to argue for the legitimacy of their dogma -- and who may also mistakenly believe that all atheists must uphold an uncreated universe.

- Whatever one believes is an origin determines one's cosmology, thus god. God, in our understanding, has three 'aspects':
1. Rububia: Origin (which entails Cosmology). A creator god fulfils this aspect.
2. Uluhia: Dominion. A god who rules over the Universe fulfils this aspect.
3. 'Ubudia: Sovereignty (which entails worship). A god who deserves worship fulfils this aspect.
=> You're arguing that a god who fulfils the 1st aspect is not a god, only one who fulfils the 3rd aspect.

(Actually, I argued all that above, but now I'm putting it in your own special post in the hope that this time you'd actually read it. :D)

- You have yet to respond to anything I said.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 7:52:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 7:48:05 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 7:00:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
(Actually, I argued all that above, but now I'm putting it in your own special post in the hope that this time you'd actually read it. :D)

- You have yet to respond to anything I said.

If you can correctly paraphrase my posts and explain how yours relate, I'll review whether I'd like to respond further.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 9:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 7:52:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/7/2015 7:48:05 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 7:00:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
(Actually, I argued all that above, but now I'm putting it in your own special post in the hope that this time you'd actually read it. :D)

- You have yet to respond to anything I said.

If you can correctly paraphrase my posts and explain how yours relate, I'll review whether I'd like to respond further.

- One: if you are unwilling or incapable of establishing the claims you make, then don't make them, for that is pointless. Two: for the gazillion time, it's not my job to explain your thoughts to you! Three: I am getting tried of this 'I am rational, therefore, I can critique religion', you are neither that nor can you do the other, the sooner you realise that, the better.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 4:57:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 9:51:57 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 7:52:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/7/2015 7:48:05 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 7:00:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
(Actually, I argued all that above, but now I'm putting it in your own special post in the hope that this time you'd actually read it. :D)
- You have yet to respond to anything I said.
If you can correctly paraphrase my posts and explain how yours relate, I'll review whether I'd like to respond further.
- if you are unwilling or incapable of establishing the claims you make, then don't make them, for that is pointless.
I will be happy to explain and defend any post I make to an interested, engaged and accountable reader, Yassine. You can demonstrate that you are such, by giving me a simple paraphrase of your understanding of my relevant posts.

Given your history, while you don't care to do so, I may take that as evidence that responding to your critiques and questions may be wasting my time. That doesn't mean I won't respond, only that my engagement may not be predicated on the substance of your criticisms, so much as on your ability to interest or entertain me.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 3:14:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 4:57:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I will be happy to explain and defend any post I make to an interested, engaged and accountable reader, Yassine. You can demonstrate that you are such, by giving me a simple paraphrase of your understanding of my relevant posts.

- Since you are so keen on paraphrasing, why don't you start by paraphrasing my responses first. Then, I might do the same. :)

Given your history, while you don't care to do so, I may take that as evidence that responding to your critiques and questions may be wasting my time.

- LOL! Get over yourself. You have no problem posting dozens of replies in response to mine, & when asked for proper arguments you resort to this lame excuse!!! Which is a waste of your time (or mine for that matter)? What you are doing now? Or proper argumentation?! If I were you, I'd admit to the first option. ;)

That doesn't mean I won't respond, only that my engagement may not be predicated on the substance of your criticisms, so much as on your ability to interest or entertain me.

- Aaaaand, he admitted it! Glad to finally realise your lack of seriousness & your tendency to waste time on pointless talk. This much is clear now.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 7:43:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
So I find it interesting people actually find the concept of God to be either silly or outrageous, claiming that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", well who gets to decide what is "extraordinary"?
Need I remind you about perception?? Say some ordinary fella who existed 2000 years ago went around telling everyone about laser beams and flying monkeys to the moon in starships, do you think those people would not find those claims outrageous? yet they are absolutely normal ideas to us now. What is normal for an atheist/materialist is not the same as for a theist, for a theist it is abnormal to assert our existence without God.
Anyway the idea of God to theists is not only simple, but absolutely normal and logical and is by no means outrageous or extraordinary, actually the idea of existence at all without the aid of an eternal Creator is hysterical so who is it that decides what is an outrageous claim?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.
Remember God made you free in thought and free in spirit and that means you are not required to imprison the realm of possibilities within your mind and knowledge, you are your own person and this is your life and atheism and materialism is a mental, intellectual, creative, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and factual restriction in every way, shape and form in this created existence.

What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. When one picks a faith and a denomination they are definitely putting all the eggs in one basket.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 3:14:32 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/8/2015 4:57:09 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
I will be happy to explain and defend any post I make to an interested, engaged and accountable reader, Yassine. You can demonstrate that you are such, by giving me a simple paraphrase of your understanding of my relevant posts.
- Since you are so keen on paraphrasing, why don't you start by paraphrasing my responses first.
Should I respond to a substantive post of yours, Yassine, I'll be happy to do so any time I think it useful, or any time you request it. Such a request is always reasonable, and a paraphrase is a mark of respect both for topic and the conversation.

Given your history, while you don't care to do so, I may take that as evidence that responding to your critiques and questions may be wasting my time.
- LOL! Get over yourself. You have no problem posting dozens of replies in response to mine, & when asked for proper arguments you resort to this lame excuse!!!
I've quoted this to acknowledge that I've read it. I don't believe it warrants response in this thread.

That doesn't mean I won't respond, only that my engagement may not be predicated on the substance of your criticisms, so much as on your ability to interest or entertain me.
- Glad to finally realise your lack of seriousness
Regrettably you're right that I'm not presently taking your posts seriously. But I'd be happy to do so once I'm satisfied that you're sufficiently interested and engaged to topic, and accountable for the relevance of your responses.
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 8:44:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 9:33:09 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

... Don't put all your eggs in one basket because of some ideology, the idea of God is not silly at all and it is completely reasonable it is just a matter of perception and once/if you adopt this concept of creation you will see that not only is it rational, but normal and completely justified and you may find the idea of materialism to be completely absurd.

I just want to touch on the first sentence in your second paragraph. This to me seems to just be a setup for a Pascal's Wager (PW) argument. I tend to find PW a bit overly simplistic in that it ignores other religions. I'm new here so I'm going to guess when you refer to "God" you are referring to Yahweh in some Judeo-Christian denomination (Evangelical, maybe?).

The goal of PW, as with any gamble or risk forecasting/planning, is to attempt to optimize your payoffs. Thus, we need to assign some values to our payoffs, as well as be sure to cover as many possible outcomes as we can. The solution to PW is simple in the theoretical sense--simply select the religion with the greatest possible reward and the worst possible punishment. In practice, however, this becomes much more complex. For example, what about religions with a purgatory? Would that be classified under reward, or under punishment? What about religions with varying punishments and rewards? How exactly do we want to define the values anyways? Let's see what we can come up with, at least in a somewhat simplified sense.

We need to take into account our probability of choosing correctly. Let P(x) be our chance of choosing correctly, that is choosing the religion that turns out to be real. This is fairly simple, but we need to take into account non-mutually exclusive religions (NMER) (ones where you can follow multiple beliefs simultaneously as opposed to mutually exclusive religions (MER) wherein you can only follow "the one true faith," like most denominations of Islam or Christianity). Then:

P(x) = x / n

Where x >= 1 and is the number of faiths you are practicing (1 for mutually exclusive religions) and n is the number of possible religions.

Some people argue that the number of possible religions is infinite, limited only by the imaginations of humans (or other possible sentient beings whether in our universe or some other universe if multiverse theories are correct). Personally, I lean towards this position. In this case P(x) = x / infinity and reduces to 0 for any value of x < infinity. In other words, if there is an infinite number of possible religions then I can state with absolute confidence that any theist on earth has chosen incorrectly unless they have found a way to follow an infinite number of religions simultaneously (perhaps some form of Chaoism/Chaos Magick [spelling intentional]). At this point I would consider the debate on PW settled, because as I said I lean towards this interpretation and I believe you lean towards Christianity which is mutually exclusive giving you P(1) = 0 for your success probability. But, for arguments sake let's say that n < infinity or that there is only some finite number of possible religions.

P(x) remains x / n with the previous definitions, but n is some finite number (likely integer) less than infinity, or stated mathematically 1 < n < infinity. Here it becomes readily apparent that NMER's hold the advantage over MER's as P(x) for any value of x > 1 holds a multiple chance of success greater than any MER. To give an example, let's assume that n = 100 for simplicities sake (the same logic will follow for any value of n where 1 < n < infinity).

Let's assume I follow a form of Buddhism where I can practice 2 faiths simultaneously. Then x = 2 and P(2) = 2 / 100 or 0.02 meaning I have a 2% chance of being correct. This is opposed to the Christian or Muslim for which x = 1 or P(1) = 1 / 100 giving them a 1% chance of success, exactly half of the chance I would have in this theoretical situation. The gap only increases as x increases, or for every NMER I choose to follow. At this point Chaoism, and perhaps some form of Buddhism, hold the edge for religion(s) to select under PW.

This tells us about our chances of being correct, but what about our payoffs? That is maximizing our rewards and minimizing our punishments. Here things get a bit more complex, and to really do things well you would need to set up a matrix of payoffs and punishments; as well as find a way to incorporate purgatories and internally varying payoffs. To be honest, I don't feel like putting in that much effort as this is already a long post so I will simplify, but the logic should hold. Let us consider just a handful of religions: Christianity (I know, I know, there's ten thousand and one denominations), Islam (ditto), Buddhism (ditto) and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (hey, maybe the FSM chose to reveal himself through debate, you can't prove that isn't so, and ditto). I will assume no purgatories, but Islam does have an internally varying payoff for dying in Jihad.

The values that get assigned would seem to be a matter of personal preference for the most part, except for some subsects of FSM where heaven's and hell's payoffs are explicitly defined as infinity and negative infinity (which I will use). Both the Bible and Quran fail to give such explicit definitions so I will set Christianity as my "baseline" as follows:

Christianity Heaven: 100
" Hell: -100

Then for Islam there is the possibility of gaining heaven plus 70 virgins for dying in Jihad so:

Islam non-Jihad Heaven: 100
" Jihad Heaven: 107
" Hell: -100

For Buddhism you are to attain nirvana or essentially become god in a pantheistic sense, fail and you reincarnate so:

Buddhist "Heaven": infinity
" "Hell": 0

For FSM

FSM Heaven: infinity
" Hell: negative infinity

Now we have our values. Remember our goal is to gain the greatest possible reward while avoiding the worst possible punishment which you do by selecting the religion with the greatest reward and worst (lowest value) punishment. So this is trivially solvable as FSM provides the solution. The only way to make FSM more attractive would be for it be a NMER and select every other NMER simultaneously (as this would maximize our value of P(x) where 1 < n < infinity).

Even ignoring parody religions (which again, just because FSM is a parody does not mean you can prove it isn't true) Christianity doesn't fare so well (a failure on Yahweh's part to explicitly define the reward of heaven as infinity and punishment of hell as negative infinity [what does that say about him being omniscient?]). Buddhism would be the obvious selection due to the value for its reward, not to mention it is an NMER so gives the chance to maximize P(x).

Now, I'm not entirely serious with this, but am merely attempting to show two things. First, is how PW becomes absurd when you remove the false dichotomy of atheism or Christianity. Second, this also demonstrates that you have actually done exactly what you cautioned against: you have put all your eggs in one basket (well, unless you are following multiple NMER's which I don't think so).
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 9:09:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The OP raises the point that in the god/no god debate both sides honestly believe rationality is on their side and the other side is being deliberately perverse for some reason.

For example, atheists often say the reason theists ignore the obvious is that they are afraid of dying. Theists are fond of accusing atheists of not facing the truth because they want to be free of guilt for doing bad things.

Those might be good reasons, but they aren't the real reasons for belief or unbelief and would apply to very few if any theists or atheists. Whether you believe in god or not is the result of a complex web of how your brain was wired up at birth, your education and other life experiences (probably especially early life experiences).

Believing or not believing is not a conscious choice. I am an atheist not because I don't believe in god but because I cannot believe in god. My brain - or my mind - is now wired up in such a way that the existence of god seems totally illogical and impossible to me. I never deliberately set out to re-wire my brain that way, it just happened as a result of how I was at birth and my subsequent experiences (I had almost no exposure to religion, a lot of exposure to science books).

I can imagine someone else having the opposite happening, by which god seems not only logical but necessary, and his absence totally incomprehensible.

If I have a point in this post it is that neither side should think the other side is stupid or has some dark hidden motive(*). Theists aren't gullible idiots and atheists aren't unrepentant libertines. It would be handy if those stereotypes applied, but they don't.

(*Unless the other side are theists!)
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 9:22:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 2:27:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/7/2015 12:26:50 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
God represents The Ultimate Reality.

If you don't believe in this, any position you have is like a house built on sand.

Nice rhetoric. Useless to anyone interested in rational discourse, but I'm sure it works with the intellectually lazy.

I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to see past your offense in order to see the obvious truth in what I'm saying.

If you don't believe in Ultimate Reality, you might as well just be saying, "I do not believe in truth."

Certainly, The Ultimate Reality is unknowable, but it is unreasonable to believe that it is nonexistent.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer