What are your thoughts on god?
POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 07:06
VIEWED: 44171
PAGE 15 of 19
Quote:No more than I'm offended when there's religion everywhere and everyone assumes that's OK and that it's wrong to disagree with it. You speak up when you're offended - you just did so. Why don't I have the same right?
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Because you deliberately made a statement you knew was going to offend any and everyone in this thread.
Quote:I couldn't care less about attention.
Which I can only assume you did to gain attention.
Quote:Actually, no. Why would I waste my time doing something like that? So, except for commenting on one more post (because I think it's necessary), I'll drop out of this thread.
As for your assertion that you hadn't inteded to say anything else on the subject - BUit. You knew it would incite response and I am sure you had your answers ready and waiting.
Quote:If what I said (and I'm far from the first one ever to say it) can be refuted I'll hear it gladly. Thus far no one in history has been able to, though. I'll refrain from responding to your "it's dumb" argument.
As for your original statement, it was probably one of the dumbest things I have seen on this forum and there have been some doozies.
BTW, everyone seems to be getting all angry, but I don't want to read emotion into what people post on a discussion board. There's no emotion in my posts, unless you read emotion into them. They're meant to be quite dispassionate, and that's how they ought to be read. What's the problem with handling dissenting views? What about it scares people so?
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can disagree with religion. State what you think is wrong with it and support it with facts.
Making a blanket statement that ALL religion BASED ON FACT is invalid and incorrect is inflammatory and insulting.
It isn't making an argument.
I am not religious, and quite frankly I could care less what you think.
But I don't think it is necessary to insult people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:*sigh* I did read the whole thing, I just wanted to save screen space by not quoting it all.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
and now you are being deliberately obtuse Piz. It is easy to pick the first line of a response and find issue - keep reading, what chris is saying is valid.
Sorry, it's not valid, but I'm not going to teach an entire course on logic in this forum just to show how. I've educated myself on this matter for over 30 years; anyone else can, too, if they want to.
OK, I'm done with this.
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
What's the problem with handling dissenting views? What about it scares people so?
Nothing about it scares people, not here at least.
You still have a problem though, you said your claim was fact. Not theory, not opinion, not infereance, not even logical deduction. You called it fact. Fact requires something to back it up.
You assert that it is fact without a single stated shred of evidence, if you have such evidence please state it now. When asked what you did base it on you said, and I quote, "I base that on the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for any of it."
Well that isn't grounds to claim something is fact. The reason it isn't is because it just says, "The other side doesn't have proof." It is certainly a reason to claim that the opposing viewpoint is not necessarily fact, and had you said that I'm sure everyone would have agreed with you.
You didn't.
You said it was fact and then chose not to back it up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry I've only joined once. Only have one brown coat.
the question "Is there going to be a tomorrow or next Thursday?" only means that theres a good posibility that there will be. But theres no facts or evedince that there will be. Just because theres a today and a yesterday.
What someone belives it truth is their own belief. I don't know who PIZ is. He/she comes from Atlantis? And has their own opinion. So there you go.
The thread here asks if you belive in God. My feeling tells me there is. What others belive is up to themselves. Faith. Its what I'm putting my trust in.
Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Sorry, it's not valid, but I'm not going to teach an entire course on logic in this forum just to show how. I've educated myself on this matter for over 30 years; anyone else can, too, if they want to.
How could you teach yourself for 30 years and then not be able to point out what makes it invalid without teaching a course?
I mean you say it is invalid but not how. You came in here, denied the anticedent, and then called someone else's stuff invaild without even stating in what way it was invalid.
I'll distill it for you if that would make it simpler:
1 Traditionally people believe things without proof unless they have a reason not to because if they don't they are left believing almost nothing, which is not practical.
2 Using lack of proof as evidence leads to contradiction.
Please reply to 2, which shouldn't require a whole course in logic.
Quote:
OK, I'm done with this.
If your argument really is vaild why are you afraid to state it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm an Atheist for the simple reason that I've yet to see any evidence of either God's existance or any need for there to be a God for the Universe to exist just as it is.
That doesn't mean for certain that a God can't exist it just means there's no reason to believe they do.
Regarding "proof" of the existance, or non-existance, of God it must be always kept in mind that the burden of proof lays solely with the Theist since there is no possible way to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient does not exist (for one thing it could always be argued they themselves faked the evidence).
Since the existance of God can hypothetically be proved (but hasn't) it intrinsically requires more "faith" to carry on believing in a Supreme-Being nonetheless, than it does to not believe in one.
Link to an earlier post where this ground was gone over http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=18220
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok to throw gas on the fire.
Do aliens (space) exist?
IMO, another yepper.
Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Since the existance of God can hypothetically be proved (but hasn't) it intrinsically requires more "faith" to carry on believing in a Supreme-Being nonetheless, than it does to not believe in one.
How can it be proved?
I've never heard of any way, hypothetical or otherwise, and I am eager to learn of one if it exists.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Having just looked at that thread again what I've come across are only three ways cited to, "prove," that god exists, and none are possible even in the hypothetical.
The first was:
Well one possible way to prove the existance of a God would be if science discovered that life required a creator. Or another might be if there was something intrinsic to the universe that required with certainty "divine intervention" or it could not take place.
The problems with this are several. First off being the creator of life does not make one a god, that has been done by scientists but Hotpoint does not believe them to be gods, otherwise Hotpoint would believe in gods.
Also "divine intervention" is an undefined term, without definition it can not be considered but we do know something about it: if it could be proven then it is, by definition, part of nature.
Whether or not we can work with that I don't know. Perhaps there is some well defined version of "divine intervention" for which it is possible to hypothetically prove god. If there is such a thing I'll change my whole stance on this.
The second one was so much nicer:
Like I said. If there was a mechanism in the universe that required a creator that would be proof of "God".
It is simple, requires no undefined terms, and is just as much a way to prove something as saying:
"If there was a mechanism in the universe that prohibited a creator that would be proof of the nonexistance of 'God'."
It sounds nice when you hear it, but it is no more a way of proving god than what I said is a way of disproving god.
This one also mentioned evidence that falls short of proof:
Otherwise having the almighty appear one day and demonstrate "miracles" under laboratory conditions would be pretty strong evidence in my book.
Evidence for him/her perhaps, but hardly useful as proof.
I'd like to know which miracles that would convince for though. I mean feeding the masses would just cause us to rethink what we know about the concervation of matter, turning someone into salt causes us to reevalute other things, water to wine or blood is just like turning someone to salt, it would make us think that transmutation is scientific fact and introduce entire new areas of study, but it hardly implies anything remotely divine.
there is one last thing:
But there are things that conceivably only a God could do. For instance so-called "Creation Scientists" are always on the look-out for an irreducably complex mechanism in nature that could not have evolved. So far every one they've claimed turns out in fact not to be irreducably complex but that doesn't mean for certain that will always be the case.
Show me something that could not have evolved, or been created by random chance, and I'll believe in a "creator".
Ya'll see the problem with this one?
Everything, even god, could be created by random chance, that's what makes it RANDOM. Because anything can come out of it. If there were something that couldn't come out of it then it would not be random now would it? It would follow a pattern.
The statment isn't a possible proof because it isn't possible. Even in the hypothetical it breaks down because saying, "What if there were something that couldn't evolve randomly?" is like saying, "What if the statement, 'This statment is false,' were true?"
It's a fun little paradox, but useless for proof. I suppose you could claim that the possiblity of showing that the statement, 'This statement is false,' is proof that logic is falsifiable, the same way, "something that could't happen randomly," is being used here.
But even if it were proven what would that do? Force us to reevalute probability and evolution, nothing to do with god. Even if evolution is false it doesn't mean god is true. All that it means is that the Catholic Church was wrong when it embraced evolution as, "More than just theory."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME