Into the Night
Verified User
You didn't provide one there. Incomplete argument fallacy.I'm not your conversational Sherpa. If you want to understand the "so" of my post, go read the entire conversation.
You didn't provide one there. Incomplete argument fallacy.I'm not your conversational Sherpa. If you want to understand the "so" of my post, go read the entire conversation.
Insults are not a request, Void. Mantra 1a. Lame.LOL.....So, how would I go about requesting that you stop with your moronic behavior and make it a request?
"If someone claiming to be any such God walked up to you and shook your hand, would you believe him?"
I didn't say "claim". I said "prove".
Doing common Earthly things isn't going to prove that you are a god.
... which you already knew, but still insist on playing dumb.
You can't blame your schizophrenia on any god or gods, Sybil. It is YOUR problem.“If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.”
Professor Thomas Szasz
What are some things that would differentiate a god from you and I? Can you and I shake hands?Not possible. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Define 'common Earthly things'.
If someone performed a so-called 'miracle' for you, would you believe him?
It's people like you that fall for magick.
It's sounds like your only personal experience is with fundamentalist American Protestantism, which is definitely a minority in world Christianity as a whole.I don't think it's as extreme as you believe. I think there are a LOT of Christians who attribute weather-type events to the hand of God.
"You never refuted that statement."It's sounds like your only personal experience is with fundamentalist American Protestantism, which is definitely a minority in world Christianity as a whole.
What I stated in post 395 is that modern Christianity, modern Judaism, modern Buddhism are not primarily about explaining droughts, famines, earthquakes or droughts. They are supposed to be models for a way of ordering and living a meaningful human life. Irrespective of tornados and pandemics.
You never refuted that statement.
I suppose in a way that might be true.They aren't part of physics either. They are part of the X factor: Life.
Human beings have divined laws of gravity, of light and other physical aspects of the Universe. I've yet to see any laws governing life with the same level of exactness.I suppose in a way that might be true.
I would say the gravitational constant, pi, e, even the laws of logic like the principal of cause-and-effect are independent of humans, and are part of the fabric of reality apart from human lives. This is why I never agree with the physical materialists who insist nothing can be real unless it has material substance and can be observed.
It's often true that the most militant anti-smokers are ex-smokers. LOLIt's sounds like your only personal experience is with fundamentalist American Protestantism, which is definitely a minority in world Christianity as a whole.
What I stated in post 395 is that modern Christianity, modern Judaism, modern Buddhism are not primarily about explaining droughts, famines, earthquakes or droughts. They are supposed to be models for a way of ordering and living a meaningful human life. Irrespective of tornados and pandemics.
You never refuted that statement.
modern Christianity, modern Judaism, modern Buddhism are not primarily about explaining droughts, famines, earthquakes or droughts.
They are supposed to be models for a way of ordering and living a meaningful human life.
"Because science showed that there is a better way to understand the universe and provided the tools necessary to understand that the weather is NOT magic but rather follows physical principles."Cypress said:Do you know why? Because science showed that there is a better way to understand the universe and provided the tools necessary to understand that the weather is NOT magic but rather follows physical principles.
BUT the religion (CHRISTIANITY, JUDIASM) started off doing that exact thing.
That's why religion, developed over time, is still flawed at the outset. Religion, the belief in something outside of nature driving things ALWAYS starts from a position of ignorance and explains why there are so MANY different religions.
Now they are. Because religion's original job (explaining reality) has been shown to be a failure.
The only thing left are the intangibles which carry no explanatory value or provide any meaningful requirements for anything. They are just-so stories that comport with whatever your personal imagination is.
You blather on about how "Justice" can't be measured by a meter. Well, fuckwith, "is" can't either. Doesn't mean there isn't a concept of "being".
Your facile and mush-headed attempts to sound erudite really just come across as vapid and meaningless.
You've inherited religion as an explanatory method when it has NEVER been shown to be accurate and has, in fact, been shown to be wrong 100% of the time when it can be tested.
^^ I agree with this.The scientific and logical basis claimed by some atheists is total BULLSHIT...and anyone with a functioning brain realizes that.
The "I have a personal relationship with God" is just as much BULLSHIT.
Agnosticism is the only meaningfully reasonable position to take on the issue.
"Because science showed that there is a better way to understand the universe and provided the tools necessary to understand that the weather is NOT magic but rather follows physical principles."
As much as science has chipped, and will continue to chip, away at religious claims, we will probably never fully get religion out of science. That's why we have things like Intelligent Design. Religious people will always try to retro-fit religion into science. We know the science behind tornadoes and earthquakes, but we won't ever be able to prove that the magical hand of the sky wizard didn't set them into motion.
The TRUTH is..."I, PERSONALLY, DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE NO GODS OR IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE GOD...AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN CONCEIVE OF TO DETERMINE WHICH IT IS."
Okay...and I agree, Cypress...completely. There are many things on which I base a meaningful guess.^^ I agree with this.
One minor disagreement is that I think there are different levels of belief. There is blind belief, and there is belief based on evidence. I maintain there are certain things we are justified in believing on the basis of circumstantial, historic, or physical evidence.
Bullshit.Yes there is. Just ask someone (anyone) who believes in the existence of God to provide you with the evidence. They should be able to if God exists.
Since there are BILLIONS of such believers you should have no problem.
IF no one can provide you with evidence for the proposition that God exists you are perfectly within logic to assume there is no God.
Easy peasy.
And the real kicker is: if you can find one person with evidence that all can agree on objectively God is proven!
Bullshit.
It is possible there is at least one god
Your assertion that a human should be able to provide evidence of a god's existence IF A GOD EXISTS...is ludicrous.
Think about it.