God does not exist.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Would you mind telling me the difference between the two?

I have already explained it to you with the invisible animals and you said it's ridiculous. And it IS ridiculous. You appreciated that in my example because it wasn't something as incendiary as religion.
But want another example in real life?
America and Iraq. That's exactly the logic they used when they were searching for weapons of mas destruction. And they kept pressuring Iraq for no reason because no one can disprove a negative.
"Iraq says they don't have WMDs, but we don't see any evidence that they don't have WMDs, therefore they might have WMDs"
The point of departure must be skepticism. IF I make a crazy claim, it is up to me to prove it, not for you to disprove it.

I don't agree with your equation or think it presents anything pertaining to discussion.

Why not? When people can't think of a better reason to believe in god - not even emotional reasons - than "Why not?", why can't you see my use of logic as pertaining to that discussion?

It's more like "When I didn't believe in x life was a lot more confusing and full of worries and enemies than now that I do believe in x. Therefore x is that answer to a puzzle I was struggling with".

That's not what they were arguing. I didn't address those who said "believing in God makes me happy, so I believe he exists"
I was addressing the ones who said "we can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does exist"
Arguing for the existence of god through emotion still renders the pseudological argument of "if you can't prove it it's true" as bullshit.

I believe in god because I see no reason not to. I have seen plenty of evidence that has come from life experience.

You're saying opposite things here. If you have seen plenty of evidence, then you have a reason to believe!
It's not that you believe because you said "oh feck, why not?"

[Eclipsing the Son]

I'm done with your insults and assumptions.

It really isn't worth having a discussion with someone with your angst-ridden, juvenile attitude.

I disagree with you but won't ignore you our of spite for your ignorance. You aren't completely stupid even though you have to bury everything other people say in a barrage of cynicism and insults.

See ya around.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Instead of being glad someone survived you point fun and make insults. Good job.

I'm not pointing fun or making insults. You said that you believe that the survival of your friend was an act of God. My friend is currently in the shitter emotionally because her stepmother, who she was very attached to, died of brain cancer. Why is it that when your friend survives it is an act of God that truly showcases His divine benevolence, but when my friend's stepmother is dead and she can't cope, it's a case of "Well, shit. God meant it to happen that way, buck up and smile, kids!"?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Believers would tell you different. Maybe one day you'll be open minded enough to give belief a chance.

You know, in another issue, I fucking hate when people say that.
"You don't believe in God because you have closed yourself to it"
How the fuck do you know if I haven't tried? For thirteen years I believed, and not merely because of my upbringing. I actually took a determination into knowing that god I'm supposed to believe.
But the more I learned the more it seemed like it's impossible for a god to exist. I made an effort to believe in a god, and it didn't work. Going to a christian school didn't help at all; they basically tried to bully me into believing by telling me that if I don't it's because I'm not "open minded"

Guess what, I've tried harder than most conformist fucks that never dare to question their beliefs. So you are entirely wrong and have foudn yourself to make a very 'close minded' accusation.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

I'm done with your insults and assumptions.

Insults?!
Where did I insult you in my last post?!
You're the one person I'm trying to argue dialectically. I'm even accepting your beliefs because they are positively created, not negatively assumed! Point to me at one insult in that argument.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by JCC

Doesn't that unconditional subservience depress you just a little bit?

Not as depressing as having hit bottom for an alcoholic, drug addict or impoverished failure; the subservience requires surrendering the will but surrendering it to a superior template for life rather than the previously failed, self guided life. Sin in that context it is a step up from depression.

To an individual who is self-actualized, the Christian template is unnecessary and they abhor the surrender, but Jesus wanted to help the poor in spirit, the lame and diseased, the oppressed and disadvantaged, He provided hope for the hopeless.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by JCC

I'm not pointing fun or making insults. You said that you believe that the survival of your friend was an act of God. My friend is currently in the shitter emotionally because her stepmother, who she was very attached to, died of brain cancer. Why is it that when your friend survives it is an act of God that truly showcases His divine benevolence, but when my friend's stepmother is dead and she can't cope, it's a case of "Well, shit. God meant it to happen that way, buck up and smile, kids!"?

I'm sorry for your friend. She will cope though. It will make her stronger. I believe that.

As for my buddy; Dude was ridden with cancers. His kidneys had failed. The next day the cancer was gone and his kidneys were fine. The doctor could provide no explanation. At the time I considered myself atheist and accused the doctor of making mistakes. My friend got very mad at me for this. He also was atheist before this happened and the event turned him around. I had trouble being around him for a while after that. It wasn't for years later that I would acknowledge god for my own reasons.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Sin in that context it is a step up from depression.

DAMN 5 minute rule!

It should have read "So in that context", not Sin.

[Eclipsing the Son]

As much as I don't like humanepain, he presents a very mature and objective outlook on the Christian faith.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

As much as I don't like humanepain, he presents a very mature and objective outlook on the Christian faith.

Thank you. I appreciate your posts too when you are not insulting people. Me, you can insult me as much as you like.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Thank you. I appreciate your posts too when you are not insulting people. Me, you can insult me as much as you like.

Your youtube site is full of slideshows of little girls and boys backed by techno music.

Why? man4Sam

[Drake Dun]

Okay, I am going to do myself a favor and take only one point at a time. If there are points that I never get around to, then so be it.

On Einstein. I made a mistep saying that Einstein did not believe in "God". Normally in a conversation with a bunch of native English speakers it's safe to assume "God" is just another name for YWHW. In the context of this thread, in which rather more abtruse notions are being kicked around under the title of "God", it was a bad move on my part. I stepped on a definitional land mine, and got my just comeupance.

For the record:

1. Einstein clearly believed in an order to the universe, which is hardly surprising since there obviously is one. He was aware that at least for the moment, and possibly for all time, there is and will be something deeply mysterious about it. He was drawn to its majesty and occasionally waxed mystical about it, even going so far as to draw upon inherited religious ideas as a means for expressing those sentiments. Someone asked me how I could claim that Einstein used the idea of God metaphorically. I provided a specific example of a case of plainly obvious metaphorical use - before you asked. I know exactly where he was coming from, and do the same thing myself.

2. Einstein described himself as an "agnostic", trashed religious belief, and emphatically rejected life after death and the idea of a personal god, all in very clear language. At the same time, some of the things he said do suggest that he attributed to his Spinozan god characteristics we would ordinarily associate with a personality - for example, a faculty of reasoning. And some of his terminology is a little too rich to be easily written off as mere metaphor. He also made efforts to distance himself from "atheism". So depending on how you interpret the evidence, it may be reasonable to say that "Einstein believed in God", with the caveat that this is a dangerous oversimplification obscuring the fact that what he meant by that word was some ill-defined, pantheistic/Spinozan type thing, and not what most people mean when they say "God".

3. It could not possibly be clearer that he did not believe in the god of Abraham.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Okay, I am going to do myself a favor and take only one point at a time. If there are points that I never get around to, then so be it.

On Einstein. I made a mistep saying that Einstein did not believe in "God". Normally in a conversation with a bunch of native English speakers it's safe to assume "God" is just another name for YWHW. In the context of this thread, in which rather more abtruse notions are being kicked around under the title of "God", it was a bad move on my part. I stepped on a definitional land mine, and got my just comeupance.

For the record:

1. Einstein clearly believed in an order to the universe, which is hardly surprising since there obviously is one. He was aware that at least for the moment, and possibly for all time, there is and will be something deeply mysterious about it. He was drawn to its majesty and occasionally waxed mystical about it, even going so far as to draw upon inherited religious ideas as a means for expressing those sentiments. Someone asked me how I could claim that Einstein used the idea of God metaphorically. I provided a specific example of a case of plainly obvious metaphorical use - before you asked. I know exactly where he was coming from, and do the same thing myself.

2. Einstein described himself as an "agnostic", trashed religious belief, and emphatically rejected life after death and the idea of a personal god, all in very clear language. At the same time, some of the things he said do suggest that he attributed to his Spinozan god characteristics we would ordinarily associate with a personality - for example, a faculty of reasoning. And some of his terminology is a little too rich to be easily written off as mere metaphor. He also made efforts to distance himself from "atheism". So depending on how you interpret the evidence, it may be reasonable to say that "Einstein believed in God", with the caveat that this is a dangerous oversimplification obscuring the fact that what he meant by that word was some ill-defined, pantheistic/Spinozan type thing, and not what most people mean when they say "God".

3. It could not possibly be clearer that he did not believe in the god of Abraham.

Please read previous page. KTHXBAI

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Please read previous page. KTHXBAI

I did. Why?

And I don't know what "KTHXBAI" means.

[MollyMac]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You are yet to explain me a reason why you try to use logic and then suddenly discard it when it didn't work. Until you do that, try not to jump into someone else's argument.

I have to discard logic every day in my field of law. There is logic which is your cute little confine of *should*, and there is what actually happened and then there is intent which has nothing to do with logic- but everything to do with that space between *should* and *is*.


Frankly, in personal interactions, anyone that relies solely on logic is sad and without imaginative recourse. It is not your argument to own and make the rules for. It is not your say who can jump into or out of this argument that you claim is yours. Enjoy it. Wallow in it.

I make the case for possibility as not all things are set in a logical framework- not now and not even within your lifetime, you make the case for restriction and so your argument is easy and textbook.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Frankly, in personal interactions, anyone that relies solely on logic is sad and without imaginative recourse.

Why do you keep saying that?
"The world is much more than just logic"
Have I said otherwise? No. However something that's not logical is not worthy of being considered an argument.
You think that because there's no proof that god does not exist, he might. Address that, and that only, for that is all I'm addressing. Don't try to bullshit your way aroudn it.

[MollyMac]

And so, THE WORLD IS MORE THAN LOGIC.

Then I will repeat it ONE MORE TIME:

"I think that because there's no proof that god does not exist, he might".

There really is no way to expound on that without getting redundant, repetitive, and redundant. Wrap your head around a simple concept and intellectualize it before you needlessly complicate it.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Apparently logical conversation doesn't work both ways in his world.

[MollyMac]

Nope. Logic says he wins. My laugh says I do. Somethings defy logic and further explanations. No clue.

"For those that understand, no explanation is needed. For those that don't understand, no explanation is possible."

[Eclipsing the Son]

Hi, I'm Jillian. I post my case reasonably and of sound mind.

Hi, I'm somebody else. I present an alternative and equally logical argument.

Hi, It's me Jillian again. YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD AND AN ILLOGICAL FOOL!

Um. No, I present a point of view that is just as valid and sensible as yours.

NO! I AM JILLIAN! I AM RIGHT! YOU INTOLERANT FOOL! YOU ARE WRONG!
FUCKFACE ASSWASTE FUCK!!


Reminds me of this guy(whom I've actually had the displeasure of dealing with in the past).

[HumanePain]

"And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
cause they cant make opinions meet,
About God"

-XTC dear God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Your youtube site is full of slideshows of little girls and boys backed by techno music.

Why? man4Sam

Because I like making videos of my friends here on Gnet. And they are not little girls and boys. If the average distribution of Gnet was 70 year olds I would have videos of 70 year olds. It happens to be that the main distribution is 15 to 20, with a seconday group of 20 to 30.

Don't be an ageist discriminator, it is about common interests, not age. Gnet doesn't say to members "you can't associate because you are too young" so don't say I can't because I am too old.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

"And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
cause they cant make opinions meet,
About God"

-XTC dear God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo



Because I like making videos of my friends here on Gnet. And they are not little girls and boys. If the average distribution of Gnet was 70 year olds I would have videos of 70 year olds. It happens to be that the main distribution is 15 to 20, with a seconday group of 20 to 30.

Don't be an ageist discriminator, it is about common interests, not age. Gnet doesn't say to members "you can't associate because you are too young" so don't say I can't because I am too old.

At least you aren't nearly as bad as Deadmanwalking.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showth...986#post487986

I mean. "WOW"....

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

[b]Hi, I'm somebody else. I present an alternative and equally logical argument.

It is not logically valid to think that because there isn't evidence of nonexistence that it must exist.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

But fine, keep believing it. **** the real usage of logic and apply it only when it seems you will win an argument with it; discard logic if it is otherwise.
I'm done with this thread. In the very least, please do read the link above. If it doesn't change your minds, great, but at least have the decency of knowing what you're talking about rather than thinking you do.

[Drake Dun]

...and on to scientists and religion (I'll do science and religion next, I hope).

If your sample population is that of the United States, it's indeed true that most (i.e., more than 50% of) scientists are religious. If your sample population is the world, my guess is that more are not. I would have to do a lot of data mining to compile world-wide numbers, but the United States is the most religious country among the developed nations, and its population is vastly outweighed by the combined populations of all the other less religious countries in the world. Japan alone has close to half as many people, and almost every person I have met here, scientist or otherwise, is a de facto atheist.

Since I probably won't have time to get around in detail to the paranoid slander that atheism necessarily leads to some kind of apocalyptic meltdown or jackboot nightmare, I'll also take an aside here to point out that in terms of crime rates etc., irreligious countries like Japan and Sweden are doing way better than the States. Every day I walk out my front door, I see the proof that society doesn't need God to avoid turning into a Mad Max scenario or totalitarian dystopia. And I can't pass up pointing out the irony that the famous scientist just tapped in support of religion was very clear about his own opinion on that ethics has nothing to do with religion.

To get back to the point, even in the United States, there is a pronounced correlation between scientific training and irreligiousness. According to Gallup, something like 90% of the general population is "certain" or has "little doubt" that "God exists".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/23470/Who...ho-Doesnt.aspx

Look at people who are educated, and the numbers start dropping off slowly (quicker if you're looking at specific issues like evolution/creationism, rather than belief in God in general).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20329/Rel...-Has-None.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11089/Loo...ion-Today.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/video/21820/Re...Evolution.aspx

Look at scientists, and the numbers drop off sharply. A third or so of scientists reject belief in God.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

Look at the cream of the crop, and you bounce off the bottom of the barrel, so that the trend is turned completely on its head - with only 10% believing.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I would rather this topic had not been raised at all, but if you're going to bring it up, you can't expect me to sit quietly by and not bring the real facts to light. Turning to the even more annoying business of shooting off names of big shot scientists, you'll notice a trend - most of the religious ones are from way back in the day. It's not even exactly correct to call a guy like Newton a scientist, as such. The word "scientist" wasn't coined until the 19th century. We look back at Newton now and call him a scientist because we can see that on his good days, he was employing the same basic methods of rational inquiry as form the cornerstone of what we now call science, which, however, is a rather grander enterprise than what existed in Newton's time. On his bad days he was attempting to prove that the solar system was constructed as a Russian doll of perfect polyhedrons and trying to turn lead into gold by alchemical means, something he had to do quietly in order to avoid the Church's wrath.

So yes. When you go back to a time when gravity was a radical new concept, you find that the people who we would now call scientists were almost all religious. Moving forward toward the present time, the historical trend is plain to see. Try this experiment: Make yourself a list of famous scientists of the 20th and 21st centuries, and then go dig up info on the religious beliefs of each one. Compared to the general populace, outspoken atheists are grossly over-represented, especially if we start halfway through the 20th century instead of at the beginning. A good chunk of the rest are agnostics, humanists, pantheists, deists, universal unitarians, Spinozans, etc. I.e., in some kind of non-dogmatic system of pseudo-religious belief or non-religious belief. Not full blooded theists. Then there are some genuine Christians and what not.

If the only point you're trying to make is that you can be both a scientist and religious, fine. The point is cheerfully conceded. If OTOH you're trying to say that there is a natural connection between being a scientist and being religious, such that the best scientists tend to be religious and being more religious makes you a better scientist, the facts simply aren't there for you. If anything, the facts we do have suggest the opposite.

[Drake Dun]

...a pause in the maelstrom. I'll take that as a cue to quietly exit stage left, unless things start up again. It takes a crapload of time to write my walls of text.