God-damn !!

[FlashLackey]

Fair enough by me.

Let's just not pretend that you are leaving with your questions unanswered.

[deepakflash]

Your belief that a lion has attacked a zebra, if you analyze what you really know and what you do not, is just as much of a "blind belief" as the people who thought the world was flat. In fact, your belief that the world is not flat is just as much of a "blind belief" as the belief people once had that it is flat.

Lets make this clear? You mean I have a blind belief about that lion zebra video?? Wow man !! I am speechless.

[deepakflash]

Let's just not pretend that you are leaving with your questions unanswered.

Absolutely. 101% unanswered. This is it... And I am done.
God is : "faith".
Why God? : undefined
Why faith? : undefined

[FlashLackey]

Lets make this clear? You mean I have a blind belief about that lion zebra video?? Wow man !! I am speechless.

Yes, you do. You just seem unable to grasp why.

There was nothing any more blind about the people who thought the earth was flat than you looking at a video that may or may not be real. They lived on and looked at the earth every day of their lives, just like you do. Just like you observe a video of a lion attacking a zebra or read about it in a book. Both require that you believe what you are seeing is what you think it is. In other words, you have faith that it is true or real. Living life requires faith. That is the answer to your 'why faith' question.

[FlashLackey]

Absolutely. 101% unanswered. This is it... And I am

You are starting to sound like a kid in a school-yard saying "neener neener!"

Why are you so afraid to address substantial arguments? Are you really insecure about your beliefs? Is that why you feel the need to lash out at people about theirs?

[deepakflash]

There was nothing any more blind about the people who thought the earth was flat than you looking at a video that may or may not be real. They lived on and looked at the earth every day of their lives, just like you do. Just like you observe a video of a lion attacking a zebra or read about it in a book. Both require that you believe what you are seeing is what you think it is. In other words, you have faith that it is true or real. Living life requires faith. That is the answer to your 'why faith' question.

What the hell? Why do you make simple things look so difficult?

Are you really insecure about your beliefs?

My belief? What is that "my belief". Its all you people who are behind this belief.

[deepakflash]

Living life requires faith. That is the answer to your 'why faith' question.

I dont have faith in anything. Am i not living my life?
So my faith question remains unanswered.

btw, my faith question means "why faith in god"

[FlashLackey]

I think that we have finally reached a conclusion in this thread:

You don't have the courage to confront the answers to your own questions.

[FlashLackey]

I dont have faith in anything. Am i not living my life?
So my faith question remains unanswered.

btw, my faith question means "why faith in god"

No. Your faith question remains answered by me and many others. You simply don't understand the answers.

You do have faith in many things, including what sense is common and whether or not a lion has attacked a zebra. Therefore, your rejection of peoples faith in God, based primarily on an argument against faith itself, is hypocritical.

Trust me. I wouldn't be going through this with you if I didn't think it might some day help you. It may take 25+ years. But, the blueprint is there.

[deepakflash]

I think that we have finally reached a conclusion in this thread:

You don't have the courage to confront the answers to your own questions.

drunk?

[FlashLackey]

Juvenile?

[the sherrif]

In other words, you take a leap of faith based on what you think other people will agree with. It was also once "common sense" that the world was flat.

And in some parts of the Muslim world, it still is common sense, because (if you squint your eyes hard enough) it says so in some book authored by a plagiarist Arab businessman some 2000 years ago.

When held to the same absolute standard you are trying to apply to religious belief, you can't prove anything that you believe either.

Materialistic Science (what he’s talking about here) does not deal in absolutism, and he is not requiring the same of you. He’s not asking you to prove God mathematically or by pure logic, as that would be a) futile (for example, how would you overcome the logical quandary of omniscience and omnipotence being mutually incompatible?) and b) more than what the healthy, inquiring mind requires. For example; I don’t know of anyone who would require mathematical proof that if they jumped off a cliff, they would fall. You can’t prove it with science, but you can provide a hypothesis, assign probabilities through experimentation, and present predictions which can then be tested. Quite simple, really. He knows that if he jumps on the spot, he can reason intuitively, without invoking matters of ‘faith’, that jumping off a cliff will result in the same outcome, and not an intervention in the natural order. The God hypothesis has so far failed on all accounts.

(A digression: Materialistic Science and God are incompatible, by definition. Just because you can compartmentalise them in your mind doesn’t mean they can co-exist. Even the Vatican once decreed so, but hey, go tell the Discovery Institute that.)

There was a time in my life, several years actually, that I despised religion just as much as you do. I busied myself with thinking up all the reasons why people "fell for it" and I relished opportunities to confront religious people and question their reasons. But, as jaded as I was, I at least never ditched the value of knowledge itself as you seem to have. I studied religion and atheist thought. I read every book (and many letters, essays, etc.) written by Nietzsche and others. I suggest that you do the same. If you're going to be an ardent atheist, try at least not to be an ignorant, brazen one. Have some style about it and bring some knowledge. Or, do you want me to try and prove to you that manners and persuasiveness are appreciated by human beings?

Firstly, I find characterizing an Atheist’s position as ‘ignorant’ is almost a contradiction in terms, and if he was ignorant of your beliefs then he wouldn’t be here asking the questions. Secondly, ignorance of the works of some existentialist does not automatically make his position untenable, and claiming so amounts to intellectual snobbery. An eight-year old child can see straight through the ‘brazen’ claims of theistic religions, without invoking existentialism or postmodernism or Darwinism or anything else. Most eight year olds don’t even know what the word ‘atheist’ means; does ignorance of the concept belittle their opinion on the matter? I would wager Al Sharpton doesn’t even know who Jean Paul Sartre was, much less read a word of what he wrote. But that’s OK, because the Church doesn’t just ordain ignorance, it demands it.

I think that there is. It's just a different kind of evidence. To continue my little story from above about my atheist years: I eventually realized that I was full of myself and that, if I was to be completely honest in my heart, there was nothing "wrong" about the values I heard embraced at church. Just the opposite, everything that I felt good about deep down was exactly what I had heard there.

The moral teachings do not serve as an argument for adopting the religion. Just because someone has said something which ‘feels right’ within you, does not automatically make the claim that he ‘died for your sins’, or that you’ll survive your own death, a truism. For example, John Nash had some great things to say about Economics, but that doesn’t stop him coming across as a complete quack on any other matter.

I believe that all the evidence a person needs is in their heart.

Exactly. ‘The kingdom of God is within you’ – Luke 17:21. What a completely vacuous statement. It could appeal to any person in any way. In my mind, it invokes the ideals of Secular Humanism and a dash of existentialism. I’m sure Jerry Falwell felt the same way.

I think it's easy to lose sight of that because a lot of religious values are so entwined into society that they are no longer associated with their origins. From a purely historical perspective, Jesus was a radical figure that caused a dramatic revolution of morality. Today, many of the concepts taught by Jesus are part of our most basic laws and "common sense."

Which particular religious values are these? Moses’ Ten Commandments? Or perhaps some of the other pronouncements he made, like: stoning your children to death for indiscipline; or perhaps the virtues of exterminating the Amalekites; Or perhaps the merits of raping children. You see, you (and the church) seem to be cherry picking which religious values are the virtuous ones. How about Jesus? Do you think teaching hell-fire to children is a moral value we should all hold in high esteem? Perhaps the Golden Rule is the one aspect of his teachings which resonates so strongly within you. The first written account of The Golden Rule predates Jesus by half a millennia, and it had nothing to do with knowledge acquired by divine revelation. Only in a pathetic part of the world impoverished by the hands of dogma would such a miraculous moral discovery demand to be precipitated from the heavens, and its revelator, messianic.

The value system of the modern western world does not ground its morals in holy books.

The evidence of God is in witnessing that the word of God speaks to what is true in your heart. It is to see that there is a morality that is persistent, higher than you and not relative to the interpreter.

If morality was persistent, women wouldn’t be able to marry out of the faith, slavery would be perfectly acceptable, we would be lynching homosexuals for their sexual deviance, and women wouldn’t have the vote. Indeed, the reformation wouldn’t have occurred, the enlightenment would’ve been crushed, the French revolution and English Civil war would never have happened, and Democracy would be a thought-crime. The only reason you can now think in terms of absolute morals that everyone can agree with is because secular values have given you the privilege.

[cancerinform]

My point, is that you are not really making any statement that truly does nothing but oppose calm conversation... back up your statement.

I didn't get any email response until now.
I disagree. As I see this thread is still going on. And that is the point. Since some believe God exists and others believe it does not exist, the conversation about God can go forever.... calmly if you like but without any progress.

Do you know if God even watches us? I'm still stuck in devil's advocate mode. So prove to me that he does exist, thus would qualify as a sadist.

Nobody can prove if such external God exists or not. God is just a word for something spiritual.

Search in God in yourself. God in yourself is what you think and what you decide to do. If you know then you know what God sees and thinks, and that might not always be pleasant.

[PAlexC]

Nobody can prove if such external God exists or not. God is just a word for something spiritual.

Technically, and this is if you want to really nitpick, I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is currently on the skeptic to disprove the existence of God. Not being able to prove God exists is not the same as proving he doesn't.

[jAQUAN]

I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is currently on the skeptic to disprove the existence of God.

I respectfully disagree. Belief in god is a matter of faith, even if it's widely agreed upon. Just because a different number of people doubt it doesn't make it any more of a discountable belief.

Not being able to prove God exists is not the same as proving he doesn't.

Um, yeah it is.

[gerbick]

I didn't get any email response until now.
I disagree. As I see this thread is still going on. And that is the point. Since some believe God exists and others believe it does not exist, the conversation about God can go forever.... calmly if you like but without any progress.

Nobody can prove if such external God exists or not. God is just a word for something spiritual.

Search in God in yourself. God in yourself is what you think and what you decide to do. If you know then you know what God sees and thinks, and that might not always be pleasant.

You didn't understand a word I said.

[silverx2]

I respectfully disagree. Belief in god is a matter of faith, even if it's widely agreed upon. Just because a different number of people doubt it doesn't make it any more of a discountable belief.


Um, yeah it is.

no its not.

you will never. ever. be able to prove that god doesnt exist. its impossible. there will always be a sliver of doubt.

even though highly unlikey you can prove that god exists, once its been proven the sliver of doubt is gone.

its like the character from mystery men that can only turn invisible when nobody is looking.

you cant prove that he cant do it because he can only do it when no one can see him. However in the end he is able to do it, but nobody saw him do it.

/logs to fire.

[PAlexC]

Um, yeah it is.

In philosophy and symbolic logic, it isn't.

Not having proof FOR something, isn't the same as having proof AGAINST something.

So, someone can say: "Prove God exists." All I need to do is create the possibility that God exists, then turn around and say "Prove God DOESN'T exist."

That's pretty much where the question of God is these days.

[PAlexC]

I respectfully disagree. Belief in god is a matter of faith, even if it's widely agreed upon. Just because a different number of people doubt it doesn't make it any more of a discountable belief.

I meant in the context of "the" philosophical debate on the existence of God. I could be wrong though, it's been quite a few years since I've read up on it.

You're right though, belief in God IS a matter of faith, which is kind of why it's an issue that will never be resolved empirically. People who don't get that, tend to make absurd arguments and make fools of themselves when they try to talk intelligently about the matter.

[FlashLackey]

And in some parts of the Muslim world, it still is common sense, because (if you squint your eyes hard enough) it says so in some book authored by a plagiarist Arab businessman some 2000 years ago.

You are missing the point. Or, at least, choosing to address a different one, unrelated to what I was saying.

Deepakflash attempted to explain his beliefs by referring to his common sense. I was merely pointing out that common sense has often changed over time.

Materialistic Science (what he’s talking about here) does not deal in absolutism, and he is not requiring the same of you. He’s not asking you to prove God mathematically or by pure logic, as that would be a) futile (for example, how would you overcome the logical quandary of omniscience and omnipotence being mutually incompatible?) and b) more than what the healthy, inquiring mind requires. For example; I don’t know of anyone who would require mathematical proof that if they jumped off a cliff, they would fall. You can’t prove it with science, but you can provide a hypothesis, assign probabilities through experimentation, and present predictions which can then be tested. Quite simple, really. He knows that if he jumps on the spot, he can reason intuitively, without invoking matters of ‘faith’, that jumping off a cliff will result in the same outcome, and not an intervention in the natural order. The God hypothesis has so far failed on all accounts.

I appreciate that you at least bring some knowledge to the discussion. And, while I find it endearing that you are apparently rushing to the aid of some kind of comrade, you are wrong. Materialism is not something that deepakflash has talked about in any clear or reasoned way. And that is exactly my point in confronting him on this.

I respect that you, or anyone else, has different beliefs and reasons for them. But, don't try to put words into his mouth and then defend that position as if he was saying anything remotely as thought out as you.

I also don't know anyone who asks for proof that jumping off a cliff would lead to falling. You are missing my point in questioning deepakflash in that way. But, since you bring it up, I will address your argument.

A hypothesis and "reasoning intuitively" does not remove the fact that you are acting on faith to assume that those things will continue to be true. That the world is flat was also a hypothesis that many people reasoned intuitively my looking at the horizon and perceiving it to be flat. There was a difference between what was eventually known and what their knowledge was at the time. Yet, they proceeded through life with faith that it was true with no a priori knowledge that it was.

As far as the "God hypothesis has failed on all accounts" goes, you can only claim that it has failed for you. That isn't much of an argument against why it has worked for others.

(A digression: Materialistic Science and God are incompatible, by definition. Just because you can compartmentalise them in your mind doesn’t mean they can co-exist. Even the Vatican once decreed so, but hey, go tell the Discovery Institute that.)

This is a misleading statement. Materialism is the philosophical belief that matter is the only thing that exists. Not subscribing to materialism as a philosophy does not mean to compartmentalize or reject science. In fact, the Vatican also embraces science and scientific methods.

Firstly, I find characterizing an Atheist’s position as ‘ignorant’ is almost a contradiction in terms, and if he was ignorant of your beliefs then he wouldn’t be here asking the questions. Secondly, ignorance of the works of some existentialist does not automatically make his position untenable, and claiming so amounts to intellectual snobbery. An eight-year old child can see straight through the ‘brazen’ claims of theistic religions, without invoking existentialism or postmodernism or Darwinism or anything else. Most eight year olds don’t even know what the word ‘atheist’ means; does ignorance of the concept belittle their opinion on the matter? I would wager Al Sharpton doesn’t even know who Jean Paul Sartre was, much less read a word of what he wrote. But that’s OK, because the Church doesn’t just ordain ignorance, it demands it.

Again, you've missed the point. I am not saying that deepakflash is ignorant because he chooses to be an atheist. He is ignorant of religion because he chooses to not learn anything about it. He has boasted about that fact. What makes him brazen is his willingness to criticize something which he chooses to remain ignorant of.

In my experience, 8 year olds don't "see straight through" anything, much less religious claims. Certainly, they are susceptible to believe whatever adults tell them, be it that theistic religions make brazen claims or that theistic religions explain what they feel. However, I find the notion that they know more about such subjects (presumably what seeing through a subject means) because they are ignorant of many aspects of the subject to be nonsensical.

It sounds like you are also ignorant of what the Church teaches. It embraces scientific pursuits, encourages learning and does not "demand ignorance."

And Al Sharpton, whatever his religious beliefs are, is ignorant and brazen, imo. But, that's another subject.

The moral teachings do not serve as an argument for adopting the religion. Just because someone has said something which ‘feels right’ within you, does not automatically make the claim that he ‘died for your sins’, or that you’ll survive your own death, a truism. For example, John Nash had some great things to say about Economics, but that doesn’t stop him coming across as a complete quack on any other matter.

No, the moral teachings do serve as an argument for adopting the religion. I just made the argument.

That you reject the argument personally also does not automatically make those claims false. Faith in God, as taught in Christianity, is a matter of personal free will. Those teachings wouldn't make much sense if it was simply a matter of someone pointing out the arguments and a person being logical enough to get them and thus believe. If you subscribe to materialism absolutely and are closed to the possibility of anything else, of course you will never have faith in God.

Exactly. ‘The kingdom of God is within you’ – Luke 17:21. What a completely vacuous statement. It could appeal to any person in any way. In my mind, it invokes the ideals of Secular Humanism and a dash of existentialism. I’m sure Jerry Falwell felt the same way.

I find it ironic that you call that statement vacuous and then go on to make the Jerry Falwell straw man fallacy.

But, I think you hit the nail on the head here when you framed your view as being "in [your] mind."

Which particular religious values are these? Moses’ Ten Commandments? Or perhaps some of the other pronouncements he made, like: stoning your children to death for indiscipline; or perhaps the virtues of exterminating the Amalekites; Or perhaps the merits of raping children. You see, you (and the church) seem to be cherry picking which religious values are the virtuous ones. How about Jesus? Do you think teaching hell-fire to children is a moral value we should all hold in high esteem? Perhaps the Golden Rule is the one aspect of his teachings which resonates so strongly within you. The first written account of The Golden Rule predates Jesus by half a millennia, and it had nothing to do with knowledge acquired by divine revelation. Only in a pathetic part of the world impoverished by the hands of dogma would such a miraculous moral discovery demand to be precipitated from the heavens, and its revelator, messianic.

I did not say that social expectations or law was a carbon copy of everything Christian. But, if you are not familiar with which religious values I am referring to, you are not familiar with the origins of western law.

If morality was persistent, women wouldn’t be able to marry out of the faith, slavery would be perfectly acceptable, we would be lynching homosexuals for their sexual deviance, and women wouldn’t have the vote. Indeed, the reformation wouldn’t have occurred, the enlightenment would’ve been crushed, the French revolution and English Civil war would never have happened, and Democracy would be a thought-crime. The only reason you can now think in terms of absolute morals that everyone can agree with is because secular values have given you the privilege.

You are confusing the concept of a higher moral order with persistent human behavior. To believe that there are persistent morals is not to believe that everyone always behaves according to them.