GlitterRose Posted June 17, 2016 #76 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I don't really think of "God" like most people do. There's no old man in the sky. Could there be a source from which all things come? Sure. I suppose so. I mean, I'm not too clingy about the idea, but I do entertain it. Sort of in the sense that George Carlin did. The Big Electron. A kind of force that possibly kicked it all off. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted June 17, 2016 #77 Share Posted June 17, 2016 8 minutes ago, ChaosRose said: I don't really think of "God" like most people do. There's no old man in the sky. Could there be a source from which all things come? Sure. I suppose so. I mean, I'm not too clingy about the idea, but I do entertain it. Sort of in the sense that George Carlin did. The Big Electron. A kind of force that possibly kicked it all off. I like the idea. It could be like quantum mechanics, we can have no knowledge of the state of the electron until we measure it. Existence or the universe is in this state of measurement. We can have no knowledge of its state before or after it is measured. And, we cannot define what an electron is. We can only define its behavior. I think the universe is also like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Urban Leg3nd Posted June 17, 2016 #78 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) On 6/14/2016 at 10:14 AM, RabidMongoose said: Why would a God need to create a universe with human beings in it? Well, if God is real, he wouldn't have a need to do anything in particular because he is restrained by nothing. Needs are for human beings; beings who don't have the power to give themselves anything they want. We get hungry -we have to eat, that's a need. We get thirsty,- we need a drink, that's a need. God on the other hand doesn't have a "need" for anything when he can just create whatever he wants. He can literally create anything and do anything, ...so saying why would God need to this vs why wouldn't God need that makes no sense. God cannot lack anything. Supposedly, he's perfect and really powerful. But why would God create the universe with humans in it? Well, the bible says God created humanity, the animals, and everything we see for his own pleasure. God actually is said to delight in the things fore which he has created. So in essence, you can say God created everything out of love. That answers your question. Quote Looking at the relationship between us it says that God needs humans as a source of entertainment, attention, self-esteem, power or control. Upon self-reflection I realise that I have either praised, hated or raged against God at various points in my life including refusing to believe that a God who lets such and such happen exists. However I now realise that I have spent my life either supplying God with positive or negative attention. So I have God down as an attention seeker who needs us to provide it with either positive (praise, admiration, appreciation) or negative (hate, rage, criticism) attention. That seems to be the whole basis of the relationship and its something God tries hard to force out of us. Is this the essence of mysticism? and what happens if you totally refuse to provide any attention (positive or negative) at all? To be honest, I don't think God needs humans at all, especially considering the number of time he threatens to kill us and wipe us off the map in the bible and then the time when he actually did it. In the bible, God makes it pretty clear he doesn't really need us around if we're going to live in sin and do what we want; he actually KILLS quite alot of people in the bible,...especially the Old Testament. It's basically God saying "my way or the highway". But if God actually did create everything for his own pleasure, and he takes delight in his creatures he made, then it follows to reason he would want some type of "relationship" with the beings he created also. Having a relationship with God means not just worshiping God or praises God, it really means getting to know God, and his ways. You say you have God down as an attention seeker,...well your right! God does want attention, he wants acknowledgement, and he want's worship. At least that's the way it's laid out in the bible,...something I read alot of in the past. If you completely cut God off, relationship wise, by not praying anymore, not going to church, not praising him or anything of that nature,..."it ain't over yet". You see, God has a certain way of dealing with people; he has different way for different people. If you don't want a relationship with God and actually cut him off,...you'll sit there a minute and think "ha, I finally got rid of him and all of that religious hooha" what he can do if he really wants you to be for him,...he's pursue you in your life. God works in mysterious ways,...yes because the ways in which he works, no one understands. His ways don't make sense, but they work. God is a spirit, he can work through people, and actually cause the people around you to pursue you FOR HIM until you change your mind and want that relationship with him. Been through it already. Speaking from experience. He could also let you see how your life will be without him there, some people report feeling empty, like they have no purpose, depressed, or aimless. But after going through such ordeals, God will somehow "win" you back and make you a believer again. You see, God knows exactly what it takes for each and every person to believe in him, and if he wants you to believe in him, he'll provide these experiences to change your mind. Me personally, I'm an Atheist. Alot of people tend to say, well if God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much time talking about him and trying argue his nonexistence? Well people, there are literally tons of religious people around me, and discussion is bound to happen, and also talking about religion and all sorts of other topics interest me. I like to learn about things, and why they're this and such and such and why people think the way they do. That's why God comes up so much. It's just interesting to talk about and ponder,...the implications are big if any of us are correct. Thanks! Edited June 17, 2016 by An Urban Leg3nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitat Posted June 17, 2016 #79 Share Posted June 17, 2016 9 minutes ago, An Urban Leg3nd said: You see, God knows exactly what it takes for each and every person to believe in him, and if he wants you to believe in him, he'll provide these experiences to change your mind. Me personally, I'm an Atheist. Alot of people tend to say, well if God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much time talking about him and trying argue his nonexistence? Well, people there are literally tons around religious people around me, and discussion is bound to happen, and also talking about religion and all sorts of other topics interest me. I like to learn about things, and why they're this and such and such and why people think the way they do. That's why God comes up so much. It's just interesting to talk about and ponder,...the implications are big if any of us are correct. Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Urban Leg3nd Posted June 17, 2016 #80 Share Posted June 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, Habitat said: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted June 17, 2016 #81 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, XenoFish said: That's all it is, escapism. A fantasy to help deaden the dull monotony of life. Any illusion will do. It's why people believe in god, magick, or that they are some otherkin. It's that desire to feel special, to think your life has meaning and that something has your best interest in mind. But there is nothing. Show some proof to backup what you said here. Moreover, are you presenting an absolute truth that no exceptions can be made? How possible that it is actually your faith for an escape from the possibility that God exists? Edited June 17, 2016 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted June 17, 2016 #82 Share Posted June 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Hawkins said: Show some proof to backup what you said here. Moreover, are you presenting an absolute truth that no exceptions can be made? How possible that it is actually your faith for an escape from the possibility that God exists? I'm presenting a raw perspective. At the core of our lives we create filler from one moment to another. Something to prevent boredom. We might call them goals, hobbies, or it could be a religion. As for god, I don't care if it exist. It doesn't matter one way or the other and it really isn't important to my life at all. From experience there is no mystical force that has my best interest in mind. It's all chaos out there. There is no such things as an absolute spiritual truth. No matter what you or other might want to believe. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted June 17, 2016 #83 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Hawkins said: Show some proof to backup what you said here. Moreover, are you presenting an absolute truth that no exceptions can be made? How possible that it is actually your faith for an escape from the possibility that God exists? I think it is few atheists who hold a creator deity as having a zero percent chance to exist. I think that there is zero evidence whatsoever indicating such a being's existence. I think that there has never been any such evidence. I highly doubt that there ever will be such evidence. But if such evidence appears, I would not dismiss it if it stood up to objective analysis. As such, looking for an "escape" from the possibility of a creator entity existing seems rather unlikely. Why would someone who understands the unlikeliness of such a being be afraid of its existence? Why fear what overwhelmingly probably does not exist? Edited June 17, 2016 by Podo 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted June 17, 2016 #84 Share Posted June 17, 2016 3 hours ago, XenoFish said: I'm presenting a raw perspective. At the core of our lives we create filler from one moment to another. Something to prevent boredom. We might call them goals, hobbies, or it could be a religion. As for god, I don't care if it exist. It doesn't matter one way or the other and it really isn't important to my life at all. From experience there is no mystical force that has my best interest in mind. It's all chaos out there. There is no such things as an absolute spiritual truth. No matter what you or other might want to believe. I don't disagree with you in a raw perspective. As to fillers to prevent boredom, there are some activities I enjoy doing that I wouldn't categorize as mere fillers to prevent boredom. It is chaos out there, but organized chaos. I think if we recognize the structure we can use our intelligence to understand and manipulate the chaos to our advantage. By advantage I mean for our own well being and sanity. The only spiritual truth I experience is when I visit nature, the natural world. In a natural environment somehow I have the feeling that this is where I belong, a wholesome feeling of familiarity and contentment. It's hard to put into words. This is as close to the experience of spirituality as I can realize for myself. For me this is not a belief or an absolute truth, as there are no holy books, religious doctrines or philosophies there to contend with my calm mind. Thank goodness. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted June 17, 2016 #85 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It's like going outside to sit on the porch while a nice cool breeze blow on you, looking up at a blue sky. It's peaceful and to some it gives a sense of connectivity to the better world around us. There are no holy books for this, no gods for this, no religion to this. It's being in a natural state of wonder. The activities you do fill those gaps in time between one things and the next. If you didn't have them boredom would set in. That's why I call it filler. I enjoy reading and video games. If I didn't have those I'd have to have something to spend the time on or I'd go crazy-er. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted June 19, 2016 #86 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Absolute surety is the realm of the arrogant ignorant... of this I'm absolutely sure... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted June 21, 2016 #87 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) On 6/17/2016 at 2:40 PM, Podo said: I think it is few atheists who hold a creator deity as having a zero percent chance to exist. I think that there is zero evidence whatsoever indicating such a being's existence. I think that there has never been any such evidence. I highly doubt that there ever will be such evidence. But if such evidence appears, I would not dismiss it if it stood up to objective analysis. As such, looking for an "escape" from the possibility of a creator entity existing seems rather unlikely. Why would someone who understands the unlikeliness of such a being be afraid of its existence? Why fear what overwhelmingly probably does not exist? I said many times before, humans rely on witnessing instead of evidence to reach a truth. Plus that God has a reason to not to leave empirical evidence. What you are saying here is actually the "absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". Mathematically, "existing seems rather unlikely" doesn't even stand as the likelihood is either 0 or 1 as it is an existence (or not). It's a matter of how this existence (or the lack of) is conveyed to humans. Moreover, that 'looking for an escape' can be a correct speculation. However, all generalizations, even done correctly, are not without exceptions. It's not some kind of absolute truth. "Lack of evidence" is never a valid point to deny a possible truth. Instead the validity of witnessing is. So speculation of its possibility is fallacious. However it is valid to say that because you don't trust the witnessing that you refuse to believe, that is, in terms of approaching a truth. To put it another way, if God exists and He doesn't have a reason to hide behind. Then evidence should be available. That is the case you are trying to present here. However under the circumstance that He has a good reason to hide behind, then it is normal that no evidence can be found even in the presence of a God. In this case, all humans' speculation that "He doesn't exist because of no evidence" is a fallacious speculation. Plus that your approach in identifying a truth by evidence itself is fallacious. Your advocate here is that "evidence is a must, in order for a truth to be identified". This is the way how we seek out a scientific truth, but it's not true in seeking all kinds of truth. Your assumption (subconsciously) that every truth is a science is fallacious. The very point here is actually that because humans in majority never rely on evidence but witnessing to get to a truth that if a God exists He should employ witnessing instead of evidence for humans to get His truth. The problem is rather humans failed to realize that they actually don't rely on evidence to get to a truth. Edited June 21, 2016 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted June 21, 2016 #88 Share Posted June 21, 2016 On 6/17/2016 at 1:10 PM, XenoFish said: I'm presenting a raw perspective. At the core of our lives we create filler from one moment to another. Something to prevent boredom. We might call them goals, hobbies, or it could be a religion. As for god, I don't care if it exist. It doesn't matter one way or the other and it really isn't important to my life at all. From experience there is no mystical force that has my best interest in mind. It's all chaos out there. There is no such things as an absolute spiritual truth. No matter what you or other might want to believe. You miss the point. Please see my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted June 21, 2016 #89 Share Posted June 21, 2016 47 minutes ago, Hawkins said: I said many times before, humans rely on witnessing instead of evidence to reach a truth. Plus that God has a reason to not to leave empirical evidence. What you are saying here is actually the "absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". Mathematically, "existing seems rather unlikely" doesn't even stand as the likelihood is either 0 or 1 as it is an existence (or not). It's a matter of how this existence (or the lack of) is conveyed to humans. Moreover, that 'looking for an escape' can be a correct speculation. However, all generalizations, even done correctly, are not without exceptions. It's not some kind of absolute truth. "Lack of evidence" is never a valid point to deny a possible truth. Instead the validity of witnessing is. So speculation of its possibility is fallacious. However it is valid to say that because you don't trust the witnessing that you refuse to believe, that is, in terms of approaching a truth. To put it another way, if God exists and He doesn't have a reason to hide behind. Then evidence should be available. That is the case you are trying to present here. However under the circumstance that He has a good reason to hide behind, then it is normal that no evidence can be found even in the presence of a God. In this case, all humans' speculation that "He doesn't exist because of no evidence" is a fallacious speculation. Plus that your approach in identifying a truth by evidence itself is fallacious. Your advocate here is that "evidence is a must, in order for a truth to be identified". This is the way how we seek out a scientific truth, but it's not true in seeking all kinds of truth. Your assumption (subconsciously) that every truth is a science is fallacious. The very point here is actually that because humans in majority never rely on evidence but witnessing to get to a truth that if a God exists He should employ witnessing instead of evidence for humans to get His truth. The problem is rather humans failed to realize that they actually don't rely on evidence to get to a truth. If a creator entity exists and chooses not to leave empirical evidence, then the logical conclusion is still that the entity does not exist. Whether the entity exists or not is rather irrelevant because it is silly to believe in something with no concrete reason to do so. As I've said, if evidence appears, then fine, supporting a thing's existence is logical. But barring any evidence, there is just no sane reason to declare "this thing is real." The liklihood of a thing vs not a thing is not 0 or 1. Leprechauns are not 50% as likely to exist as not exist, and neither is a creator deity. If we follow the binary logic, there is a 50/50 chance for literally anything to exist, anything at all that has ever been conceived of by a human mind, and that is just flatly not true. Therefore, a lack of evidence is perfectly valid in denying something that has no logical reason to be believed as being true. There is absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of Odin. Therefore, I conclude that he in all liklihood does not exist. There is no reason to consider his existence a "possible truth" because there is not a single shred of evidence pointing to him being a possible truth. The same goes for all deities, storybook characters, and other myths. A human inventing a mythological creature is not the same as a human finding evidence that such a creature may exist. The default position is "fake until proven otherwise," not "real until disproven." " Your assumption (subconsciously) that every truth is a science is fallacious. " <-- What does this even mean? "A science"? Science is a method of thinking and deducing things based on evidence. A thing cannot be "a science." Truths and scientific discoveries are not inherently tied. A truth is a truth whether we understand it or not. Lightning is an electrical discharge from the sky to the ground; this is as true now as it was thousands of years ago when humans thought they were mad discharges from an angry deity. A discovery proven via the scientific method is a scientific fact, but that does not necessarily mean it is a truth. Us understanding something to the very best of our ability may not (and often isn't) the whole truth. "Truth" is, therefore, more complicated than "bleh science is bad bleh bleh." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted June 21, 2016 #90 Share Posted June 21, 2016 4 hours ago, Hawkins said: You miss the point. Please see my post above. Perhaps there wasn't a point worth getting. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbly_Dooright Posted June 22, 2016 #91 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Quote StarMountainKid: Why do we need to believe in some higher power to escape ourselves, our "monotonous, stupid and cruel life"? And when we do give ourselves to some higher power, are we actually fundamentally changed or do we just go through the motions? Krishnamurti also said, "You must die to yourself". Rebirth is not following some externally imposed dogma. Rebirth is from within and is unique to each individual. An honest exploration of our deepest selves. When we follow the leader we become lock-stepping automatons. This is the psychology of Gods and of religions. I suppose both are psychological states of mind, and, being lazy humans, we usually choose the easiest way. Or choose no way at all, we just muddle on and hope for the best. And sometimes we even become depressed about it, and throw it all into the dust bin as a pointless errand. I wonder the Gods have not chosen this last option. I kind of like what you said here. But I find interesting your question on why need to believe in a higher power. Granted, I may have a need for mine, but it's all goes back to seeing it ( in my mind's eye perhaps ) by experience, inner messages and signs. I'm just saying, for me, it's also my belief is a reaction as well. Quote There is truth in what you say. The question is, do we live for all this or do we live for ourselves? In other words, can we accept the world as it is and still retain a healthy and sane mind? If we live in a mental institution with nothing but crazies around us, I think it behooves us to remain sane, sanity being not giving in, trying not to become just another crazy. Wait? How would you know, if you are constantly in a world full of crazies? That would be the normal for such a person in this world all of the time. Quote Xeno: There is not a sane person on this planet. People just tell themselves that they've got it all together. I knew there was a reason I always felt so grounded. I'm came to acknowledge my inner insanity a long time ago. Quote StarMountainKid: I don't disagree with you in a raw perspective. As to fillers to prevent boredom, there are some activities I enjoy doing that I wouldn't categorize as mere fillers to prevent boredom. It is chaos out there, but organized chaos. I think if we recognize the structure we can use our intelligence to understand and manipulate the chaos to our advantage. By advantage I mean for our own well being and sanity. The only spiritual truth I experience is when I visit nature, the natural world. In a natural environment somehow I have the feeling that this is where I belong, a wholesome feeling of familiarity and contentment. It's hard to put into words. This is as close to the experience of spirituality as I can realize for myself. For me this is not a belief or an absolute truth, as there are no holy books, religious doctrines or philosophies there to contend with my calm mind. Thank goodness. This really is so very close to my belief. I like this. Quote Hawkins: I said many times before, humans rely on witnessing instead of evidence to reach a truth. Plus that God has a reason to not to leave empirical evidence. What you are saying here is actually the "absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". Mathematically, "existing seems rather unlikely" doesn't even stand as the likelihood is either 0 or 1 as it is an existence (or not). It's a matter of how this existence (or the lack of) is conveyed to humans. Moreover, that 'looking for an escape' can be a correct speculation. However, all generalizations, even done correctly, are not without exceptions. It's not some kind of absolute truth. "Lack of evidence" is never a valid point to deny a possible truth. Instead the validity of witnessing is. So speculation of its possibility is fallacious. However it is valid to say that because you don't trust the witnessing that you refuse to believe, that is, in terms of approaching a truth. To put it another way, if God exists and He doesn't have a reason to hide behind. Then evidence should be available. That is the case you are trying to present here. However under the circumstance that He has a good reason to hide behind, then it is normal that no evidence can be found even in the presence of a God. In this case, all humans' speculation that "He doesn't exist because of no evidence" is a fallacious speculation. Plus that your approach in identifying a truth by evidence itself is fallacious. Your advocate here is that "evidence is a must, in order for a truth to be identified". This is the way how we seek out a scientific truth, but it's not true in seeking all kinds of truth. Your assumption (subconsciously) that every truth is a science is fallacious. The very point here is actually that because humans in majority never rely on evidence but witnessing to get to a truth that if a God exists He should employ witnessing instead of evidence for humans to get His truth. The problem is rather humans failed to realize that they actually don't rely on evidence to get to a truth. I don't believe this for one second. From my understanding, human witnessing seems to be another way of prosetylizing. I have seen various Christian facebook friends do this on their facebook page. Or in a sense, it seems like forced witnessing. In the end, how can humans, all humans, depend on it, if it's not a choice all of the time. And witnessing is not an equal substitute to evidence. It maybe the difference how many humans in a witnessing, but it differs when it's the experience itself and of those just 'lecturing' to 'witnesses'. I don't see how that can be seen as evidence. Sometimes, witnesses who witness something together, like an accident, sometimes tend to have different stories of what they witness when separated and interviewed. I have seen this many times. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted June 24, 2016 #92 Share Posted June 24, 2016 On 6/17/2016 at 1:10 PM, XenoFish said: I'm presenting a raw perspective. At the core of our lives we create filler from one moment to another. Something to prevent boredom. We might call them goals, hobbies, or it could be a religion. As for god, I don't care if it exist. It doesn't matter one way or the other and it really isn't important to my life at all. From experience there is no mystical force that has my best interest in mind. It's all chaos out there. There is no such things as an absolute spiritual truth. No matter what you or other might want to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted June 24, 2016 #93 Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) On 6/21/2016 at 1:09 PM, Podo said: " Your assumption (subconsciously) that every truth is a science is fallacious. " <-- What does this even mean? "A science"? So you don't even have the intelligence to comprehend. It means humans don't rely on evidence to approach a truth. The saying that "evidence is a must" for something to be a truth is based on our knowledge about what science is. Clear enough? To put it anther way, since we are educated with science we get the concept that evidence is need to get to a scientific truth. Then we try to apply this criteria to all other kinds of truths. However, in reality not every kind of truths is a science. Evidence is simply not available in some kind of truths such as history. So under the circumstance that humans in reality don't actually rely on evidence to approach a truth, and under the circumstance that certain kind of truths (such as history) cannot be approached by evidence, then what's the point of insisting that the truth of God must be supported by evidence? Edited June 24, 2016 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted June 24, 2016 #94 Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) On 6/21/2016 at 3:53 PM, XenoFish said: Perhaps there wasn't a point worth getting. Perhaps you don't like it because it reveals your faith for an escape. Edited June 24, 2016 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted June 24, 2016 #95 Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) On 6/22/2016 at 0:39 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said: I don't believe this for one second. From my understanding, human witnessing seems to be another way of prosetylizing. I have seen various Christian facebook friends do this on their facebook page. Or in a sense, it seems like forced witnessing. In the end, how can humans, all humans, depend on it, if it's not a choice all of the time. And witnessing is not an equal substitute to evidence. It maybe the difference how many humans in a witnessing, but it differs when it's the experience itself and of those just 'lecturing' to 'witnesses'. I don't see how that can be seen as evidence. Sometimes, witnesses who witness something together, like an accident, sometimes tend to have different stories of what they witness when separated and interviewed. I have seen this many times. History as a whole is based off human witnessing. So by your line of reasoning. History as a whole can be disregarded. It only says that your criteria in drawing a conclusion is flawed. Edited June 24, 2016 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted June 24, 2016 #96 Share Posted June 24, 2016 38 minutes ago, Hawkins said: Perhaps you don't like it because it reveals your faith for an escape. Escape from what exactly? 34 minutes ago, Hawkins said: History as a whole is based off human witnessing. So by your line of reasoning. History as a whole can be disregarded. It only says that your criteria in drawing a conclusion is flawed. History is written by the victors In this life nothing is true but all things are permitted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted June 24, 2016 #97 Share Posted June 24, 2016 19 minutes ago, Hawkins said: So you don't even have the intelligence to comprehend. Or maybe you aren't explaining yourself very clearly. Quote It means humans don't rely on evidence to approach a truth. The saying that "evidence is a must" for something to be a truth is based on our knowledge about what science is. I think you've said this a couple of times and I don't know at all what you mean. Of course humans rely on evidence to 'approach a truth', how else are you going to approach it? Is it a truth that we are communicating right now via the internet? How did you arrive at the truth without relying on evidence? Evidence isn't technically a must for something to be a truth, it's a must for us to recognize it as a truth; if you disagree, then what for example do we know is a truth that doesn't rely on evidence? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbly_Dooright Posted June 24, 2016 #98 Share Posted June 24, 2016 Quote Hawkins: History as a whole is based off human witnessing. So by your line of reasoning. History as a whole can be disregarded. It only says that your criteria in drawing a conclusion is flawed. Okaaaay then. I guess we're going to break it down to semantics, are we now. So, I'm assuming when you refer to 'witnessins' I'm referring to this definition of it: Quote One who publicly affirms religious faith Am I wrong, that is how you are wording your pov of 'witnessing'? Now, it seems you are referring to 'witnessing' as to this definition: Quote Attestation to a fact or statement or events From here: So, are we going to compare religious 'witnessing' to historical 'witnessing' accounts? So, maybe you can correct me on this, in our forms of discussing this. Are you using the term 'witnessing' as a form of historical account or are you using it as a religious term for prosetylizing? And to further my point, let's go back to my point that everyone has a chance to figure things out, if they want to. It depends on whether it takes a certain amount of time or generations, it's still there to be learned if necessary. I think how we have come so far with what we have learned from what we didn't know in the past, is what I believe a testament to that. And I don't see it as a flawed behavior, but a more accountable one. I like to refer to Xeno's post here. Quote History is written by the victors In this life nothing is true but all things are permitted. That makes sense to me, and should be considered when talking about these particular points here. Quote Liquid Gardens: Or maybe you aren't explaining yourself very clearly. I see this as a challange for me and my problems with my slight learning disability. But, I am aware it's still the challenge on me. If I want to be understood, I'll try another avenue to pass on my point. I have done this to understand others, when I initially cannot understand. So, in essence, I think you have a made a valid point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted June 24, 2016 #99 Share Posted June 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Hawkins said: So you don't even have the intelligence to comprehend. It means humans don't rely on evidence to approach a truth. The saying that "evidence is a must" for something to be a truth is based on our knowledge about what science is. Clear enough? To put it anther way, since we are educated with science we get the concept that evidence is need to get to a scientific truth. Then we try to apply this criteria to all other kinds of truths. However, in reality not every kind of truths is a science. Evidence is simply not available in some kind of truths such as history. So under the circumstance that humans in reality don't actually rely on evidence to approach a truth, and under the circumstance that certain kind of truths (such as history) cannot be approached by evidence, then what's the point of insisting that the truth of God must be supported by evidence? Drop the attitude and set the insults at the door. There's no place for either of those things here. Unclear statements merit questioning for clarification. Figure that out, and then come back when you're ready to sit at the grown-up table. A deity's existence does not necessarily need to be supported by evidence. I've said as much before. However, for people to believe in a deity, there must be evidence. I'm not going to believe in something that has absolutely no reason to exist. To believe in things without evidence is the same as believing in unicorns, fairies, spiderman, and literally anything else ever conceived within human mythology. If we can't observe a thing in any way, then even if it is real there is still no logical reason to believe that it exists. Whether it does exist or not is irrelevant. You're arguing existence, while I'm looking at belief without cause. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted June 25, 2016 #100 Share Posted June 25, 2016 I think I'm going to let Derren Brown do the talking for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now