I don't believe you

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Hawkins said:

Evidence? What is it, other than a joke? Continue to live in dreams!

So then this post of yours and its supposed 'reasoning' isn't based on evidence?  I totally agree.

[Jodie.Lynne]

3 hours ago, Hawkins said:

he one refuses to run but insist on seeing the evidence, or the one who chooses to trust the source is reliable enough to make a run?

Except that the 'source' isn't reliable, now is it? 

If I said that your home was going to explode at 6:35pm this evening, would you run? If yes, why? If no, why not?

 

If evidence is a joke, then do you believe everything that everyone tells you, 'just because'?

[Rlyeh]

17 hours ago, Hawkins said:

That's rather simple. It's all about an ancient message with a similar effect of "there's bomb there". Preaching the gospel means to spread the message such that people who are willing to listen will take measure to avoid a possible bomb.

It is like that.  Running into a mall and shouting there is a bomb, regardless whether there is one or not.

 

Quote

I also speculate that it's actually the atheists who are on the illogical side of the coin. I don't feel bad to remind them where their line of reasoning is flawed. Who's more logical in the bomb situation, the one refuses to run but insist on seeing the evidence, or the one who chooses to trust the source is reliable enough to make a run? Logically at least, you should focus on whether the source is a reliable one or not. Christianity is made from claims of eyewitnesses who martyred themselves to testify what is said.

When your source contains fiction is it still reliable?

 

Quote

Evidence is a joke. It's an educated line of reasoning but fallacious. One the biggest delusion ever existed in the history of humanity.

And yet it has yielded more than superstition ever has.  

Edited April 5, 2019 by Rlyeh

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 4/4/2019 at 2:43 PM, Hawkins said:

That's rather simple. It's all about an ancient message with a similar effect of "there's bomb there". Preaching the gospel means to spread the message such that people who are willing to listen will take measure to avoid a possible bomb.

I also speculate that it's actually the atheists who are on the illogical side of the coin. I don't feel bad to remind them where their line of reasoning is flawed. Who's more logical in the bomb situation, the one refuses to run but insist on seeing the evidence, or the one who chooses to trust the source is reliable enough to make a run? Logically at least, you should focus on whether the source is a reliable one or not. Christianity is made from claims of eyewitnesses who martyred themselves to testify what is said.

So, considering there are other beliefs and religions, that differ to your’s, and some of them that also ‘want to spread’ the word, how do you consider their message? How do you feel about the plausibility of their bomb? Are you going to listen and react the same way that you listen of your’s, or are you going to dismiss it? Are you also going to consider their reasoning as flawed? 

Considering the extreme lack of evidence to your religion, and the threat of ‘the bomb’, so is various other beliefs who perform the same ‘spreading the word’, and they can feel the same way of you and your beliefs. I think, to prove how you see believability in your lack of evidence belief, do the same for their’s and fear their ‘bomb’. 

How many ‘end of the world’ cults have been found out to be wrong? I wonder what goes through their minds, when all of their preparation was for naught. 

Quote

======

Evidence is a joke. It's an educated line of reasoning but fallacious. One the biggest delusion ever existed in the history of humanity.

99.99% of us don't have the evidence when we know for a fact that black holes exist (it's already about science, not to mention other kinds of truth). We know for fact that black holes exist not because they are made evident to us. We know for a fact that black holes exist because our scientists are the reliable and credible source of information for us to put faith in their words (about black holes in this case).

You can verify the existence of black holes yourself simply because science as a kind of truth is about a repeatable phenomenon. Not everything can repeat in this world for your verification. History is an example which is hardly subject to your verification. Did Nanjing massacre happen in WWII? The Chinese claim a casualty of 300,000 while denied by the Japanese. In your line of fallacious reasoning, then the Japanese must be right due to the lack of sufficient evidence. However, by the very nature of history (unlike science), evidence is scarcely available. The Chinese may be right, after all the witnessing/testimonies but not evidence are provided.

 

I wonder, if the methods used to come to the conclusion about black holes, the history of what once country or two did during a world war, and such, was used to investigate various religions and their aspects, what would they come up with? Do you think, the same methods into searching science and history and such, will it prove various religion’s aspects and  beliefs as just as credible as black holes and country’s past war actions? 

 

Quote

In a nutshell those demanding evidence in order to believe is living in a BIG delusion. Humans mostly rely on faith in a credible source, not evidence, to get to a truth/fact of any kind.

Examples?

Quote

When a friend told you that he had a big meal on Christmas, that remains the only way such a fact can convey. Demanding evidence for this historical event itself is a joke. You have 3 meals a day, 1000 meals a year. So by age 31 you already had more than 30,000 meals in your life. Show us the evidence of the food contents of any single 1 of them. If you can't, nor can the 7 billion humans in this world. You can't gather any evidence of 30,000 x 7 billion meals of today's humans by assuming an average age of 30! 

 

Evidence? What is it, other than a joke? Continue to live in dreams!

There is evidence, that you can be arrested for a crime. If a crime was done to you, are you going to dismiss evidence of the suspect doing the crime to you, because of what you think of evidence? 

 

It really makes me wonder, how many Atheists and non-Theists, actually demand evidence of religions and beliefs, because they really want to believe?  I wonder, at how many Atheists and non-Theists actually did the approaching of Theists (without being provoked by them) and asked for evidence? 

Am I the only one, that sees that Atheists and non-Theists are only asking for evidence, because they were approached (uninvitingly or provoked) by Theists? I don’t see it as a desire, but a deal breaker to why they don’t honestly believe. It’s kind of like when one person tries to convince another person of the positive aspects of a character of a third person, (that the second character has reason to believer there is none) and the second person has the understanding reason to say, ‘I’ll believe it, when I see it’. 

 

[Mr Walker]

On 01/04/2019 at 7:29 AM, preacherman76 said:

Why? In places like this message board, people regularly come to share personal experiences. Things that can’t be proven or disproven either way. Often people are looking for others to relate to. To find others who have had similar experiences. 

Now if someone can prove their claim then sure, why not? I’ve yet to see that happen though. It just isn’t possible. I’ve shared my UFO story here many times. I had no intention of proving to anyone that it happened the way I said it did though, just wanted to share my story. Just wanted to talk with people who might have had similar experiences. Why can’t that be enough? 

Thanks for saving me the trouble of explaining  this. 

[Mr Walker]

On 02/04/2019 at 9:45 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Only to those 'spiritual' people who aggressively post that they "have the truth" and if only we would listen and believe them, we would be saved.

 

If someone posted a story like:

"I had an encounter with something I believe was divine, god, angel, or something. I cannot prove it, and I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone, but the encounter made me re-evaluate my life and my circumstances. I think my life is better for this event. I wish everyone could see what I saw."

That would be fine. The poster might be questioned as to the particulars of the event, but I don't think that many would be overly hostile to the poster.

But, if the same poster stated that god revealed to them the way things have to be, and proceeded to dictate terms and conditions to follow in order to get to heaven; if they began to condemn and judge whole sections of society based on their personal 'revelation', then that opens up a new avenue of discussion.

 

If this were an Ice Cream forum, and people said what their fav flavor was, and why, that would be cool. But if someone posted "NO! This flavor is the best, and you're all to stupid and blind to realize it. And you'll all be sorry with 'This flavour' is all gone, then you will finally see the truth!" That would be aggressive, hostile, and presumptuous.

 

Its wider than that 

There ARE some behaviours attitudes and prejudices which are more destructive or constructive than others. 

Because we live in a community we all have a duty to educate ourselves in, and to point out to others, those differences.  We have a duty as intelligent beings to live in a way which does the least harm and the most good for others and for our environment  

It can have nothing to do with god 

Sometimes it is necessary to condemn the behaviour of others, but this does not mean condemning the person . 

[Jodie.Lynne]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

We have a duty as intelligent beings to live in a way which does the least harm and the most good for others and for our environment  

I agree with this statement. As long as one doesn't try to force their code of behavior on others "for their own good"

Ever notice how no one ever campaigns against vices (Casino's, alcohol, prostitution, drugs, etc.) for themselves? It's always 'for the best interests' of those who enjoy those vices?

Never has anyone said: "I want to illegalize drinking, because I am an alcoholic and can't stop myself"

Nope, it is always those that feel they hold the moral high ground, who "know" what is best for everyone else.

[+Sherapy]

On 3/13/2019 at 12:10 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Thanks for the heads up, I spent a month standing in a 2'x2' closet with a 1000 watt grow lamp on waiting to get healed from smoking.

jmccr8

Funnn nay 

[+Hammerclaw]

On 4/7/2019 at 9:24 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

I agree with this statement. As long as one doesn't try to force their code of behavior on others "for their own good"

Ever notice how no one ever campaigns against vices (Casino's, alcohol, prostitution, drugs, etc.) for themselves? It's always 'for the best interests' of those who enjoy those vices?

Never has anyone said: "I want to illegalize drinking, because I am an alcoholic and can't stop myself"

Nope, it is always those that feel they hold the moral high ground, who "know" what is best for everyone else.

"Nothing so needs reforming than other people's habits"  Samuel Clemens

[jmccr8]

On 4/7/2019 at 12:24 AM, Mr Walker said:

Sometimes it is necessary to condemn the behaviour of others, but this does not mean condemning the person .

Hi Walker

Prisons are full of condemned people and not condemned behavior, and hell is not so different as one cannot punish the action, only the actuator can understand consequence.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

On 07/04/2019 at 10:54 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

I agree with this statement. As long as one doesn't try to force their code of behavior on others "for their own good"

Ever notice how no one ever campaigns against vices (Casino's, alcohol, prostitution, drugs, etc.) for themselves? It's always 'for the best interests' of those who enjoy those vices?

Never has anyone said: "I want to illegalize drinking, because I am an alcoholic and can't stop myself"

Nope, it is always those that feel they hold the moral high ground, who "know" what is best for everyone else.

Sometimes we have to force a code of behaviour onto everyone.

it is not a religious thing simply a secular requirement for all to live together peacefully. It is why we need and use laws to restrict some behaviours 

So if you party loudly  late into the night, expect a visit from  the police.  It wont do you any good to argue that you need to party for your own well being and you should not be compelled to fit into other people's lifestyles    

Actually a lot of people say something,like that . In  Australia  many peole ban themselves from  bars of gaming rooms because the y cannot control their habits or behaviours.

It takes a lot of personal courage to do so,  but it  enables OTHERS to control behaviour you can't control for yourselves. 

What is best can be objectively measured by using criteria referenced outcomes of different behaviours MAny laws are based on this.     

[albie]

On 02/04/2019 at 1:43 PM, Will Due said:

 

Do you hate God?

 

 

I don't know he exists. I am simply presuming, for pleasure, that he exists and made this world. You can't really get that angry with a supposed God.

[Jodie.Lynne]

On 4/13/2019 at 10:39 PM, Mr Walker said:

Sometimes we have to force a code of behaviour onto everyone.

Again, I can agree. To a point, where one's behavior is dangerous to another, or disruptive to society.

 

Would you be comfortable with laws being passed that prohibit you from have an occasional drink? Or smoking (cigarettes, cigars, or pipes)? 

What about eating meat? ANY meat, including fish, because it goes against someone's religious views.

How about regulating sex; who consenting adults may have sex with. What if any sex outside of marriage would be made illegal, that only married couples could have intercourse, and ONLY for purpose of reproduction.

What if gambling, in any form or shape from the national lottery to a friendly barroom bet on the footie, was made illegal? Because some one feels that "GOD hates gambling"?

 

I reiterate my statement: NO 'do-gooder' EVER wants laws passed because they themselves, are 'at risk'; they do it to impose their own rules on others.

YOU don't like to drink, smoke, gamble, rumple the sheets, then F-'in DON'T. But allow others to indulge in their pleasures.

As long as it harms no one.

 

(patiently waits for someone to come up with marginal 'what if' cases to support stifling others)

[Mr Walker]

48 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Again, I can agree. To a point, where one's behavior is dangerous to another, or disruptive to society.

 

Would you be comfortable with laws being passed that prohibit you from have an occasional drink? Or smoking (cigarettes, cigars, or pipes)? 

What about eating meat? ANY meat, including fish, because it goes against someone's religious views.

How about regulating sex; who consenting adults may have sex with. What if any sex outside of marriage would be made illegal, that only married couples could have intercourse, and ONLY for purpose of reproduction.

What if gambling, in any form or shape from the national lottery to a friendly barroom bet on the footie, was made illegal? Because some one feels that "GOD hates gambling"?

 

I reiterate my statement: NO 'do-gooder' EVER wants laws passed because they themselves, are 'at risk'; they do it to impose their own rules on others.

YOU don't like to drink, smoke, gamble, rumple the sheets, then F-'in DON'T. But allow others to indulge in their pleasures.

As long as it harms no one.

 

(patiently waits for someone to come up with marginal 'what if' cases to support stifling others)

Personally  i would be comfortable and even approve of bans on those things.  But that is because of the examples  you chose.

Philosophically i don't believe in compelling people to give up things but i do approve of strong encouragement through taxes, partial  bans and limitations  on them Eg in Australia you cannot drink in many public places and you cannot smoke in most of them . You cannot legally drink or smoke under a certain age.

I gamble a little, but would actually be happier if all gambling was banned, because it has become so harmful and destructive in its all pervasive nature, that even children are putting bets on football games as a result of advertising during sporting events etc and many lives are destroyed by the addiction.  

I actually grew up with those sexual laws  in existence.

Again, personally, i would like to live under them ,BUT i would not ask or expect everyone to do so.

Again the laws must protect people from harmful behaviours which come at a cost to our society.

At present i think liberalisation of sexual and marriage laws,  while bringing some freedom, comes at a huge cost to our children and their future, and a slightly lesser  but still significant, cost to women. They disconnect so many children from  their biological parents, and blood relatives, and destroy one of the most fundamental connections a human being can have; to their past , history heritage, and   family  

Personal freedom is a good thing, but only up to a point where acting on it brings significant harm or cost.

  For an adult some harm or cost is allowable when informed consent is occurring (eg the adult knows and accepts the cost as a fair trade off for enjoyment and freedom ) but it is never acceptable when it brings harm to others, such as children, or the wider society, who did NOT consent to being exposed to that harm   

Edited April 15, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

On 10/04/2019 at 11:13 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Prisons are full of condemned people and not condemned behavior, and hell is not so different as one cannot punish the action, only the actuator can understand consequence.

jmccr8

I don't believe in the existence of hell but, theologically/philosophically speaking, because god knows the true heart and mind of a person, god can (is competent and entitled to)  judge our souls as well as our behaviours. 

Because humans can never see into the heart and soul of another, we are not competent, or entitled, to pass judgement on those things.

Only on behaviour. 

[+Sherapy]

On 4/15/2019 at 4:16 PM, Mr Walker said:

Personally  i would be comfortable and even approve of bans on those things.  But that is because of the examples  you chose.

Philosophically i don't believe in compelling people to give up things but i do approve of strong encouragement through taxes, partial  bans and limitations  on them Eg in Australia you cannot drink in many public places and you cannot smoke in most of them . You cannot legally drink or smoke under a certain age.

I gamble a little, but would actually be happier if all gambling was banned, because it has become so harmful and destructive in its all pervasive nature, that even children are putting bets on football games as a result of advertising during sporting events etc and many lives are destroyed by the addiction.  

I actually grew up with those sexual laws  in existence.

Again, personally, i would like to live under them ,BUT i would not ask or expect everyone to do so.

Again the laws must protect people from harmful behaviours which come at a cost to our society.

At present i think liberalisation of sexual and marriage laws,  while bringing some freedom, comes at a huge cost to our children and their future, and a slightly lesser  but still significant, cost to women. They disconnect so many children from  their biological parents, and blood relatives, and destroy one of the most fundamental connections a human being can have; to their past , history heritage, and   family  

Personal freedom is a good thing, but only up to a point where acting on it brings significant harm or cost.

  For an adult some harm or cost is allowable when informed consent is occurring (eg the adult knows and accepts the cost as a fair trade off for enjoyment and freedom ) but it is never acceptable when it brings harm to others, such as children, or the wider society, who did NOT consent to being exposed to that harm   

I agree and would say this includes pedophilia, marrying 12 year olds to 50 year old men. It is not acceptable to the young girls or wider society especially when they child is given no right to consent as far as being exposed to the harm. 

It isn’t excusable or justifiable because it went on in ancient cultures either. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Desertrat56]

On 2/18/2019 at 8:07 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Imagine, if you will, a day when all the doubters, sceptics, atheists and general non-believers decided to give up trying to rationalize and discuss with believers on these forums.

 

So, my question: 

Why do YOU continue to argue this issue?

It is entertainment, and interaction with others I can't get anywhere else.  Plus I am introduced to new things to think about.

As for imagining a day when all the doubters, skeptics, atheists and general non-believers give up and leave the forum, the forum would dry up and disappear in about a month.   I have seen it happen in other forums when the "believers" or the "skeptics" became so rabid that everyone on one side or the other left, and there was no longer any reason for the others to stay either.

Why are YOU still here?

Edited April 17, 2019 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

On 2/19/2019 at 6:49 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Maybe it’s my secular upbringing, not understanding the technicalities of the orthodox religions, but I don’t understand why these behaviors occur. Is it because a lot grew up into it and was given the environment of it being a surety, and then seeing it dissolve as such as they grow older and move out into their world? I think, there is a lack of solidifying of identities in such situations, and I think it’s the identities that are under a strain, and I see this as a big reason to why some behave in such a way. I grew up in a big family that was solid in being ourselves and going our paths with parental enthusiasm. I wonder, if that is the case of how I can feel satisfied that I am peace with my beliefs or lack of them and feel happy for those who have them or don’t.

I think you are right about why you can feel satisfied and at peace.

There is a difference in attitude and understanding  between people raised in a religion that keep it as an adult and those who join a religion as an adult.  And there is a difference in attitude with people who were not raised in a religion and do not choose it as an adult.  Spirituality is not religion.  It can be but usually isn't.   And within any given religion there are differences in perception and interpretation of the meaning and doctrines of the religion.

When I was in my 20's and recently divorced with two daughters (one a baby) I was visited by two Mormon "elders" (young men doing missionary visitations).  I literally opened the door holding a bowl of cookie dough I was making in one arm and the baby in the other, with the 3 year old clinging to my leg.  They asked if they could come in and talk to me about their religion.   I told them immediately "I don't think you have anything to offer me.   I have Mormon relatives so I know a little bit about your religion.  I am a divorced woman with two daughters and I am not interested in joining or hearing any more about a misogynist religion."  One of the young men was startled and upset that I used the word misogynist. He started to argue with me, but the other young man stepped in and said "I understand.  Thank you for being honest."  When the other young man started to argue the second one told him he would explain later, and told me "He was raised in the Mormon church but I joined when I was in college."  They left and I could see that the new Mormon was explaining reality to the other who had no clue about the reality of women needing to be able to take care of themselves.  I would have said the same thing (except for the relative part) to any one from any religion (except the Jehova's witnesses, I like to correct their misquoting bible verses and then watch them leave as fast as they can.)  My experience is that the religions that encourage door to door prothelisizing are all similar in their beliefs about a woman's place in the world.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Desertrat56

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Why are YOU still here?

I think it is like watching a car crash... You want to turn away, but you just can't...

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

When I was in my 20's and recently divorced with two daughters (one a baby) I was visited by two Mormon "elders" >>SNIP<<

I agree with you. It seems that those whose religion has been their life from childhood, often insulated by the echo chamber of like minded communities, seem to lack any practical knowledge of the real world. They have been fed their religions doctrines from the teat, and are often shocked and confused by the attitudes of people who have different views.

I'm sure that the younger "Elder" was aghast that you might not want to desire being a baby factory for a man who would make all the important decisions in your life. 

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I agree with you. It seems that those whose religion has been their life from childhood, often insulated by the echo chamber of like minded communities, seem to lack any practical knowledge of the real world. They have been fed their religions doctrines from the teat, and are often shocked and confused by the attitudes of people who have different views.

I'm sure that the younger "Elder" was aghast that you might not want to desire being a baby factory for a man who would make all the important decisions in your life. 

Yes, and I did not want that for my daughters.

[Jodie.Lynne]

12 hours ago, Sherapy said:

It isn’t excusable or justifiable because it went on in ancient cultures either. 

OMG! Is he trying to justify bad behavior because "It used to be OK"?

I shouldn't be surprised, since he defended biblical slavery because "it was different then".

Shere, baby, you would be better off ignoring that one. He isn't good for your psyche. He will just poison your peace of mind.

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, and I did not want that for my daughters.

Plus there is a whole railroad freight car of issues with some pimple faced kid being referred to as an "Elder" in  my book. If the twit had any real responsibilities, he'd be more concerned with putting food on his family's table than trying to save other peoples souls.

[+Desertrat56]

12 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Plus there is a whole railroad freight car of issues with some pimple faced kid being referred to as an "Elder" in  my book. If the twit had any real responsibilities, he'd be more concerned with putting food on his family's table than trying to save other peoples souls.

Actually the family pays for everything for him to do his mission work or he pays for it.  It is expected of most 18 to 20 year olds before they got to college or get married.  But if the family can't afford it then they don't go until they have saved up enough to support themselves. Usually they are older than between the ages of 18 and 25.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Desertrat56

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Usually they are older than between the ages of 18 and 25.

But still, with no real life experience behind them.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that AGE = WISDOM, there are plenty of 60 y/o's I wouldn't trust to look after a houseplant!

To me, it stinks of arrogance that any religion would send forth children to try to convince people that they have the right knowledge about life.

 

In another lifetime, when I was male, my finance wanted an RC church wedding. She wanted all the bells and whistles, and I was OK with it. We had to attend 2 Pre-Caana classes, to prove that we were worthy to be married in a church.

Well, the first class was almost the last class. A freshly minted priest, right out of seminary school addressed an audience of about 70 couples. I forget the most of his 'lesson', but what almost made me walk out was when he extolled us to "Have as many children as we could. Don't worry about how you will feed them, because GAWD will provide." 

The above is NOT an exaggeration, my ex-wife can corroborate it.  This zit-faced youth, who would be provided shelter, clothing, food and all the necessities of life, who had NO F-k-ing clue about making a living, was telling an auditorium full of people to basically guarantee they would be living in poverty, all because he had ZERO knowledge of the real world. All in order to satisfy what he believed, was a righteous, godly life.