210 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Regardless; DNA.

I cannot fault the logical possibility that DNA is a result of an intelligent creator. Without extensive education in biosciences I cannot hope to hold ground on such a debate. In my opinion with billions of years to toy with anything is possible.

Anything? Even with a 13+ billion plus age of the cosmos such as ours anything is not possible. That is the power of the Anthropic Argument for the existence of God.

What I will say though is that I feel it is pointless to argue for or against the scientific proof of a creator (from a religious standpoint). At our current rate of progression it will take many thousands of years to probably still get nowhere.

Is this an argument against our topic? Presently you have no hope of providing a basis for a Theist to change their mind. I have a question, is Science, as now practiced, a tool for studying God one way or the other?

From my experience the majority of the faithful I’ve met are much more concerned with living their lives according to their faith. They’re not concerned with proof of an intelligent creator they just want to believe in their version of God and live their lives.

I can’t say the same. Atheists, like past examples here, are more like this. See also the topic evidence for atheism.

Bringing this back on topic: if we conclusively proved that DNA was a DIRECT result of evolution and there was a 0% chance of Gods involvement would you reverse your position on the existence of God?

Would evolution prove there was no God? I don’t believe so. Explain? If I knew there was no God and that Atheism was true I would return to my old belief in atheism.

If we were able to prove the existence of everything in the universe without God would that then reverse your position on the existence of God?

What do you mean by “everything.” What do you mean by ,”prove?”

I know it wouldn’t for me because I long for the unknown and will always belief in the existence of that which we do not understand. It would be interesting to see your thoughts on it though.

You have the God of the Gaps. When you run into the unknown, up comes the word God. I don’t use God like that.

Please don’t take the “Well it’s not possible so why even discuss it?” path as you know that will drive me bonkers!

Just Because we don’t have full exhaustive knowledge of anything, I don’t believe in the God of the Gaps. I would never say anything such as you suggest.

[Lister]

I don't know Shadow. From everything you've said to me thus far I don't see you as being a spiritual guy. More of switched off Atheist. Facts and truths seem to be extremely important to you while the unknowable comfort of a God that loves you and made you seems less important.

You can’t deny that a large portion of religious people are religious because they feel a certain comfort in it. They may call it the Holy Ghost. Many of them would be offended at a discussion of facts and truths. They would take your truths and say “If you got a problem with my God, you’ve got a problem with me” regardless of your pro-religious stance. They “feel” God’s existence through payer, church, family and friends and that’s good enough for them.

The level at which we discuss religion here is often well above what a majority of people would be comfortable with. It’s very clear that many of the people here feel that way too (hence their annoyance at you when you try and raise the bar).

Now if a forum containing the IQ’s this forum contains still can’t completely keep up with the conversation I would say that we can conclude a faith is going to be mainly comprised of people below this comfort “bar”.

If a larger majority of a religion is not comfortable openly debating high level facts and truths of their faiths beyond simple scripture how can you believe that the majority of them are ONLY concerned with the facts?

Prove – To a Degree you would be satisfied with… Everything – All that concerns you

If we were to prove that God doesn’t need to exist for everything else to exist then you would believe in God no longer. That’s not the reaction of a religious man; that’s the reaction of someone who is afraid of the middle – “The Maybe zone”. That would be a good topic.

[shadowhawk]

lister: I don't know Shadow. From everything you've said to me thus far I don't see you as being a spiritual guy. More of switched off Atheist. Facts and truths seem to be extremely important to you while the unknowable comfort of a God that loves you and made you seems less important.

You are really reading into this in a subjective way that could not be farther from the truth. We can discuss the spiritual life of a Christian if you wish. It is certainly not mindless but involves the total person..

You can’t deny that a large portion of religious people are religious because they feel a certain comfort in it. They may call it the Holy Ghost. Many of them would be offended at a discussion of facts and truths. They would take your truths and say “If you got a problem with my God, you’ve got a problem with me” regardless of your pro-religious stance. They “feel” God’s existence through payer, church, family and friends and that’s good enough for them.

Yes most religious are emotionally involved in their faith. Most people are emotionally involved in their lives. So what? I don’t know of anyone who would be offended in discussing the facts.

The level at which we discuss religion here is often well above what a majority of people would be comfortable with. It’s very clear that many of the people here feel that way too (hence their annoyance at you when you try and raise the bar).

Now if a forum containing the IQ’s this forum contains still can’t completely keep up with the conversation I would say that we can conclude a faith is going to be mainly comprised of people below this comfort “bar”.

Obviously you have a very limited exposure to Christians and a overly high view of the discussion here. Most of it is childish name calling. I don’t even bother to involve my friends because of it. What people are uncomfortable with is being ganged up on by many atheists and non religious spouting ugly one liners. I don’t care one way or the other, but it is hard to have any kind of serious discussion here.

If a larger majority of a religion is not comfortable openly debating high level facts and truths of their faiths beyond simple scripture how can you believe that the majority of them are ONLY concerned with the facts?

Because I know this is not true. Ill send some of my bookmarks to support my contention privately.

Prove – To a Degree you would be satisfied with… Everything – All that concerns you

What...you are joking surely.

If we were to prove that God doesn’t need to exist for everything else to exist then you would believe in God no longer. That’s not the reaction of a religious man; that’s the reaction of someone who is afraid of the middle – “The Maybe zone”. That would be a good topic.

And what is so good about the middle ground? First you have presented a hypothetical with no real proof. Tell me why a cosmos, like the one we have, exists?

[Lister]

The reason I find value in the middle is because it leaves me on a tilt; a zone where I don’t know things for certain. This tilt keeps me on my feet and keeps me thinking. It’s easy to find the deepest corner of an idea and hide there because in that position you feel safe. You KNOW that what you believe is right and that’s all that matters.

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with feeling certain in something. Perhaps I am unnecessarily exposing myself to total uncertainty. Perhaps I can find that certainty; that base of facts that you have found and be happy. Perhaps I will one day. But for now I don’t want to commit to any one ideal. I find my position to be a better fit. Why?

If I was hard liner Atheist at my current age I would be less willing to hear you out. On the flip side if I was a Christian I would be less likely to disagree with you and may even ignore all your quotes and just agree with whatever you say gaining nothing. Being in the middle means I constantly challenge everything I know and never hold firm to any one ideal. I can reach into the depths of a belief (New Earth Creationists for example) yet I don’t have to adopt and hold firm. This gives me the ability to adapt and evolve my beliefs into something much stronger.

As far as the level of conversation on this forum I may be jumbling up this forum with others on this site. Perhaps you’re right that the level here is low but then what religious forum is high on quality conversations? Usually it seems to be either Theists patting themselves on the back or Atheists doing the same. And really the conversation you and I are having can and will encourage others in and promote a higher level of conversation.

On to your thoughts:

I do believe that all factors are involved with being religious (Emotions, Mind and Body). I know of many in the faith who would love to have a conversation about the facts. It seems that Jehovah witnesses are particularly interested in the facts and conversations about them.

Where I challenge you though is on the grounds of your reactions to things in this forum. Though you may not intend it you often portray yourself as someone who only cares about the facts. I have assumed (perhaps wrongly so) that you’ve been doing this because facts are easier to defend.

The question of “What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?” is pretty easy to answer on facts. As I said a trauma can remove or restore a person’s faith and belief just as a persuading factual arguments can. In terms of a Trauma “My wife was killed by a drunk driver. If God was real he would have prevented this. Therefore God isn’t real.” As far as a persuading argument you need only determine the level required and spout off something along that level of thought.

I think I’ve asked this a lot now but indirectly; aren’t there more than just facts involved in belief? I’ll be straight here too; the reason I ask this is because proving that billions of years leaves room for God is particularly dull and obvious. Discussing the fringe is much more interesting.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: The reason I find value in the middle is because it leaves me on a tilt; a zone where I don’t know things for certain. This tilt keeps me on my feet and keeps me thinking. It’s easy to find the deepest corner of an idea and hide there because in that position you feel safe. You KNOW that what you believe is right and that’s all that matters.

Do you KNOW this? Are you insecure?

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with feeling certain in something. Perhaps I am unnecessarily exposing myself to total uncertainty. Perhaps I can find that certainty; that base of facts that you have found and be happy. Perhaps I will one day. But for now I don’t want to commit to any one ideal. I find my position to be a better fit. Why?

You don’t want to comint to any ideal except the one you are committed to? Hummm are you certain about that? What is it fitting?

If I was hard liner Atheist at my current age I would be less willing to hear you out. On the flip side if I was a Christian I would be less likely to disagree with you and may even ignore all your quotes and just agree with whatever you say gaining nothing. Being in the middle means I constantly challenge everything I know and never hold firm to any one ideal. I can reach into the depths of a belief (New Earth Creationists for example) yet I don’t have to adopt and hold firm. This gives me the ability to adapt and evolve my beliefs into something much stronger.

Being a Christian has never kept me from thinking about or considering anything I care to. Can’t you believe anything and keep an open mind.?

As far as the level of conversation on this forum I may be jumbling up this forum with others on this site. Perhaps you’re right that the level here is low but then what religious forum is high on quality conversations? Usually it seems to be either Theists patting themselves on the back or Atheists doing the same. And really the conversation you and I are having can and will encourage others in and promote a higher level of conversation.

Ok

I do believe that all factors are involved with being religious (Emotions, Mind and Body). I know of many in the faith who would love to have a conversation about the facts. It seems that Jehovah witnesses are particularly interested in the facts and conversations about them.

There are also many others. Hope you enjoy the bookmarks I sent you. I have many more of different subjects.

Where I challenge you though is on the grounds of your reactions to things in this forum. Though you may not intend it you often portray yourself as someone who only cares about the facts. I have assumed (perhaps wrongly so) that you’ve been doing this because facts are easier to defend.

The question of “What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?” is pretty easy to answer on facts. As I said a trauma can remove or restore a person’s faith and belief just as a persuading factual arguments can. In terms of a Trauma “My wife was killed by a drunk driver. If God was real he would have prevented this. Therefore God isn’t real.” As far as a persuading argument you need only determine the level required and spout off something along that level of thought.

I am the only one left alive in my family of five. Tell me without God what is your hope for them or your wife? Don’t try to reason this out. Use only your emotions.

I think I’ve asked this a lot now but indirectly; aren’t there more than just facts involved in belief? I’ll be straight here too; the reason I ask this is because proving that billions of years leaves room for God is particularly dull and obvious. Discussing the fringe is much more interesting.

Yes there are more than facts. I love God. What is the fringe?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: The reason I find value in the middle is because it leaves me on a tilt; a zone where I don’t know things for certain. This tilt keeps me on my feet and keeps me thinking. It’s easy to find the deepest corner of an idea and hide there because in that position you feel safe. You KNOW that what you believe is right and that’s all that matters.

Do you KNOW this? Are you insecure?

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with feeling certain in something. Perhaps I am unnecessarily exposing myself to total uncertainty. Perhaps I can find that certainty; that base of facts that you have found and be happy. Perhaps I will one day. But for now I don’t want to commit to any one ideal. I find my position to be a better fit. Why?

You don’t want to comint to any ideal except the one you are committed to? Hummm are you certain about that? What is it fitting?

If I was hard liner Atheist at my current age I would be less willing to hear you out. On the flip side if I was a Christian I would be less likely to disagree with you and may even ignore all your quotes and just agree with whatever you say gaining nothing. Being in the middle means I constantly challenge everything I know and never hold firm to any one ideal. I can reach into the depths of a belief (New Earth Creationists for example) yet I don’t have to adopt and hold firm. This gives me the ability to adapt and evolve my beliefs into something much stronger.

Being a Christian has never kept me from thinking about or considering anything I care to. Can’t you believe anything and keep an open mind.?

As far as the level of conversation on this forum I may be jumbling up this forum with others on this site. Perhaps you’re right that the level here is low but then what religious forum is high on quality conversations? Usually it seems to be either Theists patting themselves on the back or Atheists doing the same. And really the conversation you and I are having can and will encourage others in and promote a higher level of conversation.

Ok

I do believe that all factors are involved with being religious (Emotions, Mind and Body). I know of many in the faith who would love to have a conversation about the facts. It seems that Jehovah witnesses are particularly interested in the facts and conversations about them.

There are also many others. Hope you enjoy the bookmarks I sent you. I have many more of different subjects.

Where I challenge you though is on the grounds of your reactions to things in this forum. Though you may not intend it you often portray yourself as someone who only cares about the facts. I have assumed (perhaps wrongly so) that you’ve been doing this because facts are easier to defend.

The question of “What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?” is pretty easy to answer on facts. As I said a trauma can remove or restore a person’s faith and belief just as a persuading factual arguments can. In terms of a Trauma “My wife was killed by a drunk driver. If God was real he would have prevented this. Therefore God isn’t real.” As far as a persuading argument you need only determine the level required and spout off something along that level of thought.

I am the only one left alive in my family of five. Tell me without God what is your hope for them or your wife? Don’t try to reason this out. Use only your emotions.

I think I’ve asked this a lot now but indirectly; aren’t there more than just facts involved in belief? I’ll be straight here too; the reason I ask this is because proving that billions of years leaves room for God is particularly dull and obvious. Discussing the fringe is much more interesting.

Yes there are more than facts. I love God. What is the fringe?

[Lister]

YES I'm insecure and NO I don't KNOW that. That's the whole point!

I’ve explained this way of thinking to many religious folks and the overwhelming response I get is “You’re very patient.” I don’t need a definitive answer to anything and I highly doubt there is one, for anything. That’s why I’m on this site; I wish to live an exceedingly long time and find real truths rather than accept the immature ramblings of a 10 minute old species.

You believe that God DOES exist. To you it is a Fact with a definitive answer. Do you view DNA as solid proof that God exists or do you view it as a possibility that he exists? I can see the possible connection of God in the functional parts of DNA previously viewed as Junk. I can see the lack of proof of DNA’s conception as a possible space for God. These are all just question marks that leave room for Gods existence; not truths proving his existence.

I KNOW there is no definitive proof that God doesn’t exist; no one can prove it. At the same time I haven’t found any solid proof that God does exist either. You, Shadow, believe that you have the proof. Without quoting someone else’s work or posting a link to a video; can you detail this proof… in your own words?

Also the Fringe I’m talking about is speculative conversation. Zero quotes of others work; just taking that which we have no idea of and mulling over possibilities. Where COULD God exist? How COULD God exist outside of this and that? Speaking of things that are well beyond the current mediocre ID/Social debate of religion.

[shadowhawk]

YES I'm insecure and NO I don't KNOW that. That's the whole point!

I’ve explained this way of thinking to many religious folks and the overwhelming response I get is “You’re very patient.” I don’t need a definitive answer to anything and I highly doubt there is one, for anything. That’s why I’m on this site; I wish to live an exceedingly long time and find real truths rather than accept the immature ramblings of a 10 minute old species.

You believe that God DOES exist. To you it is a Fact with a definitive answer. Do you view DNA as solid proof that God exists or do you view it as a possibility that he exists? I can see the possible connection of God in the functional parts of DNA previously viewed as Junk. I can see the lack of proof of DNA’s conception as a possible space for God. These are all just question marks that leave room for Gods existence; not truths proving his existence.

I KNOW there is no definitive proof that God doesn’t exist; no one can prove it. At the same time I haven’t found any solid proof that God does exist either. You, Shadow, believe that you have the proof. Without quoting someone else’s work or posting a link to a video; can you detail this proof… in your own words?

Also the Fringe I’m talking about is speculative conversation. Zero quotes of others work; just taking that which we have no idea of and mulling over possibilities. Where COULD God exist? How COULD God exist outside of this and that? Speaking of things that are well beyond the current mediocre ID/Social debate of religion.

The topic is what it would take to convince a theist there is no God. I am talking to an insecure person who doesn’t know. Ok.

So you hope to find the answers sometime far in the future not from your species. Interesting. Since you are part of the 10 minute old species, what makes you think you will understand them or their answer. What rational basis do you think this will be true. Its alright if you use emotions to give an answer.

DNA is an intelligent code which produces intelligent beings like us. Show me a code which is self creating. What do you accept as proof? What is proof. Surely you know since you keep saying no one has any.

Science cannot prove anything the way you are using proof. It is because it must begin with unproven assumptions. Science assumes the world exists, and that it exists as we see it, and makes no attempt to prove that. As long as that is the case, nothing will ever be, strictly speaking, proven. Science itself is not proven.

Science does not undertake to do that, and so it won't be done. It is not a criticism of science that it doesn't prove anything (in this way), that would be like saying you have no right to count your money until you come up with a monetary system that proves money has an absolute value independent of human beings. (Which is impossible because nothing has value independent of human beings, so actually doing science without first proving the world exists, is less insane than counting money because it IS possible that the world exists, but it is NOT possible that money or gold has any independent value.)

And what is this continual nonsense not to cite outside sources. You even learned the language you use from someone else. Don’t talk to me using anything but your own self. Gooo Goo
No wonder Atheists in these forums are reduced to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

Sorry about that but it is silly in a educated world. I can’t think of much I know that has its source just in me.

Even my deep love for god did not come from just me because I love god because he first loved me. God loves you too.

[Lister]

Do you think that someone who thinks they know something is stronger than someone who knows they don’t? I can hear you falling off your chair reading that.

I’m not sure you can think in Shades of Grey which is ironic given your name. Personally, I don’t think in terms of absolutes, I think in terms of Probabilities. Science is based on that way thinking. Probable chances of things based on other things; could this and that happen, etc. You make assumptions based on probable chances, not exclusively on perceived facts.

In me finding the truths I’m looking at Vast spaces of time and Vastly different times than we have today. If you want a logical fallacy you need look no further than building assumptions based on a never changing future; like you have done here. …Or indeed assuming that what little we know of the past denotes proof of something.

You think you have truths whereas I look at that way of thinking as childish and immature. The more I know the more I don’t know. That’s the way it is for me.

Speaking of sources:

When you speak to your friends and family, do you constantly interrupt the conversation and force them to watch a video proving that you had soup for lunch? Do you stop a passerby and force them to read about how the sidewalk they’re walking on was created by a specific contractor that is known for quality; just so they know it’s ok to walk on that specific sidewalk?

Nonsense Shadow.

The reason we don’t need your constant sourcing is because this is NOT a scientific paper. This is not going to be submitted to a professor and graded. This is not going to be posted in a scientific journal or any creditable source. THIS IS A DISCUSSION.

Even a professor teaching a class will have these weird things called “Lectures” where they will speak for quite a while before bringing up a video or referring to the text book. This is because they are translating a message and communicating it to their class.

And this isn’t a Lecture either Shadow thus you don’t need to refer to your sources at all. At the very end of an extensive debate where you’ve reached an impasse it is understandable that you would bring in a source. But to use sources instead of using your own words I cannot see you as being capable of speaking. Are you insecure about your language skills? Surely you understand that poking fun at someone’s grammar or spelling is a failed argument already?

[shadowhawk]

Lister : Do you think that someone who thinks they know something is stronger than someone who knows they don’t? I can hear you falling off your chair reading that.

I’m not sure you can think in Shades of Grey which is ironic given your name. Personally, I don’t think in terms of absolutes, I think in terms of Probabilities. Science is based on that way thinking. Probable chances of things based on other things; could this and that happen, etc. You make assumptions based on probable chances, not exclusively on perceived facts.

See this is what having no evidence produces. Come on be serious.

In me finding the truths I’m looking at Vast spaces of time and Vastly different times than we have today. If you want a logical fallacy you need look no further than building assumptions based on a never changing future; like you have done here. …Or indeed assuming that what little we know of the past denotes proof of something.

Nonsense.

You think you have truths whereas I look at that way of thinking as childish and immature. The more I know the more I don’t know. That’s the way it is for me.

You know nothing and yet you know something is childish and immature. I doubt that you know that.

Speaking of sources:

When you speak to your friends and family, do you constantly interrupt the conversation and force them to watch a video proving that you had soup for lunch? Do you stop a passerby and force them to read about how the sidewalk they’re walking on was created by a specific contractor that is known for quality; just so they know it’s ok to walk on that specific sidewalk?

Nonsense Shadow.

Why sure, I wouldn’t think twice about sharing something interesting with family and friends no matter what communication medium. Do it all the time and they do it with me.

The reason we don’t need your constant sourcing is because this is NOT a scientific paper. This is not going to be submitted to a professor and graded. This is not going to be posted in a scientific journal or any creditable source. THIS IS A DISCUSSION.

Even a professor teaching a class will have these weird things called “Lectures” where they will speak for quite a while before bringing up a video or referring to the text book. This is because they are translating a message and communicating it to their class.

I can see you never taught and don’t know what you are talking about

And this isn’t a Lecture either Shadow thus you don’t need to refer to your sources at all. At the very end of an extensive debate where you’ve reached an impasse it is understandable that you would bring in a source. But to use sources instead of using your own words I cannot see you as being capable of speaking. Are you insecure about your language skills? Surely you understand that poking fun at someone’s grammar or spelling is a failed argument already?

And where have I made fun of peoples grammar or spelling? Nowhere. It is this kind of baseless nonsense that I am trying to avoid with a serious discussion.

[Lister]

So you can’t keep up then? Ok.

This is completely off topic… regardless:

Let me ask you something. Which would take more brain power?

• Do the most complex math equation in the world… or
• Figure out what someone else feels about something

Someone who thinks they’re very smart would often choose the Math. They would think “I’m much better at math than most people here, they have no idea how complex math can be!”

While very wise people will instantly see the emotional question as being the more intense one.

Perhaps and EQ vs. IQ debate is out of place in reversing a Theists Position however I could turn it this way – Would a very emotional Theistic person be more likely to change their mind on the existence of God over a more logical Theistic thinker?

[shadowhawk]

So you can’t keep up then? Ok.

This is completely off topic… regardless:

Let me ask you something. Which would take more brain power?

• Do the most complex math equation in the world… or
• Figure out what someone else feels about something

Someone who thinks they’re very smart would often choose the Math. They would think “I’m much better at math than most people here, they have no idea how complex math can be!”

While very wise people will instantly see the emotional question as being the more intense one.

Perhaps and EQ vs. IQ debate is out of place in reversing a Theists Position however I could turn it this way – Would a very emotional Theistic person be more likely to change their mind on the existence of God over a more logical Theistic thinker?

A meaningless question with no real answer. I think they would both require a reason.

[Lister]

So you can’t keep up then? Ok.

This is completely off topic… regardless:

Let me ask you something. Which would take more brain power?

• Do the most complex math equation in the world… or
• Figure out what someone else feels about something

Someone who thinks they’re very smart would often choose the Math. They would think “I’m much better at math than most people here, they have no idea how complex math can be!”

While very wise people will instantly see the emotional question as being the more intense one.

Perhaps and EQ vs. IQ debate is out of place in reversing a Theists Position however I could turn it this way – Would a very emotional Theistic person be more likely to change their mind on the existence of God over a more logical Theistic thinker?

A meaningless question with no real answer. I think they would both require a reason.

So then given the same reason both the emotional guy and logical guy would react with no predictable pattern? There's absolutely no way to prove something in this example towards whether logic and emotion affects choices and beliefs? Is that what you’re saying?

If this is a Strawman then make your point.

[shadowhawk]

So you can’t keep up then? Ok.

This is completely off topic… regardless:

Let me ask you something. Which would take more brain power?

• Do the most complex math equation in the world… or
• Figure out what someone else feels about something

Someone who thinks they’re very smart would often choose the Math. They would think “I’m much better at math than most people here, they have no idea how complex math can be!”

While very wise people will instantly see the emotional question as being the more intense one.

Perhaps and EQ vs. IQ debate is out of place in reversing a Theists Position however I could turn it this way – Would a very emotional Theistic person be more likely to change their mind on the existence of God over a more logical Theistic thinker?

A meaningless question with no real answer. I think they would both require a reason.

So then given the same reason both the emotional guy and logical guy would react with no predictable pattern? There's absolutely no way to prove something in this example towards whether logic and emotion affects choices and beliefs? Is that what you’re saying?

If this is a Strawman then make your point.

We are all both emotional and rational and both aspects can be predictable. Off topic, as you point out.

[Lister]

Are we both equally Rational and Emotional people? Or are some more rational and less emotion? Are some more Emotional and less Rational? Would this have any play on whether someone believes in the exitence of God or does not?

[shadowhawk]

Are we both equally Rational and Emotional people? Or are some more rational and less emotion? Are some more Emotional and less Rational? Would this have any play on whether someone believes in the exitence of God or does not?

Atheists like to claim they are rational. Prove it! Whatis the rational proof for atheism?

Who are you talking about? I know some dumb rational people and some smart emotional people. There are many kinds of intelligence. Off topic I think.

[Lister]

NO! Not off Topic! There is such a thing as emotionally driven choices and Logically driven choices. True it's more of an 80/20 split either way often but you still can't negate this simple fact. Theists can give up their belief in the existence of God with nothing but a feeling (Likely a strong one). Just like a Theist may continue to believe in God because he/she believes in the provable facts they believe they have seen regardless of how they feel.

It's on topic because it sets the ground for further conversation regarding this issue. I give you: "How much proof does a Theist need to stop believing in God? Is it a lot or a little? If it's a little then you could answer the whole topic with that."

Remember kids: This isn’t a lab where you can test the effects of these topics on mice to get a measureable result. This is real life; it’s not always that predictable.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: NO! Not off Topic! There is such a thing as emotionally driven choices and Logically driven choices. True it's more of an 80/20 split either way often but you still can't negate this simple fact. Theists can give up their belief in the existence of God with nothing but a feeling (Likely a strong one). Just like a Theist may continue to believe in God because he/she believes in the provable facts they believe they have seen regardless of how they feel.

It's on topic because it sets the ground for further conversation regarding this issue. I give you: "How much proof does a Theist need to stop believing in God? Is it a lot or a little? If it's a little then you could answer the whole topic with that."

Remember kids: This isn’t a lab where you can test the effects of these topics on mice to get a measureable result. This is real life; it’s not always that predictable.

What would it take to change a Theists mind? As I said, proof that Atheism is true. I do not believe because of emotion but because of my total humanity. Reason and emotion are aspects of that.

Atheists gave it a shot in the Evidence for Atheism topic. http://www.longecity...ce-for-atheism/
http://www.longecity...885#entry501885

Given the answers why would anyone change? Maybe you would like to add to it?

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 October 2012 - 11:31 PM.

[Lister]

Lister: NO! Not off Topic! There is such a thing as emotionally driven choices and Logically driven choices. True it's more of an 80/20 split either way often but you still can't negate this simple fact. Theists can give up their belief in the existence of God with nothing but a feeling (Likely a strong one). Just like a Theist may continue to believe in God because he/she believes in the provable facts they believe they have seen regardless of how they feel.

It's on topic because it sets the ground for further conversation regarding this issue. I give you: "How much proof does a Theist need to stop believing in God? Is it a lot or a little? If it's a little then you could answer the whole topic with that."

Remember kids: This isn’t a lab where you can test the effects of these topics on mice to get a measureable result. This is real life; it’s not always that predictable.

What would it take to change a Theists mind? As I said, proof that Atheism is true. I do not believe because of emotion but because of my total humanity. Reason and emotion are aspects of that.

Atheists gave it a shot in the Evidence for Atheism topic. http://www.longecity...ce-for-atheism/
http://www.longecity...885#entry501885

Given the answers why would anyone change? Maybe you would like to add to it?

As I’ve said before I can't prove that Atheism is right. Though I don't believe it is 100% right either. I believe that aspects of it are right just as aspects of religion are right (Community, Doing right by others, etc.)

What I am trying to say and what you are trying to dodge is that some choices are emotionally driven while also being illogical. Are you saying no theist has ever stopped believing in the existence of God without use of the scientific method?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: As I’ve said before I can't prove that Atheism is right. Though I don't believe it is 100% right either. I believe that aspects of it are right just as aspects of religion are right (Community, Doing right by others, etc.)

What I am trying to say and what you are trying to dodge is that some choices are emotionally driven while also being illogical. Are you saying no theist has ever stopped believing in the existence of God without use of the scientific method?

No, you can’t prove Atheism is right and if you read my last few posts I have not tried to dodge anything related to emotions. I have taken a holistic position that sees emotions as one aspect of humanity along with others such as reason and intellect which are involved in faith in God. How come when I repeatedly make this point you insist I am dodging something. No I do not believe every ex theist abandoned the faith without the use of the scientific method. Where did that come from?

[Lister]

Lister: As I’ve said before I can't prove that Atheism is right. Though I don't believe it is 100% right either. I believe that aspects of it are right just as aspects of religion are right (Community, Doing right by others, etc.)

What I am trying to say and what you are trying to dodge is that some choices are emotionally driven while also being illogical. Are you saying no theist has ever stopped believing in the existence of God without use of the scientific method?

No, you can’t prove Atheism is right and if you read my last few posts I have not tried to dodge anything related to emotions. I have taken a holistic position that sees emotions as one aspect of humanity along with others such as reason and intellect which are involved in faith in God. How come when I repeatedly make this point you insist I am dodging something. No I do not believe every ex theist abandoned the faith without the use of the scientific method. Where did that come from?

The idea that emotions are part of the whole isn't really in the same universe as what I'm trying to discuss. That idea is no brain wave - Yes Shadow it is a package deal.

What I'm trying to get at is specifically where a Theist can reverse their position on the existence of God against logical proof. Let's say someone believes completely in ID, creationism... They see the proof they need to believe that God exists but they decide not to believe. They make their mind up against the proof. I would consider that an emotional decision.

Do you understand? If that’s the case then we can show that we don’t always have to prove something to make it so; such as a decision on whether God does, or doesn’t exist.

Does that make sense? Am I wrong?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: As I’ve said before I can't prove that Atheism is right. Though I don't believe it is 100% right either. I believe that aspects of it are right just as aspects of religion are right (Community, Doing right by others, etc.)

What I am trying to say and what you are trying to dodge is that some choices are emotionally driven while also being illogical. Are you saying no theist has ever stopped believing in the existence of God without use of the scientific method?

No, you can’t prove Atheism is right and if you read my last few posts I have not tried to dodge anything related to emotions. I have taken a holistic position that sees emotions as one aspect of humanity along with others such as reason and intellect which are involved in faith in God. How come when I repeatedly make this point you insist I am dodging something. No I do not believe every ex theist abandoned the faith without the use of the scientific method. Where did that come from?

The idea that emotions are part of the whole isn't really in the same universe as what I'm trying to discuss. That idea is no brain wave - Yes Shadow it is a package deal.

What I'm trying to get at is specifically where a Theist can reverse their position on the existence of God against logical proof. Let's say someone believes completely in ID, creationism... They see the proof they need to believe that God exists but they decide not to believe. They make their mind up against the proof. I would consider that an emotional decision.

Do you understand? If that’s the case then we can show that we don’t always have to prove something to make it so; such as a decision on whether God does, or doesn’t exist.

Does that make sense? Am I wrong?

Is it possible, yes. Have I seen it, no. Does it make sense? What is the point? Nothing here to change anyones mind..

[Lister]

You've never seen anyone make an Emotional, Irrational Choice before? Or are you saying you’ve never seen a Theist lose their belief in the existence of God for no logical reason?

So then there’s a logical, rational reason for a Theist to reverse their belief in the existence of God?

[Victor]

Love reading shadows comments for a good ol' laugh.

[shadowhawk]

You've never seen anyone make an Emotional, Irrational Choice before? Or are you saying you’ve never seen a Theist lose their belief in the existence of God for no logical reason?

So then there’s a logical, rational reason for a Theist to reverse their belief in the existence of God?

Yes I have seen people make emotional, irrational choices before and no I have never seen a Theist cease to believe in God for no reason. In fact I don’t think I have ever seen anyone be emotional, and irrational without a reason before. These observations apply across the board to people of every belief. Again what is your point.

My experience is of atheist becoming a theist but it has involved the total person,

Love reading shadows comments for a good ol' laugh.

Glad you enjoyed!

[Absent]

I figure I'll point out the obvious.

Very few theist who have a legitimate belief in their religion will be able to be revered through logic.

As long as faith is involved, nothing you say can derail it. It's faith for a reason. Faith is blind, and penetrating, it bypasses all logic. If their faith is somehow derailed by some sort of logic, then they weren't very faithful in the very place, it was more of a meager idea in their head that they entertained from time to time.

[shadowhawk]

I figure I'll point out the obvious.

Very few theist who have a legitimate belief in their religion will be able to be revered through logic.

As long as faith is involved, nothing you say can derail it. It's faith for a reason. Faith is blind, and penetrating, it bypasses all logic. If their faith is somehow derailed by some sort of logic, then they weren't very faithful in the very place, it was more of a meager idea in their head that they entertained from time to time.

I don’t agree with this kind of radical dissection of human bings into various and often competing segments. It is not at all obvious to me and most of the people of faith I know. You can easily love God with both your heart and mind. I could quote scripture on that but I won’t.

I think you have created an unrealistic characterization. Brainless Theists? Nonsense..

[Absent]

I figure I'll point out the obvious.

Very few theist who have a legitimate belief in their religion will be able to be revered through logic.

As long as faith is involved, nothing you say can derail it. It's faith for a reason. Faith is blind, and penetrating, it bypasses all logic. If their faith is somehow derailed by some sort of logic, then they weren't very faithful in the very place, it was more of a meager idea in their head that they entertained from time to time.

I don’t agree with this kind of radical dissection of human bings into various and often competing segments. It is not at all obvious to me and most of the people of faith I know. You can easily love God with both your heart and mind. I could quote scripture on that but I won’t.

I think you have created an unrealistic characterization. Brainless Theists? Nonsense..

It's not called being brainless. It's called faith.

Have you ever had strong faith in something, in spite of numerous scientific/logical contradictions? I have. If you haven't then you likely have no way of comprehending the reason I said what I said.

It is true. Any theist with a Legitimate faith is not ever going to abandon it in the face of logic no matter how logical it may be. They'll likely get angry at you, or simply dismiss what you're saying, or even ignore you - speaking from experience. They always find a way to justify their faith.

I'm talking about people who truly believe. Not people who entertain an idea in their head as a possibility and don't really have a solid stance on it. I'm talking about people when you ask them about their particular belief in regards to their faith, they will have a definite and solid answer regarding their faith.

Trust me, I've talked to hundreds of hardcore theist of all religions. Muslim, Christian, even Satanist. I used to be a hardcore theist. I used to debate logic with other hardcore theist all the time.

Trust me when I say, no true theist who gives themself time to think about their belief and accept it for what it is are going to abandon it unless by their own free will/emotional drive.

On the other hand I have KNOWN people who didn't give religion much thought but simply went to church because their parents made them and when asked what their faith is they'll just say, oh I'm catholic, or I'm christian.

A girl once told me she was catholic, but doesn't believe in god. I said, how can you be catholic then? She said, oh I was raised catholic, I don't believe any of it "haha". I had a friend who was christian and "god loving" all his life, but he dropped his religion the first day he got to college and learned about other world religions and religious manipulation, he was only "christian" because it ran in his family

Especially in America, there are 2 particular types of theist. Those who entertain the idea in their head either because of family reasons, cultural/societal reasons, boredom, lack of critical thought. And those who actually have true legitimate faith and give it a lot of thought and put their heart into it. People say America is full of christians, but I can assure you the number who put true legitimate thought in their faith and truly believe is about 20-30%(of the people who call themselves christian), roughly. These are the people who put thought into it.

The people who just go to church and hear it and say yeah this is my faith, but don't really think about it or put a lot of thought into it, are just treating it like a learning knowledge. They're not true theist. True theist put their faith at the core of their heart and emotions and no amount of logic will reverse that.


If I were to call myself anything It would probably be agnostic at this point, just to keep an open mind about everything.

Faith is not about saying you "believe" something. Faith is about putting your belief before everything else and finding a way to justify and dismiss anything that seems to contradict it. Faith is simply blindly believing, and believing that you are right over all circumstances no matter what. The only way to change this persons mind is to let them change it on their own with their own findings, which likely wont happen since faith is emotionally driven.

Think of it this way. You can't tell a girl to love you. She has feelings. You can not reason a girl into loving you. For her to love you she has to come to those feelings on her own through other feelings and compulsions that she has.

Edited by Siro, 17 October 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I figure I'll point out the obvious.

Very few theist who have a legitimate belief in their religion will be able to be revered through logic.

As long as faith is involved, nothing you say can derail it. It's faith for a reason. Faith is blind, and penetrating, it bypasses all logic. If their faith is somehow derailed by some sort of logic, then they weren't very faithful in the very place, it was more of a meager idea in their head that they entertained from time to time.

I don’t agree with this kind of radical dissection of human bings into various and often competing segments. It is not at all obvious to me and most of the people of faith I know. You can easily love God with both your heart and mind. I could quote scripture on that but I won’t.

I think you have created an unrealistic characterization. Brainless Theists? Nonsense..

It's not called being brainless. It's called faith.

Have you ever had strong faith in something, in spite of numerous scientific/logical contradictions? I have. If you haven't then you likely have no way of comprehending the reason I said what I said.

It is true. Any theist with a Legitimate faith is not ever going to abandon it in the face of logic no matter how logical it may be. They'll likely get angry at you, or simply dismiss what you're saying, or even ignore you - speaking from experience. They always find a way to justify their faith.

I'm talking about people who truly believe. Not people who entertain an idea in their head as a possibility and don't really have a solid stance on it. I'm talking about people when you ask them about their particular belief in regards to their faith, they will have a definite and solid answer regarding their faith.

Trust me, I've talked to hundreds of hardcore theist of all religions. Muslim, Christian, even Satanist. I used to be a hardcore theist. I used to debate logic with other hardcore theist all the time.

Trust me when I say, no true theist who gives themself time to think about their belief and accept it for what it is are going to abandon it unless by their own free will/emotional drive.

On the other hand I have KNOWN people who didn't give religion much thought but simply went to church because their parents made them and when asked what their faith is they'll just say, oh I'm catholic, or I'm christian.

A girl once told me she was catholic, but doesn't believe in god. I said, how can you be catholic then? She said, oh I was raised catholic, I don't believe any of it "haha". I had a friend who was christian and "god loving" all his life, but he dropped his religion the first day he got to college and learned about other world religions and religious manipulation, he was only "christian" because it ran in his family

Especially in America, there are 2 particular types of theist. Those who entertain the idea in their head either because of family reasons, cultural/societal reasons, boredom, lack of critical thought. And those who actually have true legitimate faith and give it a lot of thought and put their heart into it. People say America is full of christians, but I can assure you the number who put true legitimate thought in their faith and truly believe is about 20-30%(of the people who call themselves christian), roughly. These are the people who put thought into it.

The people who just go to church and hear it and say yeah this is my faith, but don't really think about it or put a lot of thought into it, are just treating it like a learning knowledge. They're not true theist. True theist put their faith at the core of their heart and emotions and no amount of logic will reverse that.


If I were to call myself anything It would probably be agnostic at this point, just to keep an open mind about everything.

Faith is not about saying you "believe" something. Faith is about putting your belief before everything else and finding a way to justify and dismiss anything that seems to contradict it. Faith is simply blindly believing, and believing that you are right over all circumstances no matter what. The only way to change this persons mind is to let them change it on their own with their own findings, which likely wont happen since faith is emotionally driven.

Think of it this way. You can't tell a girl to love you. She has feelings. You can not reason a girl into loving you. For her to love you she has to come to those feelings on her own through other feelings and compulsions that she has.

i disagree with almost everything you said.
There are all kinds of levels of Theists but you have not offered one reason for anyone to abandon Theism. Theists do not believe in lies and canj be wrong.

[Absent]

i disagree with almost everything you said.
There are all kinds of levels of Theists but you have not offered one reason for anyone to abandon Theism. Theists do not believe in lies and canj be wrong.

The good first half of my life was made up of intensive conversations with theist of all types about this type of stuff. I spent years trying to understand my previous faith/s, looking for answers, having conversations with other theist, having conversations with people trying to disprove it all, anything you can think of, I have experienced it. It was not a fun part of my life to say the least, very enlightening though.

To say a Theist believes in lies is a logical contradiction. The very belief in something means you are having faith that it is not a lie. Someone else may think it's a lie, but it's not a lie to the person who believes it.

As for what you said, Yes, Theist can be wrong. With all millions of religions on this earth today, many that contradict, somebody HAS to be wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it. I'm sure many of them have come across "factual information" that they refuted or rejected due to their belief.

Edited by Siro, 18 October 2012 - 01:38 AM.