Religious nutballs..tell me..where does God live..??? [Archive]

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 04:16 PM

Lets see a sensible, rational and logical answer...

How dare you come down on mediums and psychics when they offer the same amount of proof as you do....

Why do you feel the need to remind everyone that you're God believer...No one here cares...

You have no shame...You put down others and yet promote exactly the same kind of lunacy...Belief in something that is invisible...

Yeh...Thats real critical and intelligent thinking isnt it....

"Hey, i believe in a big invisible being that lives 'somewhere'...but i dont know where...but its there...somewhere...and i cant prove it...i just feel it"

Or

"Hey..i believe in a big invisible being that presides over all the departed and i dont know where they are...but its there...somewhere..and i cant prove it...I just feel it..and they talk to me..."

Not much of a difference between one kookball ideal to the next...

And to make matters even more funny...they have the audacity to call each others liars, when both have 100% identical proof of their gullible notions..

How dare you post your garbage here...without offering any kind of proof..and then have the cheek to make fun of others

Shame..shame on your belief in something that has caused death and destruction for thousands of years..

You disgust me...

DB

trvlr2

8th April 2006, 04:28 PM

He lives in a pineapple under the sea!:)

Seriously, DB,sometimes, stepping back and taking some deep breaths helps.Pretty much won't help the skypilot freaks, it helps you.

JamesDillon

8th April 2006, 04:31 PM

Use of the term "nutball" is a pretty quick way to lose one's credibilty in a discussion, Bunk. By the way, are you wearing a shirt in that picture?

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 04:34 PM

I dont need any help...

Relgious, hypocritical kooks have the audacity to come here..tell everyone that they believe in a big invisible being...and then laugh at people who claim to talk to the dead....

Its an affront to my intelligence..

They have zero shame...no honour as a human being...They are beneath me.

They are there to be laughed at...right in their faces...

DB

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 04:36 PM

James Dillon..

What 'term' would you rather i use..."Liar"...."Out of touch with reality"...???

When i need the opinion of a 3 month member, i'll ask for it.

And i'll use any term that fits the logical facts.....Understand that.

'Credibility'...yeh..don't make me laugh..

DB

JamesDillon

8th April 2006, 04:41 PM

Right. What about the shirt question?

Edit:
And i'll use any term that fits the logical facts.....Understand that.

1. Can you explain how the quality "logical" applies to the word "fact"? What makes a fact logical or illogical?

2. Would you mind explicating the logical parameters of the term "nutball"?

Thanks.

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 04:44 PM

No..I'm wearing a loose fitting, chiffon tie back...you just cant see it.

DB

westphalia

8th April 2006, 05:07 PM

James Dillon..
When i need the opinion of a 3 month member, i'll ask for it.

Length of service doesn't equate with effectiveness or quality. Ask any US serviceman.:)

Just because someone hasn't posted a certain number of times doesn't mean they can't be a critical thinker, or offer constructive criticism.

JamesDillon

8th April 2006, 05:10 PM

Length of service doesn't equate with effectiveness or quality. Ask any US serviceman.:)

Just because someone hasn't posted a certain number of times doesn't mean they can't be a critical thinker, or offer constructive criticism.

Who gave you permission to speak, 39-poster? Go stand in the corner!

(Edit: In case it's not obvious, that was meant sarcastically).

Regnad Kcin

8th April 2006, 05:14 PM

Forgive me, but the thread title made me laugh.

Amapola

8th April 2006, 06:39 PM

valis

8th April 2006, 07:07 PM

I dont need any help...

They are there to be laughed at...right in their faces...

DB

Well at least you have something in common with them!

8th April 2006, 07:14 PM

Use of the term "nutball" is a pretty quick way to lose one's credibilty in a discussion,

Ahhh, yes, Mr. Dillon engages in more wishful thinking.

DeBunk, be advised that Mr. Dillon likes to read something you said, revise it, and try to argue that you said what he wishes you said. When he's done with that, then he is all high and mighty that you're upset with him for going around the bend.

Finally, he, Lister, and BPSCG start asking about "meds", when they can't address what you say, only who you are.

And at least two of three wouldn't understand irony if it bit them in the grey, long-eared quadruped.

lostnick3

8th April 2006, 07:25 PM

forgive me if i have less than a layman's grasp of quantum mechanics but is there not limitless possibilities for a original designer?

LotusMegami

8th April 2006, 07:31 PM

I imagine DeBunk wearing a pretty sundress, with a wide frilly U-neck. We can't see it in the picture because it's low-slung enough to show off his delicate collarbone and just a slight bit of cleavage.

Jeff Corey

8th April 2006, 07:35 PM

arthwollipot

8th April 2006, 07:36 PM

I'm not sure what quantum mechanics has to do with the possibility of a designer. If your interpretation of quantum mechanics is that "everything is possible", then your understanding is limited indeed.

lostnick3

8th April 2006, 07:37 PM

is that a picture of db or curly from the three stooges? if it is a nice dress would be normal. although the last picture looked like a young marlin brando

lostnick3

8th April 2006, 07:53 PM

what I'm saying is,there is a point that each of us becomes aware of time. in this solar system, in this cosmos. what my question is is there more than one cosmos and who/what is the root cause. if that make sense.

Jeff Corey

8th April 2006, 08:28 PM

Why does that remind me of the stoned philosophy scene in Animal House?

RSLancastr

8th April 2006, 08:32 PM

De_Bunk my friend...

Battles...

Pick...

And what I said in the "Voices From Hell" thread...

The Mormons have a serious (to them) answer: the planet Kolob. :D

When I was a kid and under a great deal of pressure to join the Mormon church, that was what stopped me - "God came from the planet Kolob??!!"I believe there is some debate among them as to whether Kolob is a planet or a star. And I'm not sure if that's where he comes from They just claim that's where he resides.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's NOT where they believe he is from, since, by their cosmology, he was once a mortal in another universe, much as Mormons believe they someday can become a god with their own universe.

Starthinker

8th April 2006, 08:34 PM

Not that I'm religious or anything but in the Gospel of Thomas didn't he say "Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."? So I'm guessing he lives under stones and in logs.

(Don't look in your Bible for the Gospel of Thomas, it an apocryphal text.)

JamesDillon

8th April 2006, 08:39 PM

(Don't look in your Bible for the Gospel of Thomas, it an apocryphal text.)

Naturally. Thomas was the only one of the disciples who showed any critical thinking skills whatsoever, so of course he didn't make the final cut.

Piggy

8th April 2006, 08:40 PM

Its an affront to my intelligence.
Oh, c'mon now. Surely it's not an affront to your intelligence? That's like saying gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage.

Actually, it's an affront to their intelligence. Unless they don't have any, in which case.... Wait, I'm getting confused.

But hey, I have an answer for the OP. The whole shebang is a dream in God's head. So for us to ask where God lives is like a character in my dream asking where I live. I could tell him, but it's nowhere in the dream, so it wouldn't make any sense.

So let's say God lives on a cul de sac somewhere, and when the next lorry goes by we're all gonna snuff it cause God's not a very deep sleeper these days, what with the apnea and all.

I have to say though, if that's true, then on the whole, all things considered, astronomical time and space taken into account, God's dreams are astoundingly dull.

SirPhilip

8th April 2006, 08:46 PM

This one is easy. God clearly lives outside the universe.

It's true. :)

westphalia

8th April 2006, 08:56 PM

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's NOT where they believe he is from, since, by their cosmology, he was once a mortal in another universe, much as Mormons believe they someday can become a god with their own universe.

I wonder how many Mormons have spent time in the here-and-now planning their activities in their soon-to-be-realized private universes? If I were a Mormon, I wonder where I'd begin.:rolleyes:

lostnick3

8th April 2006, 09:35 PM

Why does that remind me of the stoned philosophy scene in Animal House?

OK i give up why. its just as good an argument as flapping your gums bagging on the the Mormons. try a new song, how did we get here and what do we know (not my line)
what i do know somewhere along the biological process we become a sentient being. and as the evolutionist like to point out it happened mostly on earth. here i am random chance crawling out of the slimy blue algae at your service. but...if theres a cosmos or three who are you to say what can evolve...maby God

shemp

8th April 2006, 09:39 PM

Everyone knows God lives on a cloud in the sky! And every time it rains, it's just him peeing! So the rain is God's pee, and it's his way of sending his love to you and nurturing you! And if you don't like that, Satan will burn down your house and God won't save it by peeing hard on it! (And that's "hard on" not "hardon" because God doesn't do icky things like that!) So if you love God, next time it rains go outside, look up at him and open your mouth wide!

It's true! :D

psy kick

8th April 2006, 10:21 PM

The OP doesn't really deserve a reply, but I felt I should say
Do you want less skeptics? You want people to believe exactly as you do, no matter what?
Too bad, I don't fit in a box. I am the only christian I know who isn't a conservative, likes the Ramones, etc. etc.
If you cannot see why a christian can be a skeptic, you need to learn a little more.
Was there not a christian mentioned by Randi, a contributor, I believe, who was welcomed as a skeptic by Randi, who obviously is more openminded than the OP.
What can I say but grow up.

Jeff Corey

8th April 2006, 10:42 PM

Gabba hey! Twenty, twenty twenty four hours a day, I wanna be sedated?
Ramones.

Piggy

8th April 2006, 10:44 PM

If you cannot see why a christian can be a skeptic, you need to learn a little more.
I reckon so. Because as I understand it, a Xian has to believe in the God of the Bible, believe that this God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to fulfill a rule He Himself made, believe that this God actually did so, believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected, and believe in life after death, all of which is unsupported and untestable and unnecessary, solves no problems at all, and creates innumerable problems that can't be resolved.

So please, learn me.

psy kick

8th April 2006, 10:44 PM

hours to GO. Us fans know the lyrics.

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 10:45 PM

Psy Kick...

'Grow up' you say...

Get real...

I'm not the one who believes in invisible beings...

And as for my original question...Well, all i can see is that you have avoided it...

Where does God live...or don't you know..??

DB

psy kick

8th April 2006, 10:47 PM

all of which is unsupported and untestable and unnecessary, solves no problems at all, and creates innumerable problems that can't be resolved.

So please, learn me.
It does solve problems. I have never seen it create any problems yet innumerable ones.
So us xtians believe one thing you disagree with. And yet we MUST believe everything else? Doesn't follow.

psy kick

8th April 2006, 10:50 PM

God is really everywhere. He is omnipresent.
Also in Heaven. Where is heaven I can hear you asking. I do not care, as long as I get there. Though a one M.J.Agee claims its Saturn. I disagree.
Really, how about my point? I am supposed to believe every charlatan because I am a christian? Don't think so. We are not all alike.

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 10:52 PM

PS..I forgot...

Not only do you believe in a big invisible being called God...

But Angels...men with wings that fly..

And then Satan...

How about demons...

Dead things being brought back to life...

etc..

DB

psy kick

8th April 2006, 10:58 PM

Many Christians have experienced demonic activity. You don't believe, fine, I don't care.
Doesn't affect me.
Why does it bother you what I believe? I am not going to stop being skeptical of this crap I see on Randi's page. Neither is that man Randi said was a christian, you haven't mentioned that? How come? read my earlier post.
Maybe you should complain to Randi and not allow any Christians to be skeptics.
Sheesh.

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 10:59 PM

Psy Kick...

Im sorry...This is just getting sillier by the minute..

God is everywhere...but also in Heaven...But you dont know where heaven is...but he's everywhere...but you dont know how he manages to be everywhere at the same time...

How do you know he is everywhere...???

Who told you he was...???

Demonic possession...Get real...and yet another load of invisible beings but hey, these ones acutally control you.

Religion relies on an awful lot of beings remaining invisible...doesnt it...!

As for believing charlatans...who are you to judge them when they offer the same amount of proof as you do for your beliefs...

Hypocrite...plain and simple...

DB

bjb

8th April 2006, 11:06 PM

[Many Christians have experienced demonic activity.]

Now we are getting somewhere. Can you tell us why you believe this demonic activity has occured?

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:08 PM

Um, the psychics have been disproven.
If all you can come up with is to call me names, you don't have much of an argument.
By the way, God lives next door to you, He is getting mad at that loud music you play sometimes. Expect a smiting eventually.

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:11 PM

[Many Christians have experienced demonic activity.]

Now we are getting somewhere. Can you tell us why you believe this demonic activity has occured?
Hi bjb.
Yes, I am only one here who can. There are many more on other boards.
Once I went into a "different" bookstore, which carried things B dalton would never.
I brought home a brochure and later felt an evil presense. One can sense things.
Later, my son's toy started making the sounds it was supposed to when moved. Only it was still.
I went and checked around it, jostled the wall, thinking there had to be a logical explanation.
There wasn't. It did the same thing the next night at the same time.
I had my church friend come over and pray,(yes, it does work sometimes) and that was the end of that.

valis

8th April 2006, 11:14 PM

I am the only christian I know who isn't a conservative, likes the Ramones, etc. etc.

What about Pres. Carter? Revs. Sharpton and Jackson? Just to name a couple . I doubt that they would call themselves conservative. (of course you may not know them but I assume you know of them).
Ozzy Ozbourne once declared himself born again; he might like the Ramones.

What can I say but grow up.

Why does the repeated use of 'hypocrite' remind me of a petulant 12 year old.

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 11:18 PM

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 11:22 PM

Valis...

Because Psy kick wont admit the obvious..when its plain for all to see.

Or are you claiming she isnt..???

DB

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:27 PM

In all honesty, 1. I would never try to convert anyone. I haven't elsewhere either. I thought I was saying all christians are not as gullible as some are. I have been in churches which believe the missing day theory and weirder stuff. it saddens me.

I am not a hypocrite, but like you said, believe what you want.

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:30 PM

What about Pres. Carter? Revs. Sharpton and Jackson? Just to name a couple . I doubt that they would call themselves conservative. (of course you may not know them but I assume you know of them).
Ozzy Ozbourne once declared himself born again; he might like the Ramones.

Well, I am kind of a fundie, so I may be the only fundie, as opposed to regular christian, as those men you mentioned are, who is like that.
I was happy to meet Ralph Nader a few years ago, and love Ozzy. And Abbie H is my hero.

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 11:31 PM

Psy Kick

Hang on a minute..

Your basing this whole religion thing on a 'feeling'...????

Gullible...oh dear...You believe in an invisible being that lives everywhere..and in a place called heaven...that has never proven itself to exist...and you have just blindly accepted this with zero. credible, rational proof...

I'd say thats being pretty gullible..!

Way to go ...Skeptic..

DB

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:37 PM

yawn.
Believe what you want. I will not stop being skeptical about Sylvia, Uri, ufos, miracle water, etc.
Good night.

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 11:40 PM

Psy kick..

I believe only in things that can be, or may be rationally explained...

Dont forget to have a quick pray before you go to sleep...

DB

( BTW...You dont believe in Miracle water..but you believe in Holy Water...and you're not a hypocrite...oh please..)

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:42 PM

Like love, poetry, etc.

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:44 PM

Pleae tell me what Holy water is so I will know if I "believe" in it or not.

MattusMaximus

8th April 2006, 11:48 PM

The Mormons have a serious (to them) answer: the planet Kolob. :D

When I was a kid and under a great deal of pressure to join the Mormon church, that was what stopped me - "God came from the planet Kolob??!!"

Urrr... are you kidding? This sounds just too wack... I have a good friend who is a Mormon, but I'd lose so much respect for him if this were true.

Not that I don't find most of the Mormons' beliefs a bit wacky anyway... it's just that something like this seems so like - shudder - $cientology :jaw-dropp

Cheers - Mattus

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:50 PM

Urrr... are you kidding? This sounds just too wack... I have a good friend who is a Mormon, but I'd lose so much respect for him if this were true.

Not that I don't find most of the Mormons' beliefs a bit wacky anyway... it's just that something like this seems so like - shudder - $cientology :jaw-dropp

Cheers - MattusUnlike scientology, lds do not "go after" people who disagree with them.

MattusMaximus

8th April 2006, 11:51 PM

forgive me if i have less than a layman's grasp of quantum mechanics but is there not limitless possibilities for a original designer?

There is only one true Designer... all other designers were designed by Him... the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.venganza.org

Learn the Truth of Pastafarianism and be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen!!!

Sorry - I just never pass up an opportunity to do that ;)

Cheers - Mattus

De_Bunk

8th April 2006, 11:52 PM

Psy Kick

You are a christian...and yet you claim not to know what Holy water is...?

Whats that all about...?????????

DB

PS...Love...Just another name for the instinctive reaction to the base need for sex and reproduction...

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:53 PM

There is only one true Designer... all other designers were designed by Him... the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I have read about this FSM on the straight dope board. I take communion of its body a couple times a week!

lostnick3

8th April 2006, 11:54 PM

just thinking of a little fire proofing for the other side

psy kick

8th April 2006, 11:54 PM

Psy Kick

You are a christian...and yet you claim not to know what Holy water is...?

Whats that all about...

DB
Notice you can't just Answer my question. This seems to be a habit with you. If you mean the stuff in catholic churches, I don't "believe" in it, its just water.
So you can retract your statement.

lostnick3

8th April 2006, 11:57 PM

db

she said christian not catholic (holly water is not just water)

MattusMaximus

8th April 2006, 11:58 PM

I have read about this FSM on the straight dope board. I take communion of its body a couple times a week!

Mmmmm... noodly communion... mmmm...

What's even better is this - the FSM heaven (the only True Heaven) has *both* a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

I'm SO looking forward to the afterlife :cool:

Cheers - Mattus

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:00 AM

Psy Kick...

Oh...so the Catholics belief in an invisible being is more insane than your own...

This just gets better each post...

DB

( Ps Water is just water...ok..what about the 'water into wine' incident..it werent just plain ol water then...was it...Dont you believe that..???)

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:01 AM

Mmmmm... noodly communion... mmmm...

What's even better is this - the FSM heaven (the only True Heaven) has *both* a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

I'm SO looking forward to the afterlife :cool:

Cheers - MattusI am so not going to spaghetti heaven. Its chocolate heaven for me. I eat chocolate right before bed (like now) and first thing in the morning. Chocolate Heaven is better. You spaghetti heathens will get whats coming to you!

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:02 AM

Psy Kick...

Oh...so the Catholics belief in an invisible being is more insane than your own...

This just gets better each post...

DBDid I say that? Boy, you like to claim I believe things I do not. Putting words in my mouth.
Such a great debater!

MattusMaximus

9th April 2006, 12:03 AM

Wow, apparently the Kolob thing with Mormonism is legit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

Very, very strange. But then, I always found pretty much all religious beliefs to be strange & confusing. Something that never made sense to me...

... until I embraced the One True Path of Pastafarianism - RAmen!!! :p

Cheers - Mattus

MattusMaximus

9th April 2006, 12:04 AM

I am so not going to spaghetti heaven. Its chocolate heaven for me. I eat chocolate right before bed (like now) and first thing in the morning. Chocolate Heaven is better. You spaghetti heathens will get whats coming to you!

Yeah, beer and strippers - whoopie! :cool:

Cheers - Mattus

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:05 AM

Psy Kick...

Now you are claiming that Chocolate heaven is preferrable to Gods heaven...or are they the same thing...Who's in charge of the Chocolate heaven then...:D

Just joking...

DB

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:06 AM

Yeah, beer and strippers - whoopie! :cool:

Cheers - Mattus
Not for me, that was my former job. And I don't even like beer.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:06 AM

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:07 AM

Psy Kick...

Now you are claiming that Chocolate heaven is preferrable to Gods heaven...or are they the same thing...Who's in charge of the Chocolate heaven then...:D

Just joking...

DB
I will answer you when you get around to answering my queries above.

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:09 AM

Wow, apparently the Kolob thing with Mormonism is legit...

Really? Dang, I lived with lds for months. They never let on that one. I think I know why. You had to be initiated before they give you the freaky beliefs.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:09 AM

Please...

State your queries, go to bed and then come back and i will do my best...

DB

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:12 AM

Psy kick..

You claim their belief in holy water is a bunch of BS...or are you calling them liars...gullible...kooks...???

So are you claiming that the holy water belief is wrong...but the rest of their beliefs are ok...

What about Muslims...are they right...or wrong..???

DBI never said it was BS. There you go again, putting things in my mouth that I never said. How disengenious!
The Bible says Jesus is the only way to Heaven. If Muslims don't believe that, well, its up to God, isn't it.? I won't stop people from belieivng what they want.

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:13 AM

My queries are in my posts above. They end with a ?

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:15 AM

Well....Ive been back and it looks like i have answered everything you asked of me...

Have i missed anything..??

DB

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 12:15 AM

Psy Kick...
s Water is just water...ok..what about the 'water into wine' incident..it werent just plain ol water then...was it...Dont you believe that..???)

holy water has a few more chemicals than water, thought i cant say what.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:17 AM

Psy Kick...

PS...If you dont believe in something...

Then, it must be, to you 'BS'...or 'lies'..or a belief held by gullible people who are too stupid to look things in a sensible way...

Unless you have another description for someone who don't 'believe' in something...

DB

MattusMaximus

9th April 2006, 12:19 AM

Now you are claiming that Chocolate heaven is preferrable to Gods heaven...or are they the same thing...Who's in charge of the Chocolate heaven then...:D

Isn't it obvious?! Mr. Goodbar - duh! :rolleyes:

Cheers - Mattus

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:21 AM

Not necessarily. Things can be different without being wrong.
My queries you missed:
You said there was evidence (more than for God) for the easter bunny. Haven't shown me.

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:22 AM

holy water has a few more chemicals than water, thought i cant say what.
Some Pentium crap. hee

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:24 AM

Ive seen the Easter Bunny...He gave my son an easter egg...didnt say much..just walked of...

Funny color for a rabbit tho'...being bright Blue an that..200lb and 6ft tall..

Thats more proof than you have that god is everywhere...

DB

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:28 AM

It depends on what you mean by easter bunny. To me, that means a bunny which magically leaves eggs around, not a man(or woman) dressed in a bunny suit. obviously.
One does not have to see God to know He exists.
Blind people would be out of luck then.

Its 3:30 and we must go to sleep. No, we don't have church in the morning.
But I will check back morrow afternoon to see your "witty" and "cognitive" replies.
Night.
You may find a egg under your pillow. I wouldn't eat it....

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:35 AM

Err...

I'm not sure if it was a man dressed in bunny suit...It could have been the 'real' Easter Bunny...

Anyway...

How do you know 'He' ( God ) exists...???

He's invisible...isnt he...???

DB

( BTW...Say a quick 'Forgive him God, he knows not what he does' kinda prayer for me...Just incase )

psy kick

9th April 2006, 12:38 AM

Yes, while we are here on earth, we can't see Him. Then we wouldn't need faith.
We (some of us) can see His effects, and works.
If you want me to pray for you, I will. God can reach someone without my help, though.
I am just replying to this thread for the insulting term nutballs, of which I am not, only by YOUR definition.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 12:43 AM

I'd say someone who believes in a big invisible being that lives everywhere...that has never ever proven itself to exist...and invisible demons that possess humans...Books that lure evil to their home...etc...etc..is a complete nutball...

Have you any other definiton for someone like that...

How about 'A sensible, logical reasoning and rational person'. Would that best describe the person above...???

DB

valis

9th April 2006, 02:28 AM

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 02:45 AM

Valis...

So, she is calling other peoples belief in a big invisible being, that they can create 'Holy Water', false.

Why...???

DB

Roboramma

9th April 2006, 03:30 AM

I don't think all relgious belief in inherently irrational. For instance, someone could choose to belief, knowing that said belief was very unlikely, because of the possitive consequences to their life that would follow. Such consequences could be acceptance into a social group, the confort of believing in an afterlife, both in relation to your own death and to that of your loved ones, the sense of purpose that some find from a higher power, etc.

Now, that's not the choice I make. I consider it to be a weak choice, but if what you want is happiness, and if choosing religous belief were to increase your happiness, then you would be irrational not to make that choise.

And I think for many, if they want the benefits of it, they have to actually believe, rather than just pretending that they do. But it's not so hard to convince yourself of something you know is false. I think many of us do it all the time.

I don't necessarily have anything against people being religous for the above reason. I do have something against many of the ways in which people are religous, and they way they let that spill over into the rest of their lives and the lives of others, but that's a different topic.

I'd also like to point out that there can be many benefits to atheism as well. But I do think that they tend to be different from the benefits of religous belief.

aargh57

9th April 2006, 03:33 AM

DB,

I guess I'm going to come to the defence of the believer here. I cut people who believe in a higher power a little more slack than someone who believes in non-religious woo for two main reasons.

1. Most people are brought up being told that God exists from day one. Some of them have this reinforced to them by practically everyone they meet on a daily basis. In other words, they're a little brainwashed in my opinion.

2. There's a very big carrot in the form of eternal life for the believer whereas the carrot for believing in non-religious woo is much smaller.

I was about 19 when I first started doubting the existance of God. I went to Catholic grade school and every other weekend I went to a Pentacostal Church with my Dad and Stepmom so I was pretty much scared s**tless about the rapture, going to hell, etc.... However, even then I didn't believe in the faith healers, psychics, etc... (In fact I once did a critical speech about televangelists in high school). When I came to the realization that there was no God I was again scared s**tless because, well, death is scary. For a long time I either put it out of my mind, wished I had never even thought about it or even tried to cling to my old beliefs in spite of reason.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 04:24 AM

Roboramma and aargh57

Thats a fair comment...but that just portrays them as weak minded people who cannot think for themselves and who are willing to believe anything, without any proof whatsoever...Other than they have a certain 'feeling'...

DB

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 05:33 AM

If god is everywhere, does that mean that his head is up your ass. :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 05:47 AM

PaulHoff...

Yes...and don't forget...He's also watching you when you are alone at night...in bed...feeling a bit anxious...(if you know what i mean)....

There's God...who apparently is a man...watching you...

Think about that..next time you open a copy of 'Nuns and Goats Weekly'...

DB

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 05:52 AM

Gee, then god could windup on the sheets. He has no pride then. :D

Paul

:) :) :)

DJ Hexadecibel

9th April 2006, 06:14 AM

(Don't look in your Bible for the Gospel of Thomas, it an apocryphal text.)

"And Jesus and the Disciples walked down the path toward Nazareth, but, OH the trail was blocked by a giant. . .brontosaurus. . .with a splinter in his paw. And the Disciples did run a-screamin' from a big f***in' lizard, Lord. 'Well, I'm sure gonna mention this in MY book,' said Luke.
'Well, I'm gonna mention it in MY book,' said Matthew.
'I'm not sure what *I* saw. . .' said Thomas...Timothy nudged 'em,
'It was a big f***in' lizard, uh, Thomas!' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus paw, and the brontosaurus became his friend. . .and Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch, OH so many years. . .attracting fat, American families with their fat, f***in' dollars to look for the Loch Ness Monster. And, OH the Scots did PRAISE the Lord: Thank you, Lord. . .Thank you, Lord."
-Bill Hicks "Arizona Bay"

When someone mentions Thomas. . .that's what comes into me head. Thought it was worth sharing for a laugh or two.

DJ Hexadecibel

9th April 2006, 06:37 AM

Psy kick...

Ok...In all honesty you seem to be a pretty decent person...a nice person infact...but you will never be taken seriously...

Just leave the god stuff out of your posts....No one on this board cares about God...you are not going to convince anyone that God exists..

And i'm not calling you names...Im just posting the truth...

I am afraid you are a hypocrite...and i cant get in any trouble for posting what is...
DB

Ah, yes. . .sweeping generalizations, God, I can't stand them....oop! Can I say that? I mean, if "No one on this board cares about God" then mentioning it should be banned, right? Posting the truth? Seems more like a very pointed opinion IMHO. While lack of evidence does not prove existence, it is very disingenuous to lord your point of view over others as superior. . .and I may not agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.

DJ Hexadecibel

9th April 2006, 06:45 AM

PS...Love...Just another name for the instinctive reaction to the base need for sex and reproduction...

Right. . .so that means, the "love" I feel for family, friends, and the odd stranger is just me wanting to breed with them? Really? I always wondered what my thoughtlessness of self with them had meant. You mean it couldn't be a deep, ineffable feeling of affection and thoughtfulness of other's well being? If that's really how you feel, then I think someone needs a hug! :)

LeCynthia

9th April 2006, 06:47 AM

Psy kick...

Just leave the god stuff out of your posts....No one on this board cares about God...you are not going to convince anyone that God exists..

I just thought this statement was a little funny considering you started this thread to ask where god lives.

Ladewig

9th April 2006, 07:11 AM

Hi bjb.
Yes, I am only one here who can. There are many more on other boards.
Once I went into a "different" bookstore, which carried things B dalton would never.
I brought home a brochure and later felt an evil presense. One can sense things.
Later, my son's toy started making the sounds it was supposed to when moved. Only it was still.
I went and checked around it, jostled the wall, thinking there had to be a logical explanation.
There wasn't. It did the same thing the next night at the same time.
I had my church friend come over and pray,(yes, it does work sometimes) and that was the end of that.

First, what exactly do you mean by jostled the wall?

How do you know that this presence wasn't an angel or a leprechuan or a fairy or an alien entity?

Donn

9th April 2006, 07:23 AM

De_Bunk,
I sympathize with your confusion about the Religious-yet-Sceptic, it does seem hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.

There have been quite a few threads about this over the last year and the consensus always seems to end-up being that everyone (you and me and the "nutjobs" of your OP) is flawed.
Since no-one is perfect and none can show that their every waking moment is in perfect integrity with Rationalistic and Sceptical practice, then we should look upon the art of being Sceptical as a gradually moving target: It will approach perfect Integrity but it's the journey that counts.

If we all try a little every day to think and question then (I think) those who are overtly religious will become slightly less so, and so-on every day. If we keep a sense of balance and compassion then we can be around to guide those people when they are ready to ask those tough quesions; when they are ready to embrace even more Scepticism. If we are not ready, then we may miss the chance and lose another mind. If we are aggressive and combative we also close those doors.

If a Believer starts by critically disposing of Bigfeet and UFOs and the other JREF targets then they will eventually come to the realization that they have a real Enigma, a Dilemma, right within their own lives!

In a nutshell, to name them hypocrites is to risk being a hypocrite one's self.

SirPhilip

9th April 2006, 08:17 AM

Get real. I'm not the one who believes in invisible beings...
Visible beings someday become invisible, then you need proof they existed. It's true. :)

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 08:25 AM

I am looking up the word TRUE, it seems to mean something else to me.

Paul

:) :) :)

Piggy

9th April 2006, 08:42 AM

It does solve problems. I have never seen it create any problems yet innumerable ones.
Positing the existence of God solves nothing. It only replaces the old problems such as "Where did the universe come from?" with new problems one step removed such as "Where did God come from?".

It causes innumerable problems because, for example, theists cannot agree on the characteristics of God, the suspension of requirements of evidence necessary to maintain a belief in God allows a multitide of other nonsensical beliefs to be accepted as true, myriad theological problems spring up such as the nature of evil, etc.

When you posit a benevolent God, the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is an issue to be wrestled with. When you do not posit God, it's akin to asking "Why do yellow leaves fall on green grass?" -- a non-problem.

Positing God is like positing an undetectable dog in the room. One can then credit the undectable dog when one hears odd noises or a pen goes missing, but those unknowns are merely replaced by the bizarre riddles posed by the supposed existence of an undetectable dog.

So us xtians believe one thing you disagree with. And yet we MUST believe everything else? Doesn't follow.
<yawn>

Xians believe a whole slew of things I disagree with, but let's not get bogged down in that.

There's no "MUST" to it. You're free to believe that human life was engineered by aliens if you like, or that leprechauns have been stealing your sandwiches, or any sort of nonsense you care to dream up.

I know you'd love to cast this as some kind of thought policing or dogmatic oppression, but instead it's merely a hum-drum matter of what there's evidence for and what there's not.

The reason folks would be better off not believing in God is the same reason we're better off not believing in dowsing, alchemy, or that we can really win a shell game on the streets of New York.

homer

9th April 2006, 09:03 AM

I take it from some of the posts here that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist . I have to tell you that you have upset me . This means I shall have to go out and buy some Easter Eggs now .Skepticism costs .
As to this after life stuff , I know an easy way to find out but it's a one way trip . Could be something in it without a God existing for example .Who knows ,I don't . Lets enjoy the world we exist in now .

Piggy

9th April 2006, 09:54 AM

Later, my son's toy started making the sounds it was supposed to when moved. Only it was still.
I went and checked around it, jostled the wall, thinking there had to be a logical explanation.
There wasn't. It did the same thing the next night at the same time.

Did it ever occur to you to wonder why a demon would bother with this kind of B-movie chicanery?

If all the demons care to do is give a toy enough spark to stimulate the sound chip but not enough to make the gears turn, then bring 'em on -- I got bigger problems with crabgrass.

psy kick

9th April 2006, 09:54 AM

I hadn't said I was trying to prove God exists. If he wants to let you know he exists, He will, somehow.
My point was that just because we believe in God, that you cannot see and touch, does not mean we must believe in outrigth fruads. They can be disproven, God cannot.

People aren't that easily pigeonholed.
You want more people against these frauds? Accept them if they are christian then.
I, as a christian, am not out to fleece someone out of their money (and I sure don't give to any famous "preacher"). I am not claiming to do miracles.

Piggy

9th April 2006, 10:01 AM

My point was that just because we believe in God, that you cannot see and touch, does not mean we must believe in outrigth fruads. They can be disproven, God cannot.
But if you bring the evidentiary bar down that low, if you accept that it's ok to believe in unsubstantiated claims because they cannot be disproven, then one is allowed to believe in an infinite variety of patent nonsense, such as the undetectable dog, or leprechauns, or that everything is a dream.

For that matter, once the bar goes that low, there's no way to choose among the various religions, no reason to be Xian rather than Hindu.

Being skeptical doesn't mean simply being skeptical about what can be disproven. It also means refusing to believe in that which has no supporting evidence and which creates logical dilemmas if true, regardless of whether some iron-clad counter-proof has been offered.

One cannot be a skeptic and be Xian. One can only be a person who is skeptical about some things and not about others.

Any truly skeptical investigation of Xianity shows it to have no foundation.

HopperUK

9th April 2006, 12:08 PM

Long-time lurker, not frequent poster. And I don't want to start a whole new 'can a theist ever be a skeptic' thread, because we've all seen that plenty of times. I will say though, that the aggressive attitude displayed in the OP is dismaying to me. There's very little benefit to be had in that kind of 'ha ha, your beliefs are stupid' posting. And in fact, most of the posts in this board don't treat people like that, whether they believe in a God that somehow exists outside of spacetime, or little flower fairies at the bottom of the garden. If I had seen the OP when I first came to these forums, I probably would not have stayed around. Not because I believe in God - I don't - but because that is just not the kind of atmosphere most people want to be around. Not that I'm saying De_Bunk isn't entitled to be as pissy as he likes. We all get frustrated, for sure.

valis

9th April 2006, 03:27 PM

Valis...

So, she is calling other peoples belief in a big invisible being, that they can create 'Holy Water', false.

Why...???

DB

Because she doesn't seem to belive in it. In her opinion it is false. It's hard to know how to answer questions at this level of debate. I guess I am used to things being over my head on this board, not the opposite.

valis

9th April 2006, 03:35 PM

But if you bring the evidentiary bar down that low, if you accept that it's ok to believe in unsubstantiated claims because they cannot be disproven, then one is allowed to believe in an infinite variety of patent nonsense, such as the undetectable dog, or leprechauns, or that everything is a dream.

For that matter, once the bar goes that low, there's no way to choose among the various religions, no reason to be Xian rather than Hindu.

Being skeptical doesn't mean simply being skeptical about what can be disproven. It also means refusing to believe in that which has no supporting evidence and which creates logical dilemmas if true, regardless of whether some iron-clad counter-proof has been offered.

One cannot be a skeptic and be Xian. One can only be a person who is skeptical about some things and not about others.

Any truly skeptical investigation of Xianity shows it to have no foundation.

I couldn't disagree more. The line is rather clear I think. When you decide to belive in or follow a certain religion for reasons of faith that is fine. What is wrong is when you try to make scientific claims for your religion. The line gets crossed when you claim your religion can be proved or that you can work miracles, cure the sick etc. When you make those claims then you have left the realm of religion at it is fair to subject you to scientific rigor.

Put it this way, what set the uninverse in motion? There is as much evidence that it was caused by a deity as there is that it wasn't. So do you belive in one or another? Honestly do you lean even a little bit towards the no deity idea?

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 03:43 PM

God and Abbey Hoffman are wandering the back trails of California laughing body parts off. The majority of religions on the planet have at least one general theme…

However, I am cranky. My dog and one of the cats had a territorial dispute on my chest during waking REM.

Proving God’s existence in an actual scientific study? Let us say more than half the world’s population does not have access to fresh clean water. (It could be true). The PSY Kick (op?) fan club could break up into teams of guinea pigs and develop a FREE and simple method to clean it up. It can be done

I postulate that if the guinea pigs are being well monitored that more than fifty% of the subjects in the study that complete the project at the point of comprehension of their actions will self-report a new emotion described as an intense feeling or spiritual experience. I’m saying there is hard data to be had.

psy kick

9th April 2006, 04:01 PM

lostnik, you sound like you are still not awake yet.
Its Abbie, not Abby, and this Wednesday, he will have been gone 16 years.

Anyway, the OP was unusually confrontational. I believe in God and Jesus and His resurrection.
It harms no one, I take no money for it. It wa mentioned as an aside really.
I will consider myself a skeptic, no matter what others think.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 04:11 PM

psy kick

9th April 2006, 04:17 PM

See my post right above yours, where it says
no matter what others think.

sesmo_k

9th April 2006, 04:17 PM

Psy kick...

But how...????

How can you class yourself as a skeptic when you believe in invisible beings....Demonic possession...The dead being brought back to life thru supernatural means...

You can never be taken serioulsy as a skeptic when you believe in things i stated above...It is no different to people claiming they speak to dead people...or bending spoons...Or that flying unicorns exist...

You are not a skeptic...

DB

Completely agree De Bunk. For years I have wondered how people can believe in the existance of their god, yet laugh in the face of others. Or believe in their brand of twaddle/deity, but take a sceptical stance about UFO's demons... whatever.
There is no proof (and by that I mean objective proof) of any god, just the same as there is no objective proof of the Easter Bunny, ghosts, spirits...

Way to go DB!

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 04:19 PM

Psy Kick

sorry. my most humble appologe.

it has not been my intent to dis you. as i said yesterday to another poster
i have a black and very twisted sense of humor. and theirs probbly more colors too.

sometimes my best help for someone is to wander off. but not for a while today.

what i was trying to point out was.

A. the religous experiance could be monitored scientificly

B. their seems to a lot of posters that like to look at pictures

3 why would (ops) be in a abbie's context funny

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 04:22 PM

Psy Ops put a knot before the funny

psy kick

9th April 2006, 04:25 PM

lostnik, nothing to apolgize for. Just don't operate any machinery right now.;)

I see most skeptics here want there to be less skeptics, they want all christians to believe in Sylvia et al. Why, I have no idea. They aren't very logical, eh? So I am not allowed to be skeptical? Ridiculous.
I am done in this thread, but will certainly stay on the board.

TruthSeeker

9th April 2006, 04:34 PM

Mormons believe they someday can become a god with their own universe.

Oh! I'd like my own universe. Where do I sign up?

hellaeon

9th April 2006, 04:37 PM

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 04:39 PM

Psy Kick...

When you explain, logically and rationally, why you believe you are a skeptic..( not forgetting you truly, 100% believe in a big, invisible being, that lives everywhere, demonic possession, dead people being brought back to life and angels...etc..etc..

Well...Until then .....

DB

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 04:43 PM

Hellaeon...

We know...party on dude...:alc:

Its just i aint standing for 2000 years of absolute garbage being crammed down my throat..

I'm taking a stand against these complete and utter fools...

They have had their day..Its now the day of 'evidence' or STFU..

DB

hellaeon

9th April 2006, 04:48 PM

Hi bjb.
Yes, I am only one here who can. There are many more on other boards.
Once I went into a "different" bookstore, which carried things B dalton would never.
I brought home a brochure and later felt an evil presense. One can sense things.
Later, my son's toy started making the sounds it was supposed to when moved. Only it was still.
I went and checked around it, jostled the wall, thinking there had to be a logical explanation.
There wasn't. It did the same thing the next night at the same time.
I had my church friend come over and pray,(yes, it does work sometimes) and that was the end of that.

uuhhh...

Look we are all equal and all that jazz but seriously next time you pray, substitute the word GOD/Jesus for ME/I and see how the results are the same but the experience much more fullfilling.

Am I evil? ....yes, I am!
Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am!

(great song)

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 04:53 PM

Which gods house are we looking for anyway.

Paul

:) :) :)

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 04:59 PM

PaulHoff..

Anyones...as long it aint Muslim...

Don't wanna go upsetting them..do we...

DB

hailslaanesh

9th April 2006, 05:00 PM

What I don't understand about Christian skeptics is that they don't have any skepticism toward their own religion. It is a law of physics that any action will have an opposite and equal reaction. So whenever a miracle happens where is the proof that God caused the initial action? There is no evidence anywhere of an energy source reacting to any amount of prayer by coming down and saving anyone. Not once has this been proven. So if this initial action is immeasurable, our laws of physics must be wrong. Can the laws of physics be wrong? I don't think so otherwise the technology that is based around those laws would be a might more unpredictable. The last computer I typed on, the last car I drove, the last plane I flew in all worked.

So no, I don't think Christians can be called skeptics unless they are skeptical about their own beliefs (they would not be Christians for much longer if they were truly skeptical about it).

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 05:04 PM

hailslaanesh....

You're a smartass...But such a welcome addition to this board...

You are a interesting poster...

I'll be reading what you post...especially when you have to go 'head to head' with some of the other posters here...

DB

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 05:06 PM

And you can't upset Christians? :flamed:

Paul

:) :) :)

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 05:07 PM

PaulHoff...

Lets not forget the images of 'Mohammed' issue...

DB

hellaeon

9th April 2006, 05:12 PM

Look, its fun in my eyes to ridicule the belief although sometimes childish and immoral. Believe in what you want and be sure to make this life time count.

However I do have a major gripe that I cant get past which baffles me.

Why is it thousands and thousands of people in disaster places like third world countries and the like are shown, begging for mercy to god, screaming to the heavens, wailing etc, recieve no answer, no instant 2 minute miracle, not a thing. Yet a religious person praying over an evil toy truck or praying to god to find a car park grants believes god would give a sh*t about this more so then the desperate cries from the previously mentioned societies and situations?

I will never forget some of the things I have heard. I remember going from anger to just amazment (almost from a 'want to study these people' point of view) hearing about how some missionary at my parents local church believed they met another missionary at a hospital in Papua New Guniea because god broke some teeth in her husbands jaw when he fell at home from a ladder. Yes, God had given him the injury so they would find this other missionary. Too bad they missed the obvious like the only hospital around was that one, and that both missionaries were assigned in the same area!

And another thing, how does god take care of the entire universe? I guess for such a magnitued of a problem, I indeed must have faith in it just being true.

Its a childish arguement for this board, but one that definately sh*ts me to tears, due to my upbringing.

My two cents

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 05:13 PM

Anyone here but the apparent 1.7 willing to state for the record they believe in God

To be a skeptic is it assumed you are automatically an atheist or there some latitude to those of us who have more than a nodding acquaintance with foxholes and death

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 05:16 PM

But lets not derail...

'Psy kick' believes in a big invisible being that lives everywhere..Demonic possession, the dead being raised, Angels...etc...

And yet believes she is a skeptic...

Now, can anyone show / prove to me how that is not "totally" being a hypocrite...

DB

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 05:18 PM

I am sure no one person speaks for all Muslims as no one speaks for all chirstians. I don’t like blanket statements about people, unless it is about Bush. :D

Paul

:) :) :)

Piggy

9th April 2006, 05:20 PM

When you decide to belive in or follow a certain religion for reasons of faith that is fine.
Yes, that is fine. It is irrational, but fine. It's not skeptical, tho.

Put it this way, what set the uninverse in motion? There is as much evidence that it was caused by a deity as there is that it wasn't. So do you belive in one or another? Honestly do you lean even a little bit towards the no deity idea?

Since you asked... last question first....

There is no deity. I say that in the same way that I say there are no leprechauns, that there was no global flood, that there is no ocean above the sky. I do not say "I don't believe in leprechauns". Neither do I say "I do not believe in God". There is no God.

As to what set the universe in motion, of course there is more reason to believe that a deity was not involved than there is to believe that a deity was involved.

The history of belief in a deity is rooted in superstition and lacks any objective support whatsoever. As non-theistic explanations for everything in the universe have advanced, God has been repeatedly revised, so that now He is a somehow personal yet ubiquitous force which -- for reasons no one seems able to explain -- has it as part of His very nature not to be provable.

What's more, there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for why people should believe in God. We have pattern-seeking brains with a deep-seated need for meaning and continually active processes that theorize for motive and search for human features among items in our environment.

Given all that (and more) we can safely dispense with God. Once we do that, there is no reason to go tacking Him onto any as-yet-unanswered question, whether that be "Why did my fridge stop running?" or "What forces lay behind the Big Bang?"

Personally, the amazing new data from WMAP regarding the mind-blowing rate of initial inflation in the universe leads me to believe that what I call the "pop bottle" model of creation is most likely true. Since there is no observable force within our universe that is a decent candidate for "pushing" it outward, to so speak, in that manner, then it's possible (I'd say probable) that our universe exists in a hyperdimensional context, and an event in this contextual hyperspace "pulled" our universe into being (again, so to speak) the way bubbles are created when the top comes off a bottle of carbonated soda.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 05:22 PM

Hellaeon...

Oh no...Its not childish...

Its about someone claiming to be a skeptic...and then states an invisible being that lives everywhere, actually exists...

When they admit they are being a hypocrite...then this matter can be put to rest...

Until then...I will continue against the evil and the true cancer of this this world which is religion...

DB

Piggy

9th April 2006, 05:34 PM

I see most skeptics here want there to be less skeptics, they want all christians to believe in Sylvia et al. Why, I have no idea.
No, no. We don't want Xians to believe more nonsense. We want everyone to believe less nonsense.

You seem to be suggesting that we should pipe down about the non-skeptical nature of Xianity b/c if we keep on about it we might scare some Xians off and then we wouldn't be doing them any good.

But like it or not, a skeptical attitude precludes belief in the unproven claims of religion.

Saying, "I'm a skeptic, but I believe that the God of the Bible and eternal life and resurrection are real" is like saying, "I'm a vegetarian, but I believe cows are vegetables."

What you're saying is like me going onto a vegan forum and saying, "Listen, I'm a vegan, but I do eat eggs, dairy, and fish. You guys have a lot of good nutrition advice to give, but you're turning people away by telling them that they're not vegan if they eat these things, and you really ought to lay off."

It just doesn't work that way. If people are put off by skepticism, if it's not their bag, then so be it. It makes no sense to ask skeptics to suspend the rules for one irrational belief and not subject it to the same scrutiny as every other irrational claim, just so that group can be made to feel, falsely, that they are actually being skeptical.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 05:47 PM

Piggy

9th April 2006, 05:57 PM

Its time these religious <snip> begin to realise that their time is coming to an end...

This is the age of 'Proof or STFU and piss off outta my face'
I don't know where you live, De_Bunk, but it's nowhere near me, I can tell.

My state legislature just passed a resolution in support of "The 10 Commandments" (I don't believe they know what this means, to be honest) and declaring them to be the foundation of all law in every Western culture in history.

Schools are fighting to put stickers on science books telling kids that evolution is unproven, and a State School Superintendant who once tried to ban the term "evolution" from public schools wants to be in the Governor's mansion, as does the former Xian Coalition honcho Ralph Reed who took money from Indian casinos to rally Xians to pressure politicians into preventing other tribes from opening up competing casinos.

The Xians rule here. Where I live, it's the Age of Jesus, proof is out the window, and skeptics have to fight the hard fight every day.

That's why Piggy is my avatar. The kids running my island have gone crazy, and if nothing stops them, they're gonna burn it down.

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 06:12 PM

db

derail? derail!

i was blasted not to long ago for not having a layman's grasp on quantum machanic's. ok i will not dicuss it now.

i been also been told i can look back in time. obously look at all this history and junk laying everywhere. we have universities stacked to the rafters with proof. i still can not look look back or forward in time yet.

before someone said let me write that down it was a oral history.
now me i will not fill out forms the right way and i can not tell the same story twice the same way even if you hold a gun to my head. so if your history stated around 4000 bc a oral history that started with Greatgrandma(xN?) there may be a misquote or two.

so by giving psy Kick so much grief you may actually be disrespecting the memory Greatgrandma(xN?)

if of course you understand what i am saying.

De_Bunk

9th April 2006, 06:19 PM

lostnick3...

Whatever you post...you are more sensitive to 'what is'...than you think...

You continue posting your thoughts...people understand you, more than you think they do...

Well...I understand what you are saying...no problems at all...

Stay here...We are all on a quest for the evidence...

DB

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 06:25 PM

Quantum mechanics is easy, people are the hard thing. And when they believe in Woo-Woo it is even harder.

Paul

:) :) :)

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 06:33 PM

i have always enjoyed the idea of the lizardmen mentioned in the original lancer (self destruct) 70s editions of Conan. intelligent beings left over from the age of dinosaurs.

DrMatt

9th April 2006, 06:36 PM

No..I'm wearing a loose fitting, chiffon tie back...you just cant see it.

DB

You can feel its chiffonness... but only if you believe.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention that my personal definition of Chiffon includes the fact that we don't know everything and that some people cannot understand where ethics come from? (Insert standard point-and-laugh at pantheists)

RayG

9th April 2006, 06:36 PM

A believer in a god..a big, invisible being that lives everywhere...CAN NEVER, EVER STATE THEY ARE A SKEPTIC...NOT NOW...NOT EVER...

It can never be..

You mean like Martin Gardner (who calls himself a philosophical theist)? CSICOP Fellow, prolific writer of Skeptical Inquirer articles, and author of skeptical books like:

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus
The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher
On the Wild Side
Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic: More Notes of a Fringe Watcher
Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery
Gardner's Whys and Wherefores
The Healing Revelations of Mary Baker Eddy: The Rise and Fall of Christian Science
Are Universes Thicker than Blackberries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner
He describes his own belief as philosophical theism inspired by the theology of the philosopher Miguel de Unamuno. While critical of organized religions, Gardner believes in God, claiming that this belief cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by reason. At the same time, he is skeptical of claims that God has communicated with human beings through spoken or telepathic revelation or through miracles in the natural world.

Martin Gardner's philosophy may be summarised as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in The Old One comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving Old One is real. [To an atheist] "the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody", from G. K. Chesterton, is one of Martin's favorite quotes.

He certainly seems skeptical in his books. :cool:

RayG

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 06:59 PM

Quantum mechanics is easy, people are the hard thing. And when they believe in Woo-Woo it is even harder.

Paul

:) :) :)

my belief system is fluid having a God central to that system that starts somewhere in oral history is a comfort to me. the posters on this thread scream for proof of Divine existence. but provide no proof of their theory of nothingness.

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 07:23 PM

You can't disprove a nothing. If one wants to believe in a god, that is fine, but it does not work for me, mainly because your idea of a god would not be mine. I would not have a god who says he loves you and then lets so many children suffer. Please do not give me a big plan BS, that is plain dodo.

Paul

:) :) :)

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 07:42 PM

a guess zero is a no go to.

all this business about why good and evil

using the latest time measurement dating the cosmos how long would the average human life span measure. should be easy enough to figure.

is really enough to get wound up and all moral about?

hailslaanesh

9th April 2006, 07:46 PM

Piggy saidSaying, "I'm a skeptic, but I believe that the God of the Bible and eternal life and resurrection are real" is like saying, "I'm a vegetarian, but I believe cows are vegetables."

That is the funniest thing I've heard all day. Probably because it is true.

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 07:52 PM

There is no true good and evil, there are ways that living a socially works and doesn’t work, it is that simple. If you lived alone on a mountain, what would be good or evil then? :D

Paul

:) :) :)

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 08:04 PM

it depends what the setpoints in your personal measure are set at

Paulhoff

9th April 2006, 08:10 PM

Re-read what I wrote, I am going to bed. Good and evil are in the mind not in the real world. When you live with others there are ways that work and ways that do not work. Like I said, it is that simple, but human like to make everything complicated. ;)

Paul

:) :) :)

psy kick

9th April 2006, 09:54 PM

The op asks a question, then anyone who tries to answer is a cancer, to be made fun of. What an immature idiot. He deserves no answer.

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 10:02 PM

psy kick the op?

valis

9th April 2006, 10:12 PM

Given all that (and more) we can safely dispense with God. Once we do that, there is no reason to go tacking Him onto any as-yet-unanswered question, whether that be "Why did my fridge stop running?" or "What forces lay behind the Big Bang?"

You can safely do whatever you like...but. When you get to the big bang everything breaks down. There is no way to know what is on the other side. I would not attach God to the why did the fridge stop running question, the big bang I would.

If you choose not to belive in God fine, it does not matter to me. But if I make a rational reasoned decison to be a Christian after years of being an atheist; I guess that to you means I have to belive in everything? I really find this hard to understand. Religion is based on faith, not evidence. Not only does it not need to be tested or proven but I don't know how you would go about it.

hailslaanesh

9th April 2006, 10:18 PM

Valis, being the ration athiest that you were, what convinced you that their was a god? What made you think that the Christians had it right?

hellaeon

9th April 2006, 10:19 PM

A believer in a god..a big, invisible being that lives everywhere...CAN NEVER, EVER STATE THEY ARE A SKEPTIC...NOT NOW...NOT EVER...

It can never be..

Its time these religious kooks, nutballs, weirdo's, mass murderers who kill in the name of God, begin to realise that their time is coming to an end...

This is the age of 'Proof or STFU and piss off outta my face'

Religious idiots...condone mass murderers...kill...maim and torture..all in the name of some invisible being....

They are the true evil...the true filth of mankind...

They are a cancer that kills innocents...

They can kiss my ass...

And they are cowards who refuse to offer proof...

They make these claims...state it is true...and then run when asked for proof...

I have no time for them...other than to laugh at their gullibility and lack of sense of the real world...

To me, they are just there for us to make fun of...

DB

:p

hahaha fire up son!

I certainly understand your anguish. I too have much deep seeded angst towards religion and do not see a place for it in the modern world. Religion is a stain on the earth left over from the dark ages.
It does not matter what we discover and know in the universe, whatever is not known is where the new 'god' posts will be. To think man has advanced this far yet we still think some invisible 'magic' overlord pulls our strings and controls our existance. Uhhhhh....

Piggy has addressed the position very well and I cant agree more.

And to quote Lisa Simpson : 'Prayer, the last refuge of a scoundrel'

lostnick3

9th April 2006, 10:27 PM

you guys are forgetting you (science) are the new kids on the block as you can see by the courts you can go away pretty easy. if you go who is going want to be a skeptic?

arthwollipot

9th April 2006, 11:44 PM

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 12:31 AM

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 12:51 AM

Oleron

10th April 2006, 12:52 AM

What sort of a skeptical community do we want? Do we want to exclude people from the community who hold, in the strictest sense of the word, an 'irrational' belief? I hope not.

I hope we encourage people who have an interest in critical thinking to come here and develop their critical thinking abilities. That means we challenge their beliefs when they come here and force them to defend the belief if they can. Yes I do include religious belief in that category.

I would not go as far as saying that religious people aren't skeptical or can't think critically. Just take the likes of KittyNH as an example. She is long-time skeptic who commands enormous respect on these boards and works tirelessly for the cause of critical thinking. But she chooses to hold a religious belief. My opinion is that she is still very much a critical thinker as long as she continues to treat her own beliefs critically (which I'm certain she does). The same goes for me and any other skeptic.

Let's not create a schism every time someone decides that skepticism should be purer than it is. That's the religious way of doing things....:D

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 01:24 AM

i generally would not want to be in a community that would have me. but the facts are easier to track down here without running all over the internet chasing, filtering and getting side tracked with pictures for hours at a time.

aargh57

10th April 2006, 01:32 AM

bye bye

what about Pascal's Wager- if there is a Christian God and i follow the teachings of Jesus, then if he exists eternal bliss and if he doesn't i loose very little. on the other hand if i do not believe in Him and do not live a Christian life if He doesn't exist i loose nothing if He does exist oops (plagiarized and paraphrased)

Here's my problem with Pascal's Wager:

This is implying that I have a choice in what I believe. It's not a choice like Chevy vs Ford or Coke vs Pepsi. It's not even like learning a concept I don't understand. The concept of "believing" in God would be impossible for me.
If someone came up to me and said "You can have eternal life my son. All you have to do is to accept that 2+2=5 and you shall have life everlasting."
I can no more "believe" that God exists than I can "believe" that 2+2=5. Sure I could go around saying that 2+2=5 and even use it as a basis in my everyday life (which would undoubtedly cause many problems especially when filing my taxes and stuff like that). However, I would never really believe it. Same way with Christianity. Sure I could go to church, tithe, eat fish on friday, fast, bless myself, pretend I'm talking in toungs, etc.... but what would be the point. You have to truly "believe" to be saved anyway. Logic prevents me from believing these types of things.

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 01:58 AM

Lostnick3...

'OP' stands for 'Original post'...The first post in the thread..

DB

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 02:20 AM

i think i understand your point. and i have absolutely no idea whats going on on the other side. most of us have our parents religion so from a early age we are so intensely indoctrinated that it does not go away as we age. what ever religious group you do wind up getting is gonna have at least a 10 year head start on our moldable little brains before they ever see a real science project. so any truth to God and in my case Jesus is gonna be buried in a overwhelming library of lies and half truths and plain old b.s. then things will really just start going down hill after you start poking around asking knowledgable questions.

if only the libary at alexandria had not ben burned. where would could it put us now.

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 03:36 AM

Psy Kick...

Sorry...But you havent logically or reasonably answered jack squat...

You are basing your entire claim on a 'feeling'...and then stating its 'for real'...and yet you offer no proof or anything that even resembles proof...Nothing...

Immature...Oh dear...trouble with that statment is i'm not the one who believes in invisble beings that live everywhere...am i..

DB

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 07:13 AM

Here's my problem with Pascal's Wager:

This is implying that I have a choice in what I believe. It's not a choice like Chevy vs Ford or Coke vs Pepsi. It's not even like learning a concept I don't understand. The concept of "believing" in God would be impossible for me.
If someone came up to me and said "You can have eternal life my son. All you have to do is to accept that 2+2=5 and you shall have life everlasting."
I can no more "believe" that God exists than I can "believe" that 2+2=5. Sure I could go around saying that 2+2=5 and even use it as a basis in my everyday life (which would undoubtedly cause many problems especially when filing my taxes and stuff like that). However, I would never really believe it. Same way with Christianity. Sure I could go to church, tithe, eat fish on friday, fast, bless myself, pretend I'm talking in toungs, etc.... but what would be the point. You have to truly "believe" to be saved anyway. Logic prevents me from believing these types of things.

I recently found myself wondering if Pascal's Wager doesn't present a plausible argument for subscribing to some kind of Catholic faith, which, as I understand it (mind you, my pre-atheistic background is Protestant, so this could be an erroneous impression on my part), holds that all you have to do to go to heaven is participate in the rituals prescribed by the church. Pascal's Wager might provide a good reason for going to mass, confessing to a priest, etc., as long as one needn't actually believe in anything in order to make it into heaven on the off chance that a Christian God exists.

That said, I'm not planning to convert to Catholicism any time soon. Another problem with the Wager is that it applies equally to any religion-- the same argument could be made for both Catholicism and Islam. Maybe the wisest approach would be to observe the minimally necessary traditions that each major religion requires for salvation?

psy kick

10th April 2006, 08:27 AM

"Doesnt deserve an answer"

How typical of a christian or any religion infact, when asked to ratonally validate their claims in invisible beings...

As they always do..they just find any excuse to run away...

They are cowards as well...frightened that their idiotic beliefs are going to be exposed as garbage...That their 'childish' clinging to their mental security blanket is coming to an end...

DBHumorous.
If I had been asked, intelligently, a question, I would've answered. Which is what I was attempting to do, til I was called a cancer, to be made fun of, nutball.
Gee, when you try and make a point, the other side calls names such as coward cause they have no other argument and then assume they made their point.. heh. Works both ways eh?

Orb

10th April 2006, 08:43 AM

Joe Random

10th April 2006, 10:19 AM

I recently found myself wondering if Pascal's Wager doesn't present a plausible argument for subscribing to some kind of Catholic faith, which, as I understand it (mind you, my pre-atheistic background is Protestant, so this could be an erroneous impression on my part), holds that all you have to do to go to heaven is participate in the rituals prescribed by the church. Pascal's Wager might provide a good reason for going to mass, confessing to a priest, etc., as long as one needn't actually believe in anything in order to make it into heaven on the off chance that a Christian God exists.

That said, I'm not planning to convert to Catholicism any time soon. Another problem with the Wager is that it applies equally to any religion-- the same argument could be made for both Catholicism and Islam. Maybe the wisest approach would be to observe the minimally necessary traditions that each major religion requires for salvation?

My problem with Pascal’s Wager has always been twofold : the “I can’t make myself believe, only pretend as if I do” as mentioned by others above, but also the false dichotomy it presents a would-be wagerer. It /assumes/ there is only one god-entity you could choose to believe in. Which is obviously wrong by quite a bit.

Let’s say I decide to play the Wager and pick a random god-entity out of the ridiculous number available. Well, what are the odds that I’ve chosen the right one? If I’m only believing to play the odds, if it’s not true faith/belief driving me, why should I think I’ve ticked the correct box?

What’s more - what if I’ve not only chosen the wrong one, but the tenants of my pretend faith are actively abhorrent and offensive to what turns out to be the /real/ supreme being? Whereas before I was simply not worshiping the supreme being, now I’m actively pledging allegiance to someone else’s flag (if you will) right in its face!

Even if we restrict the choices to Christianity (even though there’s no good reason we should, but just for argument), there’s still no one single interpretation of their god-entity to place the Wager against.

In actuality if all you’re looking to do is play the odds, you’re screwed. Add to that the fact that most descriptions of god-entities include the ability to know what is really going on in a person’s heart and mind, the idea that you could both pick the right one to worship out of blind luck and also FOOL IT into thinking you really believe in it when you’re just hedging your bets is patently absurd.

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 10:26 AM

Hey Psy Kick,

Namecalling aside, there are those of us who are genuinely curios to what process your mind goes through to distinguish fact from fiction. Understand that it is very hard for a skeptic to see the logic, and many have reached the end of their patience, but maybe you could help clear it up? You seem a bit jaded by how you've been treated at this forum, so I'd understand if you felt it was useless. But many are here to learn, not ridicule, so if you felt comfortable to share why or how you determine what to believe or disbelieve there are some who would listen.

There's a fairly lengthy discussion of the question of religious skeptics here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51236), in which the word "nutball" does not appear. I imagine that the opening poster felt that the use of such derogatory terms would undermine his crediblity, and start the discussion off on a sophomoric level.

Jimbo07

10th April 2006, 10:27 AM

i'm not the one who believes in invisble beings that live everywhere...am i..

DB

De: Can you answer the question, "Why something rather than nothing?"

God fills a potential metaphysical hole which simply doesn't exist for: ghosts, homeopathy, alien abductors, etc. "Where does God live?" is meaningless. God, by any interesting definition, would be omnipresent. Granted: omnipresence means a non-physically discernable presence in a physical environment, but that's no real challenge for people who believe the metaphysical can be considered as something other than the overtly physical.

If Xians, or anyone else, say, don't by a homeopathic remedy, they may have demonstrated skeptical behaviour.

Piggy

10th April 2006, 10:57 AM

De: Can you answer the question, "Why something rather than nothing?"

God fills a potential metaphysical hole
Because God is something, positing God doesn't in any way answer this question.

Jimbo07

10th April 2006, 11:04 AM

Because God is something, positing God doesn't in any way answer this question.

Unless you have faith that God fills the space of 'first cause.' It may seem difficult, logically, that a cause can exist without a prior cause, but the trait of omnipotence should handle illogic nicely. If it doesn't, then it's not really omnipotence, is it? :boggled:

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 11:07 AM

Unless you have faith that God fills the space of 'first cause.' It may seem difficult, logically, that a cause can exist without a prior cause, but the trait of omnipotence should handle illogic nicely. If it doesn't, then it's not really omnipotence, is it? :boggled:

Can God make a square circle, then? How about a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

Omnipotence does not overcome illogic. God as "first cause" doesn't solve the problem of regression of causes, it just moves the level of explanation one step higher-- who made God?

Piggy

10th April 2006, 11:07 AM

When you get to the big bang everything breaks down. There is no way to know what is on the other side.
That is your assumption. Science has proven very adept at finding ways to indirectly measure what was previously considered unmeasurable.

I would not attach God to the why did the fridge stop running question, the big bang I would.
Changing the locus of the area of inquiry is no justification for invoking theories which have already proven themselves untenable per se.

For instance, at one time many explorers had a fear of dragons. But as it came to be accepted that tales of dragons had their origins in superstition and myth, and were attested to only by rumor, and as exploration expanded our knowledge of the world and no dragons were ever found, and as biology made even the notion of dragons untenable, those fears vanished.

So what would be your impression if, at the dawn of manned space flight, as NASA scientists and engineers were designing their vehicles, someone said, "Hold on, guys... what about dragons?"

But if I make a rational reasoned decison to be a Christian after years of being an atheist; I guess that to you means I have to belive in everything?
I have yet to see a rational reasoned explanation. But in any case, why would you then have to "believe in everything"? I don't understand you here.

Religion is based on faith, not evidence.
That's what makes it non-skeptical.

Piggy

10th April 2006, 11:10 AM

It may seem difficult, logically, that a cause can exist without a prior cause, but the trait of omnipotence should handle illogic nicely.
If you can erase the problem by simply asserting that God has no cause, I can erase it by simply asserting the universe has no cause.

Here you are toying with the long-debunked ontological proof for God. I don't recommend it.

Orb

10th April 2006, 11:16 AM

There's a fairly lengthy discussion of the question of religious skeptics here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51236), in which the word "nutball" does not appear. I imagine that the opening poster felt that the use of such derogatory terms would undermine his credibility, and start the discussion off on a sophomoric level.

Thanks James, that looks like a great discussion. I breezed through the first page of posts and already understand the belief process better.

From what I saw there, most based their belief in God on personal emotions and family traditions. I personally have no problem with this at all. It doesn't help or hinder skeptical thinking as long as God stays in the metaphysical ether, and evidence and facts are not disregarded because they conflict with ancient texts.

It seems they have to "adjust" their beliefs from time to time, but don't we all? ;)

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 11:43 AM

Psy Kick...

No, you wouldnt...

All your doing now is shouting over shoulder as you head off into the distance with your outdated, stuck in medieval times beliefs. Beliefs that have caused millions and millions of pointless deaths.

As you have shown to this board...

1. You cannot, logically answer ANY question put to you, BY ANYONE concerning proof of your beliefs

2. You will use ANY excuse to run away

3. You are a hypocrite

'Humorous' you state...Well, once again i say that i dont claim that books can be possessed or i believe in invisbles beings that live everywhere...Does that sound like sensible person to you..or a nutball..

Keep living in the dark ages....and keep running...

DB

PS...You even have the audacity to use 'Logic works' as a sig...Well why dont you just apply what you preach...Use a bit a bit of this logic to explain about invisible beings and possessed books and why they are real....

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 11:47 AM

That's telling him, DB! I propose we all go out to our local churches and inform every theist we encounter that he/she is a nutball. In the face of that irrefutable logic, we'll have the whole country converted to atheism in no time!

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 11:52 AM

JamesDillon...

When a religious nutball knocks on my door offering me salvation...I do tell them.

But what i really object to is Psy kicks claim of being a skeptic whilst believing in invisible beings that live everywhere.

DB

BTW..What would you call someone who believes in invisible beings and demon possessed books..???

Jimbo07

10th April 2006, 11:58 AM

Can God make a square circle, then?

Yes.

Omnipotence does not overcome illogic.

If it doesn't, it's not omnipotence. If Power is constrained in any way, even if the only restraint is rationality, then it's not omnipotence in any sort of sense. You could only say that your creator was 'merely' powerful.

God as "first cause" doesn't solve the problem of regression of causes, it just moves the level of explanation one step higher-- who made God?

What are you talking about?! :confused:

That's the whole point of a first cause. That is, God doesn't have a cause. You don't even have to accept the idea to simply recognize that the words 'first cause' require no previous cause.

If you can erase the problem by simply asserting that God has no cause, I can erase it by simply asserting the universe has no cause.

That's my point. It's an assertion. I think that's fairly shaky ground to declare that Xians can't be skeptics.

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 12:12 PM

If it doesn't, it's not omnipotence. If Power is constrained in any way, even if the only restraint is rationality, then it's not omnipotence in any sort of sense. You could only say that your creator was 'merely' powerful.

If that's the case, Jimbo, then you've just demonstrated that God's existence is logically impossible. Does this make you atheism's newest convert?

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 12:17 PM

Jimbo07

10th April 2006, 12:26 PM

If that's the case, Jimbo, then you've just demonstrated that God's existence is logically impossible. Does this make you atheism's newest convert?

Actually, I was an ardent, almost militant atheist about 20 years ago. Then, during a brief troubled period I migrated to woo. Finally I've come around to a state where I'm hypercritical of almost everything, including militant atheism. This is especially true of things that produce no utilitarian effects (again, including atheism, religion, etc.). I'm left having to just 'accept' things like the existence of the universe, and then making things work.

Still it's fun to ramble about the origin of the universe. I just don't think militant atheism is a solid ground from which to label others as non-skeptical.

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 12:31 PM

JamesDillon..

Once again i ask.."What would you label someone who told you they believe in invisible beings and demon possessed books?"

I'd just like an answer to that single question...

Just curious...

DB

I would not label them a "nutball," because doing so would only serve to further polarize the discussion, and make me look rather silly.

sat556

10th April 2006, 12:42 PM

Then, during a brief troubled period I migrated to woo.

How many times have I heard this? It's so often the way. Why don't people find some God when they aren't having 'troubles'? It's because they don't need one surely.

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 12:50 PM

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 12:54 PM

JamesDillon...

Thankyou for telling me what you wouldn't call someone...

Now, could you possibly tell me what you WOULD call them..as i asked in the first instance...

Please...it is a simple enough question, which you seem intent on avoiding...

DB

I probably wouldn't call them anything, DB. Not every ad hoc classification that your pretty little head can devise is in need of an arbitrary label.

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 12:58 PM

JamesDillon..

Amazing...Once again you avoid a simple question...

If you dont have a name for someone like that, as you claim...how can you tell me that "nutball' is incorrect..

You're avoidance to answer says it all...

DB

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 01:03 PM

sat556

10th April 2006, 01:12 PM

If a god made us like we are, then why would it get mad and send us to some inferno for us doing the human thing and questioning it's existence? There should be no need for fireproofing. And surely fireproofing is just decieving oneself if that's the only reason for believeing.

Piggy

10th April 2006, 01:35 PM

It's an assertion. I think that's fairly shaky ground to declare that Xians can't be skeptics.
I do, too. So that's why I don't justify my position on these grounds. The reason Xians can't be skeptics is that skepticism excludes accepting irrational and unsupported claims on the basis of faith.

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 01:35 PM

whats next a rock he can't lift

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 02:38 PM

faith? lets start with baby steps. i often have interpersonal relationships that can turn violent or worse. i also have a few friends that i trust to watch my back, one of them maybe close enough to assist me if things go south, if so i do not have to take time to look around to see whos behind me and can stay foucused at the task at hand. knowing someone i can't see is protecting me from behind is that a act of faith on my part?

also my God is the designer/creator of the cosmos I'm currently ( currently I think) residing in. Not the little man gods that keep getting picked apart here

Huntster

10th April 2006, 02:41 PM

I dont need any help...

Your writing indicates otherwise.

...Its an affront to my intelligence...

Well, that appears very easy to do.

...They have zero shame...no honour as a human being...They are beneath me.

They are there to be laughed at...right in their faces...

How very impressive.

Jimbo07

10th April 2006, 02:59 PM

my God is the designer/creator of the cosmos I'm currently ( currently I think) residing in. Not the little man gods that keep getting picked apart here

Piggy, this is the line to refer to.

God-as-Creator cannot be debunked. Literal creation can be, if not completely debunked, at least demonstrated against. Not only does geology back this up, but recorded history! There is no really good reason to believe YEC beyond the book.

A YEC may be a nutball, but it's not fair to those who simply accept God-as-Creator. As an unsupported claim, it's not much worse than atheism. The only appeal is that God-as-creator might not be necessary (unverified lack of necessity is NOT proof). That God-as-creator does not exist is equally unsupported.

JamesDillon

10th April 2006, 03:05 PM

A YEC may be a nutball, but it's not fair to those who simply accept God-as-Creator. As an unsupported claim, it's not much worse than atheism. The only appeal is that God-as-creator might not be necessary (unverified lack of necessity is NOT proof). That God-as-creator does not exist is equally unsupported.

I do so wish we could stop calling people nutballs.

Anyway, if we're defining atheism as affirmative nonbelief, and not merely lack-of-belief, then you're basically right that the only logical advantage it has over a deistic-type God is that Occam's Razor tilts the balance in favor of not believing in unnecessary entities. But I think people tend to put too much weight on Occam's Razor, so atheism's advantage over deism is rather slight in my view. If we're talking about a God who actually participates in daily life, though, I think the evidence for nonbelief far outweighs the evidence for belief.

Jimbo07

10th April 2006, 03:23 PM

I do so wish we could stop calling people nutballs.

Ooh! Fair play!

Anyway, if we're defining atheism as affirmative nonbelief, and not merely lack-of-belief, then you're basically right

Here I used the accusation of "claims in invisible beings" to be demonstrative of affirmative nonbelief. There are less vitriolic ways to express agnosticism and mild(?) atheism.

that the only logical advantage it has over a deistic-type God is that Occam's Razor tilts the balance in favor of not believing in unnecessary entities. But I think people tend to put too much weight on Occam's Razor, so atheism's advantage over deism is rather slight in my view.

I posted a little parable some time ago, that stated something akin to God helps those who use Occam's razor. A utilitarian choice might be to save one's own life, rather than relying on God to do ALL the work.

If we're talking about a God who actually participates in daily life, though, I think the evidence for nonbelief far outweighs the evidence for belief.

Even this is okay. Science can't debunk some fluffy, "God works in mysterious ways," so I'm even granting people the right to pray, undisturbed by me. Science can be used to debunk specific physical claims (i.e. If I pray for rain 10 times, then 9 times out of 10 it will rain here within 24 hours, or God holds the planets apart, etc.).

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 03:31 PM

Huntster...

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Thankyou

DB

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 03:36 PM

"God works in mysterious ways"

should read

"Some People think in mysterious ways"

Or

"Our god is no good and he can't get the job done"

Or

"Time to look for a better god"

Or

"We are children of a lesser god"

Paul

:) :) :)

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 03:40 PM

you sound bitter about the whole idea God

i think she/he did a fine cosmos

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 03:45 PM

Go to a children’s hospital and get back to me.

Paul

:) :) :)

psy kick

10th April 2006, 03:47 PM

See, I never came here to proclaim the gospel. The only reason I mentioned in another thread about being a christian was to point out that "Even though I am a christian, I STILL see the fallacies of the frauds."
The Op is a jerk, and cannot debate anything so resorts to personal insults.
I had no desire to debate God here anyway.
But he has done a better job of putting himself down than I ever could.

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 03:48 PM

to what purpose?

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 03:52 PM

i have to start addressing my posts. paulhoff to what purpose do you originate in a place where a believer is considered mentally ill?

JM85

10th April 2006, 03:53 PM

Maybe it's because it's harder to disprove God than it is to disprove a phoney psychic or faith healer. And it's more easily understood by most to just say a psychic for example just got their information about you from making generalizations than it is to explain to someone why a belief in god is false. I think God is a more complex issue than psychics or ghosts.

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 03:56 PM

you sound bitter about the whole idea God

i think she/he did a fine cosmos

Paul

:) :) :)

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 04:12 PM

Psy Kick

Seeing the fallacies of frauds does NOT make you a skeptic

It is YOU who will not provide any rational answer for your claims...or enter into any logical debate.

It is you who has made yourself look foolish by the sheer fact of you proclaiming to believe in invisible beings that live everywhere and demonically possessed books...and then, claiming to be a skeptic.

DB

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 04:21 PM

one of the biggest reasons i became a member of this forum was to watch phonies shot down in flames. as many as possible. but I like to keep an open mind (as much as I have left) every once in a great while some woo is going to come up with a nice little break through in one of the sciences that flys in the face of current conventional thinking. if the pseudos get a hold of it first there needs to be a mechanism to filter and find it.

I like God because he/she gets everyone going so well.

Huntster

10th April 2006, 04:39 PM

Go to a children’s hospital and get back to me.

Paul

:) :) :)

So, what's wrong with children's hospitals?

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 04:45 PM

HUNTSTER

they have children in them

Piggy

10th April 2006, 04:49 PM

God-as-Creator cannot be debunked. Literal creation can be, if not completely debunked, at least demonstrated against. Not only does geology back this up, but recorded history! There is no really good reason to believe YEC beyond the book.
I'm afraid I'm not up on the lingo. Maybe some of this is above and I've missed it, but it's a long thread now, so would you mind indulging me?

What exactly is "God-as-Creator"?
What is "Literal creation"?
What is a YEC?

A YEC may be a nutball, but it's not fair to those who simply accept God-as-Creator. As an unsupported claim, it's not much worse than atheism. The only appeal is that God-as-creator might not be necessary (unverified lack of necessity is NOT proof). That God-as-creator does not exist is equally unsupported.
Keep in mind that I'm not calling anyone a nutball. Many people in my family believe in God, several of my professors believed in God, practically everyone I work with is extremely religious, Isaac Newton wrote more about religion than he did about science, and none of these folks are nutballs.

I'm saying that a person who engages in religious faith is, by definition, not a skeptic.

This doesn't mean that religious persons can't ever be skeptical or that they'll believe anything that comes down the pike. But to be "a skeptic" means you don't accept undemonstrated theories on faith, or just because of a gut feeling plus the fact that it can't be disproven alone.

Skeptics aren't the only ones who are ever skeptical, just as vegetarians aren't the only ones who ever eat vegetables. But "a vegetarian" eschews meat, and "a skeptic" eschews faith.

I also say "God does not exist".

Gods which are defined so weakly as to be unprovable are nothing, as they do not act in the world in any way -- they have no properties... they aren't.

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 04:49 PM

Geeeeeeee, the sick and dying children, geeeeeeeeeeeeee. god loves them sooooooooooo, yea, sure.

Paul

:) :) :)

Huntster

10th April 2006, 04:49 PM

HUNTSTER

they have children in them

That's why they call them "children's hospitals", isn't it?

What's wrong with that? Wouldn't it be worse if there weren't children's hospitals?

Oh, is it that folks are pissed off that children get sick like everybody else?

God didn't create the physical body to be immortal, so He's a bad, bad "person"?

Huntster

10th April 2006, 04:51 PM

Geeeeeeee, the sick and dying children, geeeeeeeeeeeeee. god loves them sooooooooooo, yea, sure.

Paul

:) :) :)

It is not possible to love sick and dying people?

Serenity

10th April 2006, 04:55 PM

Here's my problem with Pascal's Wager:

This is implying that I have a choice in what I believe. It's not a choice like Chevy vs Ford or Coke vs Pepsi. It's not even like learning a concept I don't understand. The concept of "believing" in God would be impossible for me.
If someone came up to me and said "You can have eternal life my son. All you have to do is to accept that 2+2=5 and you shall have life everlasting."
I can no more "believe" that God exists than I can "believe" that 2+2=5. Sure I could go around saying that 2+2=5 and even use it as a basis in my everyday life (which would undoubtedly cause many problems especially when filing my taxes and stuff like that). However, I would never really believe it. Same way with Christianity. Sure I could go to church, tithe, eat fish on friday, fast, bless myself, pretend I'm talking in toungs, etc.... but what would be the point. You have to truly "believe" to be saved anyway. Logic prevents me from believing these types of things.
I don’t think that’s a fair analogy. Persuading yourself to believe in something for which no evidence exists is a much easier task than forcing yourself to believe in a false mathematical answer you verifiably know the correct answer to.

Here’s my take on Pascal’s Wager.

Only a petty god would reward the individual employing Pascal’s Wager, with a ticket to the afterlife. Anyone considering it should contemplate the possibility that the wager could be seen as an affront to a god of the highest moral caliber. The god(s) that redeem you’re successful wager are unlikely to have your best interest at heart.

The truly moral person (religious or not) that acts, not out of fear or promise of reward, is more moral than the god fearing or gambling secular person going through the ritualistic motions on the basis of some cost/benefit analysis.

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 05:00 PM

What a sick god. Oh, god must love me for he beats me so well. Don’t make excuses for a so-called god, get a good one if you need one.

Paul

:) :) :)

Huntster

10th April 2006, 05:00 PM

...I'm saying that a person who engages in religious faith is, by definition, not a skeptic.

This doesn't mean that religious persons can't ever be skeptical or that they'll believe anything that comes down the pike. But to be "a skeptic" means you don't accept undemonstrated theories on faith, or just because of a gut feeling plus the fact that it can't be disproven alone......

That's not entirely accurate. I like to quote dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skeptic) when people debate the definition of words:

skep·tic also scep·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Philosophy.
often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

The definition does not say "does not accept". It specifically says "doubts, questions, or disagrees with".

There are degrees of skepticism, from the occasional doubt to the zealot.

Piggy

10th April 2006, 05:10 PM

I like to quote dictionaries when people debate the definition of words
Good God, why?

2 problems with dictionaries -- they don't agree with each other, and they're always behind the times. But bless their hearts, they can't help it.

Dictionaries attempt to give the broadest array of meanings that fall within their scope (from "pocket" to "unabridged" to speciality dictionaries). The very loose meaning, one who doubts or disagrees, might be used situationally, as in this recent newspaper headline: "Skeptics question proposed pipeline".

This headline wasn't refering to people who identify themselves as "skeptics", who would say "I am a skeptic" in a general way, and it's that sense of the meaning that's at issue here. That's why I took the effort to emphasise the phrase "a skeptic", in the hopes that this would be clear.

If it wasn't before, then I hope it is now.

Huntster

10th April 2006, 05:10 PM

What a sick god. Oh, god must love me for he beats me so well. Don’t make excuses for a so-called god, get a good one if you need one.

Paul

:) :) :)

Where does one "get a good one"? At the "God Store"? Is there a "God section" at your local Walmart.

I'm not in the position to create, judge, second-guess, or switch Gods.

And I suspect He has no intention or need to explain anything to you.

I don't need to "make excuses" for God. He's in control, not me, and not you. If He saw fit to allow children to get sick like everybody and every living thing, I suspect He has a reason.

How's this one?:

...As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva, and smeared the clay on his eyes, and said to him, "Go wash in the Pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed, and came back able to see....

(John, 9:1-7)

People in need are our opportunity to make God visible through them.

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 05:12 PM

no W.C. Fields fans i see.

take the current theoretical age of the cosmos and compare it to the lifespan of a human in this case a child. com pair the two. doesn't seem to be much at the kids end to get wound up about.

now compare the amount of care and comfort these children get from you godless skeptic's and the God fearing woo-woos.

I'm saying there is a larger force at work, I chose to call that force God.

Huntster

10th April 2006, 05:13 PM

Good God, why?....

Yes, God is good. Why? Because He is goodness incarnate.

...2 problems with dictionaries -- they don't agree with each other, and they're always behind the times....

Yeah, very little is perfect.

However, the dictionary comes in very handy when debating people who try to "redefine" words when cornered.

RSLancastr

10th April 2006, 05:19 PM

Oh! I'd like my own universe. Where do I sign up?Oooooh, sorry TS.

As a woman, the best you could hope for is to become one of multiple wives of a man with his own universe.

IIRC.

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 05:22 PM

Oh, the same store for the others, Used gods are Us.

Paul

:) :) :)

RSLancastr

10th April 2006, 05:25 PM

Anyone here but the apparent 1.7 willing to state for the record they believe in GodI would imagine that a fair amount of people on the board who believe in a god or gods would see little point in even opening a thread addressed to "Religious Nutballs," let alone bothering to read this far in it.

RSLancastr

10th April 2006, 05:29 PM

psy kick the op?"op" = "original post" (in the thread.

Or sometimes, "original poster."

(Sorry if someone already answered this.)

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 05:32 PM

i took "nutballs" as a personal invitation. thanks for the definition

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 05:37 PM

(John, 9:1-7)

People in need are our opportunity to make God visible through them.

Yea, if a lawyer or anyone who worked for me used that, I would fire them in a second, since I apparently don’t need them.

Paul

:) :) :)

Piggy

10th April 2006, 05:46 PM

However, the dictionary comes in very handy when debating people who try to "redefine" words when cornered.
Really? How so?

Seems to me, if someone tries to redefine a word to make it mean something other than what they've been using it to mean, you'd have to cite their own words. Going to a 3rd party won't do you any good.

I'll repeat the position I've stated before on this thread. But for clarity, I'll capitalize the word "Skeptic" when I mean it in the "vegetarian" sense of the word -- one who does not accept as true that which is unsupported.

Clearly, Skeptics aren't the only ones who are ever skeptical, and religious folks are not incapable of skepticism.

But a person who believes that God exists, that Jesus was both man and God, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and that those who believe in this will have everlasting life, that person has no business calling him/herself a Skeptic. Such beliefs are non-skeptical.

As an analogy, suppose someone told you that a soldier in World War II died in battle, was declared dead beyond any doubt, and was nailed in his coffin. Then after 3 days, the coffin was found opened, and the soldier was seen by several of his friends alive and walking around.

Then suppose you asked for some evidence of this, and you were handed a few anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980s, which did not agree among themselves about the details.

Would you consider it skeptical to believe what you were told?

I wouldn't.

If my meaning was vague before, I hope it is clear now.

Piggy

10th April 2006, 05:47 PM

Used gods are Us.
"Everything on that wall takes virgins."

De_Bunk

10th April 2006, 05:52 PM

Well...

Anyone else got a better term for someone who believes in invisible beings and believes books can be possessed...

DB

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 05:59 PM

None that they would what to hear, the truth hurts.

Paul

:) :) :)

Strider1974

10th April 2006, 06:05 PM

I see no issue with being religious and a sceptic so long as you understand that your beliefs are based completely on faith and cannot be proven, but are sceptical about everything else.
While these people do believe in something unprovable they understand this and do not try to justify or prove their beliefs, they simply have faith.
What is truly annoying are those religious types who feel the need to try and prove and/or justify their faith. They are convinced of that their faith is the only true faith and attempt with psuedoscience and illogical debate to convert others to their beliefs.

It seems to me that there are quite a few people who are both sceptics and religious in this forum.

PS - I am a atheist

Piggy

10th April 2006, 06:12 PM

Strider1974

10th April 2006, 06:23 PM

I don't get that. Why the free backstage pass for religion?

If you apply sceptical thought to religion and determine that it cannot be proven but still choose to have faith, then in my view this still qualifies you for the title of sceptic.
The issue most of us have is with religious types who think that because they have the one true faith it must be provable and so use illogical arguments and psuedoscience to justify/prove their belief

lostnick3

10th April 2006, 06:25 PM

bingo

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 06:32 PM

"The one true faith" I wonder how many people have die over that one over the years, and that isn't just religious faith either.

Paul

:) :) :)

RSLancastr

10th April 2006, 06:39 PM

"The one true faith" I wonder how many people have die over that one over the years, and that isn't just religious faith either.More than have died over The One True Dr. Who (pictured in your avatar), anyway.

Renfield

10th April 2006, 06:45 PM

The Mormons have a serious (to them) answer: the planet Kolob. :D

When I was a kid and under a great deal of pressure to join the Mormon church, that was what stopped me - "God came from the planet Kolob??!!"

Are you putting us on? That sounds pretty out there. Its almost getting into Scientology type territory. Are there any thetans living on "Kolob"?

Piggy

10th April 2006, 06:49 PM

If you apply sceptical thought to religion and determine that it cannot be proven but still choose to have faith, then in my view this still qualifies you for the title of sceptic.
Yes, you've said that, but why?

First of all, I don't see how one can apply skeptical thought to anything and then accept it on faith. Faith, by definition, is belief without proof. Faith, by definition, is non-skeptical.

Second, if religion says something tangible about reality, then there ought to be some evidence. If it does not say anything tangible about reality, then it's a humbug.

Accepting superstition without evidence is not skeptical. Why should we pretend that it's not? I see no reason to.

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 06:50 PM

Gods do not live anywhere, they RESIDE.

Paul

:) :) :)

Complexity

10th April 2006, 07:11 PM

If you apply sceptical thought to religion and determine that it cannot be proven but still choose to have faith, then in my view this still qualifies you for the title of sceptic.
I can't agree.

If a man admitted that the existence of extraterrestial UFO's couldn't be proven but chose to have faith in it, would you say that this still qualifies him to the title of 'skeptic'?

If MAS were to admit that homeopathy couldn't be proven but chose to have faith in it and continue to scam people out of their money and health, would you say that this still qualifies him to the title of 'skeptic'?

You are woo to the extent that you are religious, to the extent that you believe in extraterrestial UFO's, to the extent that you believe in homeopathy.

Nearly everyone I know is at least a bit woo. Those who are my friends are still my friends; those who are my family are still my family.

It is intellectually dishonest to treat religious beliefs differently from other superstitious beliefs.

Strider1974

10th April 2006, 07:19 PM

Accepting superstition without evidence is not skeptical. Why should we pretend that it's not? I see no reason to.

Then we have a difference of opinion. :D

If you sceptically/logically analyse most religions you come to the conclusion that there can be no proof either way and that you must have faith to believe.
Most sceptics cannot have faith in something that has no proof so we become atheists but some accept the above and still have faith.
They are still sceptics in my book as they have applied sceptical thought to the subject and accepted the results. Since there is no negative proof then they have a right to believe on faith while still calling themselves sceptics

Piggy

10th April 2006, 07:24 PM

Gods do not live anywhere, they RESIDE.
Does that make them residue?

Paulhoff

10th April 2006, 07:30 PM

No, then they would have been or still are, geeeeeeeeee. :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

Piggy

10th April 2006, 07:33 PM

Strider1974, please explain how having faith in unprovable superstition is in any way skeptical. I can't get my mind around it, no matter how I try.

You are also politely ignoring the collateral claptrap that accompanies religious belief such as Xianity.

Piggy

10th April 2006, 07:34 PM

No, then they would have been or still are, geeeeeeeeee.
Ah, right. Maybe I should lay off the residue, myself. :eek:

Huntster

10th April 2006, 07:48 PM

Really? How so?

Seems to me, if someone tries to redefine a word to make it mean something other than what they've been using it to mean, you'd have to cite their own words. Going to a 3rd party won't do you any good....

"Third Party" is what science is all about; peer review, remember?

"Third Party" is what courts are all about; with a jury of your peers.

"Third Party" weighs the balance heavier towards one side.

Additional parties increase the fun and authority.

...Clearly, Skeptics aren't the only ones who are ever skeptical, and religious folks are not incapable of skepticism.

But a person who believes that God exists, that Jesus was both man and God, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and that those who believe in this will have everlasting life, that person has no business calling him/herself a Skeptic. Such beliefs are non-skeptical....

I agree; within that context.

However, such a person may be very skeptical about many other things, so (like you indicated) they may very well be a "skeptic" in other areas.