I was only seeking clarification of the idea you were trying to present. You have made it more clear to me. Of course without getting in your head and stealing your thoughts I cannot be absolutely sure I get what you are trying to say, but ... oh well. When you put in terms of PERSONAL right or wrong, an atheist is no more wrong than a theist. But in terms of the original post, we aren't determining right or wrong to the individual. We are looking at how one particular theist justifies calling atheists wrong and her twisted distortion of why she believes atheists see her convictions to be wrong. It is all truly subjective indeed, leaving no one with a reasonable ability to prove the other wrong. Or even suggested logical reasons for being wrong. As it seems there isn't even a consensus of what logic is.
The officer had little choice... The man clearly was in a very unstable and unpredictable mental state and almost any officer is aware that a heavily drugged person can appear to have superhuman strength and very dulled pain reception. A drugged suspect can move in strange way since they are using far more muscles than they should and will push far beyond tolerances a mentally stable person would not. I believe the officer was fully justified in his actions even if it is a shame that the man now dead could have recovered from his drug induced psychopathy. Both of these statements are false. Not just misleading- not a matter of perception. Just false. If there was a God, there would be evidence of his existence and it would recognizable to us. The reason this would be so is because any interactions a God would have must have a causal effect and cause and effect is a traceable phenomenon. Taking this further, not only is there no evidence of God, there is overwhelming evidence for the lack of one. Given those circumstances, the only 'assumption' one can make is that God has gone to Great Pains to avoid being seen. To hide himself in order to demand 100% faith. That it's claimed we are created in his image falsifies this. It's our nature to say, "Show me" and "Prove it." The assumption on your part is that God must be real and that we must be unable to measure his interactions; this is irrational. It requires us to ignore a great deal of evidence and accept with no evidence the extraordinary. False as I spelled out above. False. There is a great deal that many people attribute to God and a great deal of rationalizing to explain their belief- For example a building collapses and 150 adults die but an infant survives. A believer in God calls this a "Miracle" and uses it to justify their belief in God, while ignoring all the other cases where the adults survive and the infant dies, everyone dies but the goat survives or no one dies at all. The only assumptions here are those made by believers. False. Believers accept God on a broad range of rationalizations and assumptions that they perceive to be evidence because they want to believe and will use any interpretation of an event to justify that belief. False. What we are composed of and made of is well understood and documented. That many strange and odd claims of supernatural means is shown to be contrived and irrational is also well understood and documented in psychology, social sciences and medicine. Unless you can show demonstrable evidence that not every aspect of humanity is- then I have no reason whatsoever to assume otherwise. True. I've been a believer and that is how it was for me. It was or was not- there was no in between. I have very little basis to compare how others justify a personal faith in Jesus. Possible. But I'd say I've dealt with you enough that it's a safe assumption. Been about two years Jan and you have not changed one itty bit. False. My stance is that belief is based on irrationality and wishful thinking but also based on childhood indoctrination, misconceptions, misconstruing of observation and peer pressure. False. It was hocus pocus and I showed why.
moving the goalposts again?? now you are the one claiming Jesus is God.. (as i have avoided that statement.) I was talking about Jesus the Man.. I also wasn't talking about judism..i was talking about Jesus the Man.. please quit trying to read more into what i say, than what i say.. evidence by association? BTW the key word in your entire statement is "MAY" meaning there is no proof one way or the other..which is my point. just because there is no proof of his existence doesn't mean he didn't exist. lets revisit the poetry book.. page 1: this is the story of JDawg, according to Jdawg. <insert life story here> Page 3: This is the story of JDawg according to his friends. Page 3.5: This is the story of JDawg according to his parents. Page 6: this is the story of JDawg according to the ppl at SciForums. how different would each story be? if you were to find fault with one of the stories would that make all of them bogus? Dismissing the entire book because of one inaccuracy is not very scientific, to prove one thing false only makes that one thing false.. Disclaimer: Keep in mind that i am not claiming your examples as true or false.(not this time anyway,maybe later if you want to address them one at a time, i can give my opinion on it, but it is just that..my opinion.) I am just trying to show a reasonable doubt.
If you were to get into my head, you would be even more confused...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! this works both ways.. IOW it is human nature not a theist/atheist thing. see this is my pet peeve..It isn't about 'proving' one right or one wrong, I believe that just because i am right doesn't necessarily make you wrong, (or vice versa)(emphasis on 'necessarily')(see "what God wants from/for you may not be the same as what he wants from/for me.) any 'proving' is just an attempt at justification. I don't need to justify my beliefs to anyone..I share them here because i like to,(doesn't hurt that i like to argue..)
I think that there is enough reasonable doubt that Jesus did exist. Probably was a zealot that had interesting ideas. He was a fundamentalist in many ways, but a revolutionist for his time. He preached things like personal responsibility, caring and anti-hypocritical thought. So what we can accept, from the only available documentation, is that he was generally a good man. What we cannot, easily or rationally accept, is that he was a Living God, anymore than Hiro Hito was or Osiris was. And keep in mind; there was more than one Jesus. There were several. Another was Jesus Barabbas. Barabbas is Hebrew for "son of God." He also had disciples and roamed the land preaching the word of God.
No, the quote was about YAHWEH, YHWH, Jehovah - this is "God". http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2941865&postcount=75 I'll restrain from pointing out that this is another example of atheists knowing more about the Bible than theists do... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
and my name (Timothy) means "honoring God"..that don't mean anything.. err..maybe that's not a good argument..:bugeye: Neverfly: yes i am aware of multiple Jesus's thanks to Medicine Woman...
Absolutely! And this is, IMO, what wynn is missing. Loneliness has nothing to do with someone's spiritual beliefs. It is simply human nature to feel lonely at times. That is why Theists and Atheists alike are equally susceptible to bouts of depression, loneliness and despair. Just like they are equally likely to feel joy and contentment. Faith offers to theists what science gives to atheists.... comfort in perceived knowledge. Edit: wanted to strike out "perceived knowledge" and change it to something more accurate but I cant think of a better term to describe what I mean. I feel ya.. Many people cannot digest there being a right without there being a wrong, a good without an evil, a heaven without a hell, or a creation without a creator. Too many people exist in a black and white reality. We find comfort in definitions. We find comfort in that which we find familiar. Knowing how to define the world offers familiarity with it. But we don't all choose the same dictionary. Allowing someone else's definition to be right puts us in a position of questioning our own definition. Not knowing if our definition is right causes us to feel discomfort in what may be an unfamiliar place again. So to protect ourselves from scarey consequences of questioning, it is human nature to reject the other definition in favor of what is familiar. I'm starting to creep myself out, digging into parts of my brain I don't usually use, so I will stop there.
I see what you intend to say but... I think the use of the word definitions is very misleading here. It's not a matter of different definitions or different interpretations. It is more like, "how far is a person willing to go to understand the world?" For some, they are not willing to go very far, to study and research. They will accept answers that sound appealing to them, without doing any work to verify those answers. For some, they are willing to accept answers until a better answer comes along- still, no work required. For some, they will only accept answers that appeals to their own wants- how they wish the world to be. For some, only verifiable and testable answers will do. These are the people willing to go the furthest for answers, not just accept whatever comes down the pike.
I was struggling with choosing proper terminology in my last post. I'm still not happy with what I put so far but what you have said has helped me to organize it between my ears a bit better. Now just to figure out how to put my thoughts into words. When I said, choose a dictionary, it was too simplistic I suppose. I think what you are referring to may touch more on what are the motivations for the choice. That falls back on ego. Each of the scenarios you listed give an example of motivation. I think the people who use scientific reasoning have a more developed sense of self, because they do not need emotional validation or justification to accept what they have scientifically determined to be true. I don't mean to say there is not an absolute reality. I do believe there is. But because we have to perceive it with our brains we are susceptible to the desires of human ego asserting its needs (to preserve self) at the expense of accurately perceiving said reality. It is only when we can gain control of that ego that it will allow us to see what is in front of us. This is frustrating for me , I know what I am thinking but am seriously lacking the language skills to accurately present it. I apologize if none of that made any sense. I simply cant think of a more accurate way to say it, while at the same time, I have to admit, that even I don't agree exactly with all that I stated.
This is why the Scientific Method was brought into practice. To remove the ego or desires of an outcome.To disallow the bias. We cannot observe reality directly, so we must build Models of Reality and then work on those models, constantly, to increase their accuracy. These models are called "Theories." The difference between a theory and a Hypothesis is that a Theory is supported by experiments, tests, conclusions and evidence. Many people often misuse the word Theory when they mean hypothesis. Because of this, many religious apologists like to say, "It's all only theory, anyway..." As if to imply scientists do not know anything and it's just a hypothesis. They dismiss it before they examine the evidence that supports the actual Theory. Another thing religious apologists do is they point to scientific theories always changing. As if to say, scientists cannot make up their minds as to what they believe. Actually, Theory must change as we work to increase the models accuracy. It is just another way the religious apologists tries to make a false impression that theory is "faith" or "Belief" when faith and belief are unsupported by evidence and a Theory must be WELL Supported by evidence or it is rejected.
That makes sense. I have been trying to figure out how to explain to myself even, how ego comes into play with science. I couldn't figure it out. You have helped me here... still can't figure out how to put into words what I'm thinkin but you did help in completing the concept in my head.
The conundrum I have right now is how to explain how I came to be atheist. Most atheists I know became atheist because of scientific reasoning. And that's fine. It makes perfect sense. I can see where they come from. But how in terms of psychology do I explain how I became atheist. For me it was not so much scientific reasoning. I guess there was some. But it didn't require knowledge of astrophysics or cosmology. It didn't require advanced knowledge of molecular biology or even evolution. I even bought into the Intelligent design theory for a while. Until I realized just how unintelligent the so called design actually was. But this was all through anecdotal experiences that I came to the conclusion that there is no logical way God can exist. I have had a fascination with psychology all my life. Ok I guess technically, that is science. ... I guess its time for me to give in and stop trying to convince myself I figured it out without science. Damnit i want to be smarter than everybody else. :bawl:
No, we were talking about Yahweh, which is another name for God, the big bad dude from the Bible. See this post, in which you first addressed me. Again, no you weren't. We were talking about Yahweh, God, Jehovah. Perhaps you mistook Yahweh for Jesus? I'm trying to figure out where you got tripped up. What does that even mean? Proof only exists in math, so you're asking for the impossible in either sense. Even if a giant head were to float in space and insist that it was Yahweh, it wouldn't be proof, because there could always be some other explanation. What we're talking about here is evidence. You would naturally expect some differences, but not to the degree we see in the Bible. And certainly everyone would touch upon key points and important events, even if their account of those events wouldn't completely match up. A wedding, for example, or a long stay in the hospital. Yet certain things (in the case of Jesus, as now that seems to be what we're talking about) are entirely omitted by some writers, such as the resurrection of Lazarus, or the virgin birth itself. Two of the gospel writers give such wildly different accounts that they can't both be right. It's the equivalent of my mother telling you I was born in Albany and my father telling you I was born in Kansas City after it rained frogs. Straw man. I don't dismiss the entire book based on one inaccuracy. There are countless contradictions and fictitious accounts in the Bible (did you not just read my point about there being zero archaeological evidence for the Exodus?), as well as clear plagiarisms from earlier sources. In order to accept the book as a historical document would require one to dismiss mounds of evidence against its veracity, and no one in their right mind would do that. You have not managed to do that, unfortunately. The best you could do was say that it wasn't "proof", but as I said, that's not possible. You can only weigh the evidence, and the Bible is a human invention beyond all reasonable doubt.
I probably should have used the word "personal" instead of anecdotal. I had too many thoughts bouncing around in my head and didn't notice that i swapped out words like that. Thanks for pointing it out. I may have broken something earlier trying to think too hard.
You are. Your repartee with Neverfly exudes a kind of distant closeness that belies your misgivings. That may sound a little odd, but I only need to contemplate the traversal of the signal out the port of your computer into his and back and forth, and the nature of that path, there's a kind of irony there, a twist of hidden humor in it, and in humor there's the best of intelligence. This is, of course, is not to demean Neverfly who always has a good game on the board too (in fact I felt like I was just playing in it!) - or anyone else - although some folks are just missing the humor sometimes not seeing the forest for the trees, as it were. I'm not sure if you're on the same page with me here, but if so maybe you can appreciate my drift. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the key phrase is 'Accept as historical document'.. (see below) I wouldn't use the word 'invention', but yes i agree that it was written by humans.. and as such is susceptible to human error.. and that alone should bring reasonable doubt. some links i found.. The bible in history,How writers create a past Is the Bible historicly accurate? Evidence for Jesus from non-christian sources. one of the article i did not link states : ok..fine..if i am gonna quote it i might as well link it.. The bible as history.
Squirrel, I'm going to take a moment to be mean Ol' Neverfly. I suspect that you were hesitant to post that last link... and the one before it may have given you a moment of doubt too. I suspect this is so because you knew that they were questionable sources. One was just some guys blog- an opinion. Now, before you go getting your panties into a wad- hear me out. http://creationmuseum.org/ Link http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/06/28/Why-Did-God-Send-the-Flood.aspx link Bible archeology? Really? I can appreciate you Squirrel because lately, you have demonstrated the ability to separate science from religion. I'm going to push you a little further now... You are well aware that some things in science would be pretty hard to dispute. Let's try an easy one: Radiometric or Carbon dating. This is very basic physics and chemistry. We are well aware of how the half-life works for elements. Time and time and time again, it's been tested independently and verified. These are the kinds of principles at work that give you that computer you are sitting at right now. You may not fully understand how the computer works or all of the components in it. But you are aware of the basics of how it works- that it DOES work. You are aware that the science is sound, not because a book says so or someone claimed it but because you USE it, daily. You test it constantly. It's as certain as the Sun coming up. If these principles, that always test the same were not principles, if they varied, your cell phone GPS would be useless. Your computer would be useless. Maybe even your landline too, believe it or not as they are all pretty much going to VOIP, these days. Let's check a Christian site on C-14 dating: http://carm.org/carbon-dating Only accurate to 4,000 years? It lies. :bugeye: Why is that author doing that? Why is he willing to lie? What might stop him from lying...? Well... if his work was to be peer reviewed and tested independently, he wouldn't be able to lie. But then, he's no scientist, is he? He has an agenda to push and with plenty of suckers available, he can get away with it. It's sad to think people would lie in the name of God- But they do because they believe they are doing God's work- For a Greater Good. They convince themselves. So does this mean every Christian site will lie? Let's try another...: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible Well, this one said 50,000 years. Hmm that's getting closer but why is there such a difference? Is this site more honest? Well, reading over the science presented... It looks fairly accurate. Yes, they committed some things, but it's not the worst I've ever seen. A newspaper journalist would have hacked it up much worse. But something Interesting happens... Let's read...: Ruh Roh! Moving on...: As Christopher Walken would say: WOW! (Two syllables.) This site was a bit more crafty. They knew people could research and verify the scientific aspect. So they presented that in a more accurate form and then encouraged people to ignore the science and accept the bible as perfect, true and literal with no evidence whatsoever! It gets pretty misleading and a little dishonest after that. No, not all are liars. But there are many that actually believe that they are obligated to encourage ignorance, obligated to even lie in order to promote what they believe is the "TRUTH." And since they are not peer reviewed or subject to independent verification the way scientists are: No one is keeping them accountable. Linking to sites that show a high percentage of unreliability isn't the best support you can give. It doesn't mean that site MUST be lying, but it does mean that there is a good chance it is and anything read there must be taken with a whole salt shaker. And it sucks that people are willing to do this. People that supposedly believe in something that is supposed to represent "Good." But it is how it is. Researching: You're on the right track- you looked stuff up. You provided links. Ok so they weren't the best sources. They weren't the worst, either. But whether or not the Bible is literal or accurate- really depends on what the believer wants from it.
