Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[ExpatJ]

I was a was a non believer before I had kids. Now I have kids I am on the way to becoming Christian because I want to think that when I die and later my kids, that we will be reunited in heaven . That's something worth believing in.

AKA wish fulfillment or the belief in something for the purpose that it may dry your eyes rather than because it is true or correct.

Exactly. So it's a win win proposition - while I'm alive it works- even if wish fulfilment, the eyes are dry as you say -when I'm dead I'll either be in heaven or no where.

Win win- you would be a fool to not believe :-) (in fact it would be illogical not to believe in these circumstances)

Edited February 11, 2015 by ExpatJ

[notmyself]

There is no creator.

Sounds like an opinion and one that you can not prove.

Obviously have to go with you on this. Both '1' and '7' on the Dawkins scale are equally irrational.

[notmyself]

I was a was a non believer before I had kids. Now I have kids I am on the way to becoming Christian because I want to think that when I die and later my kids, that we will be reunited in heaven . That's something worth believing in.

AKA wish fulfillment or the belief in something for the purpose that it may dry your eyes rather than because it is true or correct.

Exactly. So it's a win win proposition - while I'm alive it works- even if wish fulfilment, the eyes are dry as you say -when I'm dead I'll either be in heaven or no where.

Win win- you would be a fool to not believe :-) (in fact it would be illogical not to believe in these circumstances)

Pascal's wager.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

How do you know you have chosen the correct god?

[ExpatJ]

I was a was a non believer before I had kids. Now I have kids I am on the way to becoming Christian because I want to think that when I die and later my kids, that we will be reunited in heaven . That's something worth believing in.

AKA wish fulfillment or the belief in something for the purpose that it may dry your eyes rather than because it is true or correct.

Exactly. So it's a win win proposition - while I'm alive it works- even if wish fulfilment, the eyes are dry as you say -when I'm dead I'll either be in heaven or no where.

Win win- you would be a fool to not believe :-) (in fact it would be illogical not to believe in these circumstances)

Pascal's wager.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

How do you know you have chosen the correct god?

Regardless of pascal's wager. It's still illogical not to believe in the circs.

[notmyself]

Regardless of pascal's wager. It's still illogical not to believe in the circs.

Why regardless?

[ExpatJ]

Regardless of pascal's wager. It's still illogical not to believe in the circs.

Why regardless?

My original point is still valid:)

[notmyself]

Regardless of pascal's wager. It's still illogical not to believe in the circs.

Why regardless?

My original point is still valid:)

What you propose IS Pascal's wager which has been totally debunked yet it is still valid?

In any case, how are you 'becoming' a Christian?

[ExpatJ]

Regardless of pascal's wager. It's still illogical not to believe in the circs.

Why regardless?

My original point is still valid:)

What you propose IS Pascal's wager which has been totally debunked yet it is still valid?

In any case, how are you 'becoming' a Christian?

You yourself believe in Wish fulfilment right? You posted about it.

So u wish to believe in heaven and it makes you happy in your life time knowing you'll end up in heaven . So why not believe and be happier than otherwise? It's the logical thing to do assuming you want to be happier than otherwise.

?

[notmyself]

So u wish to believe in heaven and it makes you happy in your life time knowing you'll end up in heaven . So why not believe and be happier than otherwise? It's the logical thing to do assuming you want to be happier than otherwise.

?

Heroin use is known to make people happy so you CANNOT object to that.

Anyway, you have yet to say why you picked Christianity over 1000s of others.

[ExpatJ]

So u wish to believe in heaven and it makes you happy in your life time knowing you'll end up in heaven . So why not believe and be happier than otherwise? It's the logical thing to do assuming you want to be happier than otherwise.

?

Heroin use is known to make people happy so you CANNOT object to that.

Anyway, you have yet to say why you picked Christianity over 1000s of others.

Heroin kills you believing in heaven does not (but I think you know that's a lame response on your side . Even at 1000-1 chance still more logical that not believing-logically speaking.

[AYJAYDEE]

If they have no powers of creation, salvation or judgment, then they are 'supernatural' in concept only. And I repeat, most (Western as it happens) Buddhists I know are concentrating on more important areas of Buddhist teachings, and have no belief in deities whether of the omnipotent omniscient variety, or the rather irrelevant supernatural beings in Buddhist mythology.

your western buddhist friends are a miniscule miniority.

Secular Buddhists are quite numerous, but quite naturally in developing countries such as Thailand with relatively low standards of education and exposure to outside ideas, superstitions persist more doggedly. Even certain high profile public figures allegedly belief in black magic.

I am not sure why you are picking an argument though, I am a pretty hard atheist myself, thought that was very clear.

plenty of folks with more education than your pals believe the tripitaka

[AYJAYDEE]

where are the evidence that there is a creator? Remember we are not the ones making the claims, you guys are.

we don't need to produce anything

It is like you telling me , there is a monster under my bed. All I need say is, "no there s not", it is up to you to convince me that there is.

As Others have said, you can not prove a negative, I cant prove to you that there is no monster under my bed, If I said to you, l Looked and there isn't one, all you need to say is, sure there is , you just cant see it, it is invisible!

Come to think of it,this is exactly what you guys say about your God.

He is invisible,but he needs money, lots and lots of money, Pope needs a new bulletproof Pope-mobile to protect him from people who want to kill him.

Well, wait a second, You guys have a creator who is intimately involved in you lives, , who can stop the Sun from revolving around the Earth , so that the Israelites can smite their enemies, But he cant keep his top guy safe?

End of rant .

too much goodness to wrap your heart around.

ditto

are you changing my posts? I dont remember saying that.

[notmyself]

So u wish to believe in heaven and it makes you happy in your life time knowing you'll end up in heaven . So why not believe and be happier than otherwise? It's the logical thing to do assuming you want to be happier than otherwise.

?

Heroin use is known to make people happy so you CANNOT object to that.

Anyway, you have yet to say why you picked Christianity over 1000s of others.

Heroin kills you believing in heaven does not (but I think you know that's a lame response on your side . Even at 1000-1 chance still more logical that not believing-logically speaking.

Granted. Do you believe in unicorns and if not, why?

[notmyself]

There a quite a lot of things that suggest creation, order out of chaos, the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed. The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life, something instead of nothing.

Where is your evidence that suggests no creator?

None of which suggest a creator so you attempt to shift the burden of proof. However lets address each point...

order out of chaos

Meaningless. Do you know the difference between a closed and open system? No..

the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed

Read above.

The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life

An appeal to credulity and numbers which are both a logical fallacy.

 something instead of nothing

Appeal to ignorance. Edited February 12, 2015 by notmyself

[ExpatJ]

So u wish to believe in heaven and it makes you happy in your life time knowing you'll end up in heaven . So why not believe and be happier than otherwise? It's the logical thing to do assuming you want to be happier than otherwise.

?

Heroin use is known to make people happy so you CANNOT object to that.

Anyway, you have yet to say why you picked Christianity over 1000s of others.

Heroin kills you believing in heaven does not (but I think you know that's a lame response on your side . Even at 1000-1 chance still more logical that not believing-logically speaking.

Granted. Do you believe in unicorns and if not, why?

If you believe in wish fulfilment, as you do, then it would be logical to believe in unicorns if it makes you happier than otherwise. Correct?

[canuckamuck]

There a quite a lot of things that suggest creation, order out of chaos, the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed. The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life, something instead of nothing.

Where is your evidence that suggests no creator?

None of which suggest a creator so you attempt to shift the burden of proof. However lets address each point...

order out of chaos

Meaningless. Do you know the difference between a closed and open system? No..

the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed

Read above.

The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life

An appeal to credulity and numbers which are both a logical fallacy.

 something instead of nothing

Appeal to ignorance.

Are you aware of the volumes of study by great thinkers for centuries over these very things. Atheists and theists have both explored these facts of our existence and gone to great lengths to understand them. You could have saved them a lot of time. You are obviously more clever than all of them.

[notmyself]

There a quite a lot of things that suggest creation, order out of chaos, the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed. The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life, something instead of nothing.

Where is your evidence that suggests no creator?

None of which suggest a creator so you attempt to shift the burden of proof. However lets address each point...

order out of chaos

Meaningless. Do you know the difference between a closed and open system? No..

the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed

Read above.

The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life

An appeal to credulity and numbers which are both a logical fallacy.

 something instead of nothing

Appeal to ignorance.

Are you aware of the volumes of study by great thinkers for centuries over these very things. Atheists and theists have both explored these facts of our existence and gone to great lengths to understand them. You could have saved them a lot of time. You are obviously more clever than all of them.

Erm. I'm quoting them.

[canuckamuck]

Without links or credits, you're not.

Edited February 12, 2015 by canuckamuck

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Are you aware of the volumes of study by great thinkers for centuries over these very things. Atheists and theists have both explored these facts of our existence and gone to great lengths to understand them. You could have saved them a lot of time. You are obviously more clever than all of them.

Who are these great thinkers?

And why do you think they are more clever than many other modern people?

Quite a lot of them believed the world was flat or the sun circled around the earth.

So they weren't all that great at thinking.

Edited February 12, 2015 by AnotherOneAmerican

[notmyself]

If you believe in wish fulfilment, as you do, then it would be logical to believe in unicorns if it makes you happier than otherwise. Correct?

You don't have to 'believe' in wish fulfillment any more than you have to 'believe' in gravity. I do see your point though.

It depends whether you care if your beliefs are true. We all have beliefs and I happen to care if they are true or not.

[notmyself]

Without links or credits, you're not.

If I state 1+1=2 do I need to credit it? If not, why not.

[canuckamuck]

Without links or credits, you're not.

If I state 1+1=2 do I need to credit it? If not, why not.

You are the one who claimed to be quoting someone. I am sure you will do a google search now and decide who it was.

[sirineou]

Without links or credits, you're not.

If I state 1+1=2 do I need to credit it? If not, why not.

You are the one who claimed to be quoting someone. I am sure you will do a google search now and decide who it was.

I hate to disagree with you, a fine specimen that you are , We do agree in many other things but in this one I think you are wrong.

The counter-arguments Notmyself mentioned are not Notmyself's original thought, are well well accepted counter-arguments and used in the debate we are engaged in by scholars in the subject for century's. As far as I know these counter-arguments have not as of yet , being debunked. To quote one of many that have used these counter argument , would invite, debate over the credibility of the individual quoted, and distract from the debate of the issues. For instance , to say that Mr X successfully used this counter-argument in his Oxford debate with Mr YZ would in my opinion cause as to debate Mr X's credibility rather than the counter argument used by Notmyself and many others.

Sony for the convoluted explanation, I hope I made sense

[sirineou]

Are you aware of the volumes of study by great thinkers for centuries over these very things. Atheists and theists have both explored these facts of our existence and gone to great lengths to understand them. You could have saved them a lot of time. You are obviously more clever than all of them.

Who are these great thinkers?

And why do you think they are more clever than many other modern people?

Quite a lot of them believed the world was flat or the sun circled around the earth.

So they weren't all that great at thinking.

Canuckamuck IMO is not wrong to conciser these people as great thinkers, the fact that they believed the earth was flat does not detract from their intellect, they had limited and faulty information, and because of it, thy came to faulty concussions, they were basing their conclusions on the best available information at the time.

as we are basing our conclusions in the best available information now.

That's all they had, and that's all we have

They were wrong, but it is also conceivable that the info we have now is also faulty at some level. and we can be just as wrong

IMO that should be our starting point.

Based on the available evidence, today, I dont think there is a God, that's not to say that there could not be additional; evidence available in the future that will change my mind, and when I do, I will say, Hey look at that, I was wrong, but it was not my fault, it was God's fault for providing my with faulty evidence.

And I cant be excluded from heaven because of Gods fault, in fact my argument with God would be, that he should be excluded from heaven, he was the one who was deceitful, not me.

He gives my a mind, and then punishes me for having one? something wrong with the dude IMO

End of Rant, God help me

Edited February 13, 2015 by sirineou

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Are you aware of the volumes of study by great thinkers for centuries over these very things. Atheists and theists have both explored these facts of our existence and gone to great lengths to understand them. You could have saved them a lot of time. You are obviously more clever than all of them.

Who are these great thinkers?

And why do you think they are more clever than many other modern people?

Quite a lot of them believed the world was flat or the sun circled around the earth.

So they weren't all that great at thinking.

Canuckamuck IMO is not wrong to conciser these people as great thinkers, the fact that they believed the earth was flat does not detract from their intellect, they had limited and faulty information, and because of it, thy came to faulty concussions, they were basing their conclusions on the best available information at the time.

as we are basing our conclusions in the best available information now.

Primitive people have primitive thoughts and beliefs, everything they think is wrong, all their discussions and musings are woefully primitive.

Most of the time their rubbish was recorded because of their family connections rather than any other consideration.

[sirineou]

Are you aware of the volumes of study by great thinkers for centuries over these very things. Atheists and theists have both explored these facts of our existence and gone to great lengths to understand them. You could have saved them a lot of time. You are obviously more clever than all of them.

Who are these great thinkers?

And why do you think they are more clever than many other modern people?

Quite a lot of them believed the world was flat or the sun circled around the earth.

So they weren't all that great at thinking.

Canuckamuck IMO is not wrong to conciser these people as great thinkers, the fact that they believed the earth was flat does not detract from their intellect, they had limited and faulty information, and because of it, thy came to faulty concussions, they were basing their conclusions on the best available information at the time.

as we are basing our conclusions in the best available information now.

Primitive people have primitive thoughts and beliefs, everything they think is wrong, all their discussions and musings are woefully primitive.

Most of the time their rubbish was recorded because of their family connections rather than any other consideration.

The are only primitive to as, as we will be primitive to future generations. to each other they were contemporary

[canuckamuck]

I feel I am being pushed into defending an argument I was not making. If you go back into the thread there was a post that suggested that there was nothing out there to suggest the existence of a creator. I then provided a few items that (to many people) suggests there is indeed a creator.

But with Notmyself's response things got convoluted as he put up a string of standard dismissals against the items; as to why people find them unconvincing. But it was not my intention to prove the existence of a creator with my list. I was simply showing the well known things that suggest a creator. If I was to attempt to prove there is a creator I most certainly would have needed to put more work into it - considering it is something that has never been done before.

[canuckamuck]

And now that I have explained myself in the previous post, I would like to have a shot at this list of standard atheist dismissals of things that may be evidence of a Creator. My points in blue

There a quite a lot of things that suggest creation, order out of chaos, the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed. The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life, something instead of nothing.
Where is your evidence that suggests no creator?

None of which suggest a creator so you attempt to shift the burden of proof. However lets address each point...

But they do suggest a creator to some people, just not to you. When experts look at a high quality counterfeit painting. Some will see things that suggest it is a fake, and others may not agree. This is not mathematics, there are only human's best efforts with limited intelligence and experience.

order out of chaos

Meaningless. Do you know the difference between a closed and open system? No..

Certainly I understand some definitions of open and closed systems. I can not read your mind however, perhaps more than a sentence is needed?

the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversedRead above. Yes indeed read above

The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life

An appeal to credulity and numbers which are both a logical fallacy.

The odds against the sudden appearance of amino acids in a non organic environment are astronomical. Now considering that there would need to be several types of amino acids that would need to line up in a precise complex chemical chain to produce even the simplest of proteins is magnitudes of degrees more improbable.

To then get sufficient quantities of multiple types of the correct proteins (required to make a single cell) together in the same location and under the precise (completely unknown to science) conditions for those proteins to both begin a life form, and simultaneously encode itself (spontaneous DNA) with the capability to do it again, Is again more magnitudes of improbability. And then that cell must exist in the environment that will not only not kill that cell, but the cell must also change (become more complex). But the mutations required for that cell to change into another thing (an advantageous thing) would require multiple advantageous mutations. Observations show us that mutations in nature are almost always disadvantageous. So once again, the improbability factor increases beyond comprehension.

This is why the odds against the random occurrence of life suggest an alternate ,more likely, genesis.

something instead of nothing

Appeal to ignorance.

Why?

Edited February 13, 2015 by canuckamuck

[luk AJ]

No need to argue, there is no God and there is no heaven. When my life ends and it turns out I was wrong I will consider this as a bonus.

[AYJAYDEE]

And now that I have explained myself in the previous post, I would like to have a shot at this list of standard atheist dismissals of things that may be evidence of a Creator. My points in blue

There a quite a lot of things that suggest creation, order out of chaos, the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed. The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life, something instead of nothing.

Where is your evidence that suggests no creator?

None of which suggest a creator so you attempt to shift the burden of proof. However lets address each point...

But they do suggest a creator to some people, just not to you. When experts look at a high quality counterfeit painting. Some will see things that suggest it is a fake, and others may not agree. This is not mathematics, there are only human's best efforts with limited intelligence and experience.

order out of chaos

Meaningless. Do you know the difference between a closed and open system? No..

Certainly I understand some definitions of open and closed systems. I can not read your mind however, perhaps more than a sentence is needed?

the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversedRead above. Yes indeed read above

The unbelievable odds against the occurrence of life

An appeal to credulity and numbers which are both a logical fallacy.

The odds against the sudden appearance of amino acids in a non organic environment are astronomical. Now considering that there would need to be several types of amino acids that would need to line up in a precise complex chemical chain to produce even the simplest of proteins is magnitudes of degrees more improbable.

To then get sufficient quantities of multiple types of the correct proteins (required to make a single cell) together in the same location and under the precise (completely unknown to science) conditions for those proteins to both begin a life form, and simultaneously encode itself (spontaneous DNA) with the capability to do it again, Is again more magnitudes of improbability. And then that cell must exist in the environment that will not only not kill that cell, but the cell must also change (become more complex). But the mutations required for that cell to change into another thing (an advantageous thing) would require multiple advantageous mutations. Observations show us that mutations in nature are almost always disadvantageous. So once again, the improbability factor increases beyond comprehension.

This is why the odds against the random occurrence of life suggest an alternate ,more likely, genesis.

something instead of nothing

Appeal to ignorance.

Why?

nonsense. just because you claim the odds are better means absolutely nothing. and likewise, if something suggests a creator to SOME people also means absolutely nothing. your so called evidence is meaningless.