Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[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?

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.

So in your life you ignore probabilities because they are meaningless?

What other people believe is also meaningless? Is it fair to say that what you believe is also meaningless?

[DMC1]

Davaun T Kurcz

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.

Which kind of goes to show that if there really is anything after this, then it doesn't matter whether you believe or not - we will all end up in the same place afterwards anyway.

[luk AJ]

Davaun T Kurcz

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.

Which kind of goes to show that if there really is anything after this, then it doesn't matter whether you believe or not - we will all end up in the same place afterwards anyway.

exactly, but it is interesting to look at the perception. All what we feel, see, hear is built up from within us. Simple example, a bat cannot see blue. So for him blue doesn't exist.

[sirineou]

Davaun T Kurcz

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.

Which kind of goes to show that if there really is anything after this, then it doesn't matter whether you believe or not - we will all end up in the same place afterwards anyway.

exactly, but it is interesting to look at the perception. All what we feel, see, hear is built up from within us. Simple example, a bat cannot see blue. So for him blue doesn't exist.

fortunately we are neither fetuses or bats. we are,well at least some of us are, slightly more developed. For instance there are portions of the spectrum on either end we cant perceive, but no one would insist they do not exist, we do not simply rely on our senses, , in fact we know or should know that our senses are unreliable. So we rely on reason

anything else is simply un-reasonable

[DMC1]

Davaun T Kurcz

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.

Which kind of goes to show that if there really is anything after this, then it doesn't matter whether you believe or not - we will all end up in the same place afterwards anyway.

exactly, but it is interesting to look at the perception. All what we feel, see, hear is built up from within us. Simple example, a bat cannot see blue. So for him blue doesn't exist.

fortunately we are neither fetuses or bats. we are,well at least some of us are, slightly more developed. For instance there are portions of the spectrum on either end we cant perceive, but no one would insist they do not exist, we do not simply rely on our senses, , in fact we know or should know that our senses are unreliable. So we rely on reason

anything else is simply un-reasonable

We rely on reason or some people make up stuff about the bits we can't perceive!

[AYJAYDEE]

So in your life you ignore probabilities because they are meaningless?

What other people believe is also meaningless? Is it fair to say that what you believe is also meaningless?

you havent shown that any of your beliefs are at all probable. and yes, my beliefs that cannot be proven are meaningless to everyone but me.

[luk AJ]

Davaun T Kurcz

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.

Which kind of goes to show that if there really is anything after this, then it doesn't matter whether you believe or not - we will all end up in the same place afterwards anyway.

exactly, but it is interesting to look at the perception. All what we feel, see, hear is built up from within us. Simple example, a bat cannot see blue. So for him blue doesn't exist.

fortunately we are neither fetuses or bats. we are,well at least some of us are, slightly more developed. For instance there are portions of the spectrum on either end we cant perceive, but no one would insist they do not exist, we do not simply rely on our senses, , in fact we know or should know that our senses are unreliable. So we rely on reason

anything else is simply un-reasonable

we need reason but as you know the results of our reasoning still change constantly. Just look at the progress of quantum physics, it seems now that the same electron can be in two places at the same time. We absolutely have no answer on gravity. So yes in a way we are still bats.

[canuckamuck]

So in your life you ignore probabilities because they are meaningless?

What other people believe is also meaningless? Is it fair to say that what you believe is also meaningless?

you havent shown that any of your beliefs are at all probable. and yes, my beliefs that cannot be proven are meaningless to everyone but me.

The thing I detailed, spontaneous life, is so improbable, logic says that the real answer is something more probable.

I believe that.

By the way your thoughts are not meaningless to me. I consider them.

Edited February 14, 2015 by canuckamuck

[AYJAYDEE]

So in your life you ignore probabilities because they are meaningless?

What other people believe is also meaningless? Is it fair to say that what you believe is also meaningless?

you havent shown that any of your beliefs are at all probable. and yes, my beliefs that cannot be proven are meaningless to everyone but me.

The thing I detailed, spontaneous life, is so improbable, logic says that the real answer is something more probable.

I believe that.

By the way your thoughts are not meaningless to me. I consider them.

it may seem probable and logical to you but with no real evidence to support it, its meaningless

[canuckamuck]

So in your life you ignore probabilities because they are meaningless?

What other people believe is also meaningless? Is it fair to say that what you believe is also meaningless?

you havent shown that any of your beliefs are at all probable. and yes, my beliefs that cannot be proven are meaningless to everyone but me.

The thing I detailed, spontaneous life, is so improbable, logic says that the real answer is something more probable.

I believe that.

By the way your thoughts are not meaningless to me. I consider them.

it may seem probable and logical to you but with no real evidence to support it, its meaningless

Well that is hardly fair, you have no evidence of how life began either. At least I don't go for the theory that is quite clearly impossible. Your opinion is completely without merit.

Edited February 14, 2015 by canuckamuck

[notmyself]

The problem with abiogenesis being used to infer a creator is that there is not enough data to make the claim. It is known as the 'god did it' or 'god of the gaps' argument.

[canuckamuck]

The problem with abiogenesis being used to infer a creator is that there is not enough data to make the claim. It is known as the 'god did it' or 'god of the gaps' argument.

So what's your theory?

[notmyself]

The problem with abiogenesis being used to infer a creator is that there is not enough data to make the claim. It is known as the 'god did it' or 'god of the gaps' argument.

So what's your theory?

Don't know, nobody does.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html#.VN8juOasXuQ

http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html

Because of lack of data it could turn out that the emergence of life is common. Hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars for around 13.8 billion years. I could be argued that the odds of life not emerging is astronomical.

Postulating a creator doesn't solve anything at all but just push the question one step back. Who/ what created the creator leads to infinite regress or the assertion that their god has always existed which they cannot possibly know.

Something akin is the supposed fine tuning argument. We only know of one universe so we cannot say it is fine turned at all. Perhaps it is enervatable... don't know.

Edited February 14, 2015 by notmyself

[sirineou]

exactly, but it is interesting to look at the perception. All what we feel, see, hear is built up from within us. Simple example, a bat cannot see blue. So for him blue doesn't exist.

fortunately we are neither fetuses or bats. we are,well at least some of us are, slightly more developed. For instance there are portions of the spectrum on either end we cant perceive, but no one would insist they do not exist, we do not simply rely on our senses, , in fact we know or should know that our senses are unreliable. So we rely on reason

anything else is simply un-reasonable

we need reason but as you know the results of our reasoning still change constantly. Just look at the progress of quantum physics, it seems now that the same electron can be in two places at the same time. We absolutely have no answer on gravity. So yes in a way we are still bats.

Removed quotes to allow reply

If there is anything I hate more than religion, it is the windows operating system, I had just finished writing a reply, so apropos, so inspired, simply divine, that once for all would have settle the God debate, and windows decides it is time to shut down and update, by the time it updates and restarts, I cant remember my reply

Curse you Widows 8.1

anyway, let me take a stab at this and disagree with you.

we are not bats we are Batty

batty

adjective bat·ty \ˈba-tē\

: foolish or silly

as far as I know bats do not subscribe deities and the supernatural to fill in the gaps in their understanding

we on the other hand . or at least some of as, attempt to fill those gaps with all short of misguided supernatural explanations, instead of the more reasonable

that's where reason comes in

Natural explanations that allows as to move forward and eliminate or diminish those gaps

This (religion), IMO has kept humanity centuries back in our development, and might contribute in our demise as a species, because our social development has not kept pace with our technological development.

for example, religious extremists with nukes.or global warming denial etc

so no, IMO we are not bats in a way, we are Batty j

but I understand your analogy,just because we cant see something it does not mean it does not exist, equally though it also does not mean it has supernatural sources.

any way, food for thought

by the way, good thread,so far both sides are good natured,and intellectually honest,

I am sure we will not settle this God debate in this thread,

Darn windows

but maybe we can all learn something, or at the very least use our heads for something more than a place to put a hat on. and get a little mental exercise,

.

Edited February 14, 2015 by sirineou

[sirineou]

The problem with abiogenesis being used to infer a creator is that there is not enough data to make the claim. It is known as the 'god did it' or 'god of the gaps' argument.

So what's your theory?

Don't know, nobody does.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html#.VN8juOasXuQ

http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html

Because of lack of data it could turn out that the emergence of life is common. Hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars for around 13.8 billion years. I could be argued that the odds of life not emerging is astronomical.

Postulating a creator doesn't solve anything at all but just push the question one step back. Who/ what created the creator leads to infinite regress or the assertion that their god has always existed which they cannot possibly know.

Something akin is the supposed fine tuning argument. We only know of one universe so we cannot say it is fine turned at all. Perhaps it is enervatable... don't know.

and there you have it folks

Dont Know

elegant in it's simplicity,

the truth of the matter is, we don't know

There comes a point to where we dont know , perhaps we will never know

I dont know if there is a God, based on the evidence I say there isn't but I dont know,

it did not hurt, the earth did not come to an end, in fact if there is a God, I think she would appreciate intellectual honesty

if she does not, the not much of a God , is she?

you want to believe?

Sure what ever rocks your boat, who knows maybe you are right, but please dont bring your boat to close to mine, because not only do you also rock my boat, but you might capsize it.

ans sadly I am not a very good swimmer

[notmyself]

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.

Which is exactly the position of atheism. Theism is a claim of an intervening god unlike deism which in an un-intervening god. As an atheist I do not believe the claim and that is all it means. It does not mean that I claim that there is no god, or anything else for that matter.

Not directed at you but an example.

I ask someone their job and are informed that they are a plumber. I state that I am not a plumber which would equate to an aplumber. Does that mean I am an accountant? Bar tender? Anything at all other than not being a plumber?

[canuckamuck]

The problem with abiogenesis being used to infer a creator is that there is not enough data to make the claim. It is known as the 'god did it' or 'god of the gaps' argument.

So what's your theory?

Don't know, nobody does.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html#.VN8juOasXuQ

http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html

Because of lack of data it could turn out that the emergence of life is common. Hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars for around 13.8 billion years. I could be argued that the odds of life not emerging is astronomical.

Postulating a creator doesn't solve anything at all but just push the question one step back. Who/ what created the creator leads to infinite regress or the assertion that their god has always existed which they cannot possibly know.

Something akin is the supposed fine tuning argument. We only know of one universe so we cannot say it is fine turned at all. Perhaps it is enervatable... don't know.

Because of lack of data it could turn out that the emergence of life is common. Hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars for around 13.8 billion years. I could be argued that the odds of life not emerging is astronomical.

Many people will agree with this and it is not a ridiculous conclusion, but I must point out that if this was the Christian argument it would be chastised as a faith based position with a "why don't you just grow up and stop believing in fantastic tales of unseen and unprovable entities" and generally a few ad hominen attacks at your intelligence level for good measure.

[notmyself]

Dont Know

elegant in it's simplicity,

the truth of the matter is, we don't know

Which takes us into the field of psychology.....

As a species we prefer an answer over no answer even if that answer makes no sense at all. We would, if effect, rather have a wrong answer than no answer.

[notmyself]

Because of lack of data it could turn out that the emergence of life is common. Hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars for around 13.8 billion years. I could be argued that the odds of life not emerging is astronomical.

Many people will agree with this and it is not a ridiculous conclusion, but I must point out that if this was the Christian argument it would be chastised as a faith based position with a "why don't you just grow up and stop believing in fantastic tales of unseen and unprovable entities" and generally a few ad hominen attacks at your intelligence level for good measure.

To which I would point out it is not a belief but a viable option which, most importantly, is falsifiable anyway. The difference is that I don't claim to know the answer.

[sirineou]

Don't know, nobody does.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet.html#.VN8juOasXuQ

http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html

Because of lack of data it could turn out that the emergence of life is common. Hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars for around 13.8 billion years. I could be argued that the odds of life not emerging is astronomical.

Postulating a creator doesn't solve anything at all but just push the question one step back. Who/ what created the creator leads to infinite regress or the assertion that their god has always existed which they cannot possibly know.

Something akin is the supposed fine tuning argument. We only know of one universe so we cannot say it is fine turned at all. Perhaps it is enervatable... don't know.

Because of lack of data it could turn out that the emergence of life is common. Hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars for around 13.8 billion years. I could be argued that the odds of life not emerging is astronomical.

Many people will agree with this and it is not a ridiculous conclusion, but I must point out that if this was the Christian argument it would be chastised as a faith based position with a "why don't you just grow up and stop believing in fantastic tales of unseen and unprovable entities" and generally a few ad hominen attacks at your intelligence level for good measure.

removed post to allow reply

That's the problem with the word "faith"

it could have more than one meaning , it could mean

faith

[feyth]

Spell Syllables

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing:

faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof:

He had faith that the hypothesis would besubstantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings ofreligion:

the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standardsof merit, etc.:

to be of the same faith with someone concerninghonesty.

5.

a system of religious belief:

the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.

the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person,promise, engagement, etc.:

Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.

the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one'spromise, oath, allegiance, etc.:

He was the only one who proved his faith duringour recent troubles.

So Notmyself has faith in his conclusion, though he has not being to all these planets, the evidence supports his position (faith definition #1)

where some religious people take the opposite view (faith definition #2)

Using the word "Faith" in a debate is well known tactic, and since some the people using it know the difference , is IMO intellectually dishonest.

​So some Christians honestly think that the evidense supports their position (Faith definition #1)

others take a leap of Faith, abandon reason, and subscribe to definition #2 .

​Personally I think it helps if we are all in the same page and are talking about the same thing

edit to include the word "some" in front of Christians

Edited February 14, 2015 by sirineou

[notmyself]

You: order out of chaos

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

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

This is also essentially the same as...

You: the laws of entropy apparently selectively reversed

Me: Read above.

You: Yes indeed read above

This is an frequently used Creationist argument which is often debunked so I went looking for a well presented piece and here it is. Number 9. (should go directly there)

http://youtu.be/SSxgnu3Hww8?t=5m13s

Edited February 14, 2015 by notmyself

[StreetCowboy]

To (s)ay that God does not exist when clearly he exists in the minds of many believers is the most arrant denialism I have ever seen

Edit: typo corrected

Response to 'Like': I think we are drawing opposite conclusions from my statement, Notmyself - or at least using it to support opposite viewpoints

Edited February 14, 2015 by StreetCowboy

[notmyself]

To ay that God does not exist when clearly he exists in the minds of many believers is the most arrant denialism I have ever seen

Also Limbo...

Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

In a long-awaited document, the Churchs International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an unduly restrictive view of salvation.

The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18025/limbo

Given the length of time and child mortality rates during that time, for millions of grieving parents it was totally real. Though never actually part of Catholic dogma it was told in church for centuries causing unimaginable suffering. As I recall, they never even bothered to apologise.

[notmyself]

To (s)ay that God does not exist when clearly he exists in the minds of many believers is the most arrant denialism I have ever seen

Edit: typo corrected

Response to 'Like': I think we are drawing opposite conclusions from my statement, Notmyself - or at least using it to support opposite viewpoints

I figured as you can see by my response.

[StreetCowboy]

I suppose it's a bit like democracy. We have an ideal, and we build structures around that, but at the end of the day, we still have to suffer corrupt egotistical megalomaniacs.

[notmyself]

I suppose it's a bit like democracy. We have an ideal, and we build structures around that, but at the end of the day, we still have to suffer corrupt egotistical megalomaniacs.

I'll go along with that.

The world you WANT to live in or the world you THINK you live in have no bearing on the would you DO live in. You can if you wish attempt to effect changes for sure but it does not go against the previous statement because 'want and 'think' are conceptual.

[notmyself]

That's the problem with the word "faith"

it could have more than one meaning , it could mean

faith

[feyth]

Spell Syllables

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing:

faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof:

He had faith that the hypothesis would besubstantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings ofreligion:

the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standardsof merit, etc.:

to be of the same faith with someone concerninghonesty.

5.

a system of religious belief:

the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.

the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person,promise, engagement, etc.:

Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.[/size]

the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one'spromise, oath, allegiance, etc.:[/size]

He was the only one who proved his faith duringour recent troubles.

So Notmyself has faith in his conclusion, though he has not being to all these planets, the evidence supports his position (faith definition #1)

where some religious people take the opposite view (faith definition #2)

Using the word "Faith" in a debate is well known tactic, and since some the people using it know the difference , is IMO intellectually dishonest.

​So some Christians honestly think that the evidense supports their position (Faith definition #1)

others take a leap of Faith, abandon reason, and subscribe to definition #2 .

​Personally I think it helps if we are all in the same page and are talking about the same thing

edit to include the word "some" in front of Christians

The problem is... I am a person of faith along with I believe it on faith as they are both entirely different. The former is an affirmation of faith which can obviously ONLY be presented or affirmed in the sense of an individual saying it. The latter is actually the issue when a child is told that something is true when it is admittedly ONLY believed to be true by way of faith. When people talk about child abuse and inculcation, it is exactly this that they are talking about.

To say that I believe it on faith but know it to be true is moronic.