[quote]forlife wrote:
Swole gets it, but you are the self-proclaimed expert on my life. [/quote]
(Yawn) Yes he gets it because he does not acknowledge a God JUST LIKE YOU. WOW what a coincidence. LOL stop it you’re embarrassing yourself.
If I recall correctly you are the one all over the board with your endless pontificating. “Bla bla science says…bla bla the odds of there being a God…bla bla”. Constantly sticking your face in every spiritual thread on the forum. Trying (and failing) to belittle people for their religious views. Why? Because YOU KNOW BETTER!
You are the epitome of someone who thinks he knows everything. And quite frankly it makes for a great time around here so keep it up
[/quote]
people don’t believe in a God because he is “real”, but because he is God.
then and only then, he is real because he is God.
your limited definition of “reality” make you ask wrong questions, and prevent you to understand the answers.
[/quote]
You’re right, it doesn’t satisfy me
Either god is an actual supernatural being, or he/she/it is fictional. A fictional idea can still motivate, inspire, and direct people who claim it is real rather than fictional, but this is a dangerous path. I don’t believe it is desirable or necessary for people to lie to themselves in order to contribute to the welfare of mankind. To the contrary, lies obfuscate and sometimes directly interfere with that mission.
This is where actual facts become important, and where faith falls short.
Either a person’s god actually created the universe or he didn’t.
Either their god actually watches over and protects believers or he doesn’t.
Either their god will judge and bless/condemn men, or he won’t.
Either our identities continue after death, or they don’t.
All of these are questions of FACT that don’t depend in the slightest on faith. The universe doesn’t care what people believe; either these things are real, or they are stories people tell themselves to feel better about their lives. And without evidence, claiming these things are true based on faith alone means absolutely nothing.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
There is a correlation between ice cream consumption and drowning. Does that mean that ice cream consumption is related to drowning?
Young males tend to be less happy than young female and older males tend to be happier than older females. Is it because of the age difference, or the different times the different age groups lived in, or what? That statistic in and of itself does not lead to any conclusions as to why that is. Same as the statistic you posted.[/quote]
Ha ha I never said it did. Are you protesting too much? Me thinks so.
LOL you’re a riot kid — you’ve attacked the message and now the messenger. Good boy scooter (ruffles hair) now on your way.
[/quote]
Don’t take it personally, Fletch. Zeb’s clown act revolves around attacking the messenger, then accusing people of doing the same. He does this by calling people young and immature, or by attacking their character and intent. I’ve seen it over and over again for the past 5 years.
Take some consolation in knowing that at least you are wise enough to recognize how little you actually know. Zeb hasn’t reached that point yet, and by all indications he never will.
Take some consolation in knowing that at least you are wise enough to recognize how little you actually know. Zeb hasn’t reached that point yet, and by all indications he never will. [/quote]
Look in the mirror you’ve just described yourself. You go from spiritual thread to spiritual thread denouncing the existence of God…as if YOU know! You are as lost and pathetic today as the first day you wondered on to the forum bragging about being gay.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, ok, Forlife, just to play devils advocate.
First, what does it actually matter what the truth of the matter is or not?
Secondly, can you claim there is nothing you believe in that you can’t provide proof for? I certainly believe in human rights, but I cant say I can prove they exist.
Third, can you conclusively say that there is or is not a God? Not which side you think, but can you offer proof or reasonable argument that either God exists or God doesnt exist? Maybe its a bit of a Schrodinger’s God, where it (he/she) both does exist and doesnt exist, or exists only subjectively?[/quote]
I answered this in another post this morning; let me know if you want more detail.
Human rights aren’t factual statements about the objective universe. They are outside the scope of science, because they make no testable assertions. However, claiming that there is a supernatural being who created the universe, or that our identities continue to exist after death, places the assertions within the scope of science. Either these claims are true, or they are not true. Either they are facts, or they are fiction.
It’s scientifically impossible to prove a negative. Nobody can say with absolute certainty that gods don’t exist. At best, we can make a probability statement based on what we currently know. And we do know that the existence of gods is unnecessary to explain the nature of the universe. There are other hypotheses with equal or better probability of being true.
[quote]forlife wrote:
you refuse to acknowledge that all these other people are getting revelations?[/quote]
Didn’t realize you believed in revelations.[/quote]
I don’t. Just pointing out the inconsistency of insisting that your revelations are from an actual supernatural being, but that the contradictory revelations of others are from their subconscious psyches. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to acknowledge your own subconscious desires, and I don’t judge you for that. As I’ve said many times, I’ve been there myself as a believing Christian who had many deeply poignant experiences that at the time, I interpreted as having a divine source.
[quote]forlife wrote:
you refuse to acknowledge that all these other people are getting revelations?[/quote]
Didn’t realize you believed in revelations.[/quote]
I don’t. [/quote]
Then why are you, by asking the question, implying others have had unmistikeable private revelation? And why, because you admitted yours was never authentic, does eveyone else’s have to be false?
[quote]florelius wrote:
<<< Still the most scientific claim we can make is this: We cant say if God exist or not, becuase there are no evidence to exam to prove or disprove his existence. agnostisism is the most scientific way to go.
[/quote]This is great!!! Keep em comin guys.
[/quote]
Sorry Florelius, but agnosticism is the opposite of the most scientific way to go. Agnosticism depends on the fundamental assumption that the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproved. Science is about things that can be proven or disproved. This is why most non-believing scientists consider themselves atheists.
Perhaps, it would help to understand that the label atheist means; “without god.” It does not mean “anti god” or “there’s no such thing as god.” Those who consider themselves atheists are making the assertion that they do not need a god and that they are not convinced of the existence of such a thing. [/quote]
I agree with Florelius. Agnostic means literally “without knowledge”’ and science is the first to admit when we don’t have knowledge of a particular hypothesis. I think your definition of not being convinced of the existence of a god falls into my definition of agnosticism. I see atheism as insisting that there are no gods, while agnosticism says there may or may not be gods, but at present we see no evidence for them.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Swole gets it, but you are the self-proclaimed expert on my life. [/quote]
(Yawn) Yes he gets it because he does not acknowledge a God JUST LIKE YOU. WOW what a coincidence. LOL stop it you’re embarrassing yourself.
If I recall correctly you are the one all over the board with your endless pontificating. “Bla bla science says…bla bla the odds of there being a God…bla bla”. Constantly sticking your face in every spiritual thread on the forum. Trying (and failing) to belittle people for their religious views. Why? Because YOU KNOW BETTER!
You are the epitome of someone who thinks he knows everything. And quite frankly it makes for a great time around here so keep it up
[/quote]
Step right up, folks!
Zeb lectures Swole on not understanding my reasons for believing what I do.
Zeb insists that he knows my reasons better than Swole does, because he’s been on the board longer.
But wait!
Zeb then insists that he knows my reasons better than I do myself. The only reason Swole and I agree on my reasons for believing what I do is because we are both heathens. Zeb knows all, because he believes in a god that knows all.
Conclusion: Zeb is the expert on everything, and everyone that disagrees with him is wrong, even when it come to their personal lives.
You’ve made the same error on this thread as you have in past threads. On past threads you told me it was impossible for you to remain a heterosexual. I then pointed out study after study loaded with personal experiences which prove that reparative therapy has worked for many people. Remember what you said? someting on the order that your personal experience has showed you that it was impossible. And that every other person who did claim conversion was a LIAR!
It looks like you’re doing the same thing regarding faith on this thread - If your personal experience doesn’t prove to you (emotionally) that there is a God, then in your opinion there is no God. What a classic case of projection.
You’re a walking case study of someone who sees the world through blinders and a very narrow mind.
[quote]florelius wrote:
<<< Still the most scientific claim we can make is this: We cant say if God exist or not, becuase there are no evidence to exam to prove or disprove his existence. agnostisism is the most scientific way to go.
[/quote]This is great!!! Keep em comin guys.
[/quote]
Sorry Florelius, but agnosticism is the opposite of the most scientific way to go. Agnosticism depends on the fundamental assumption that the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproved. Science is about things that can be proven or disproved. This is why most non-believing scientists consider themselves atheists.
Perhaps, it would help to understand that the label atheist means; “without god.” It does not mean “anti god” or “there’s no such thing as god.” Those who consider themselves atheists are making the assertion that they do not need a god and that they are not convinced of the existence of such a thing. [/quote]
Maybe I am wrong about what atheist and agnostic means. I thougt an atheist where someone who claimed to know that god did not exist and that an agnostic claimed to not know, therefor not making any claim about his existence at all.
The reason I claimed that an agnostic approach where most scientific are not based on an assumption that there will never be any evidence that will disprove or prove his existence, but that up to date there are no evidence to exam an therefor it is best to claim that we dont know if god exist or not. Do you disagree with this?[/quote]
[/quote]
Heh, good definitions…accordingly I guess I’m an Agnostic-Atheist.
i have no proof he is an actual being.
for all we know, he could be a bot. a well writen script specifically designed to post each time it detects a liberal and/or godless opinion.
this could explain some of its strange and random behaviors.
eg the developers may have put to much weight on the words “kid” in the code of its personnal attacks generator.
Take some consolation in knowing that at least you are wise enough to recognize how little you actually know. Zeb hasn’t reached that point yet, and by all indications he never will. [/quote]
Look in the mirror you’ve just described yourself. You go from spiritual thread to spiritual thread denouncing the existence of God…as if YOU know! You are as lost and pathetic today as the first day you wondered on to the forum bragging about being gay.
Go away man.
[/quote]
I’ve never denounced the existence of a god. I’ve denounced believing in gods for which there is no evidence.
You’re the one insisting that you know the truth, and everyone else is a fool because they don’t share your belief, despite having no evidence for that belief.
Maybe some day you’ll have Fletch’s wisdom to recognize how little we actually know. Until then, you might want to tone down trumpeting your own horn, based on being so much older and “wiser” than him.
Take some consolation in knowing that at least you are wise enough to recognize how little you actually know. Zeb hasn’t reached that point yet, and by all indications he never will. [/quote]
Look in the mirror you’ve just described yourself. You go from spiritual thread to spiritual thread denouncing the existence of God…as if YOU know! You are as lost and pathetic today as the first day you wondered on to the forum bragging about being gay.
Go away man.
[/quote]
I’ve never denounced the existence of a god. I’ve denounced believing in gods for which there is no evidence.
You’re the one insisting that you know the truth, and everyone else is a fool because they don’t share your belief, despite having no evidence for that belief.
Maybe some day you’ll have Fletch’s wisdom to recognize how little we actually know. Until then, you might want to tone down trumpeting your own horn, based on being so much older and “wiser” than him.[/quote]
You don’t get it forlife. You are the one who is trumpeting your own experience as being relevant to others. As I explained in the above post. If YOU don’t have the experience then YOU chastise others for actually having that experience. In other words if it didn’t happen to you then it cannot happen to anyone else. If that is not a good definition for narrow mindedness I don’t know what is.
[quote]forlife wrote:
you refuse to acknowledge that all these other people are getting revelations?[/quote]
Didn’t realize you believed in revelations.[/quote]
I don’t. [/quote]
Then why are you, by asking the question, implying others have had unmistikeable private revelation? And why, because you admitted yours was never authentic, does eveyone else’s have to be false?[/quote]
I’m not implying others have had unmistakeable private revelation.
I’m pointing out that ALL so-called revelations are suspect, and should be held to the same logical scrutiny.
They are as sincere as you.
They are as convinced as you that god has spoken to them.
They are as willing as you to align their lives to their revelations.
Yet, their conclusions are contradictory to yours.
Clearly, these revelations are coming from within, rather than from a divine source…and if that is true for them, how do you know it isn’t also true for you?
What is so different about your particular revelations that makes them valid, and proves others with contradictory revelations are misled? How do you know you aren’t misled yourself?
