God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[Dawkinsrocks]

Unfortunately religion has made a lot of people very dead

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm sorry if my first example was misleading.

I'm glad we agree on something and I respect the fact that you are a person of faith. The bad thing about these religion based debates is it often pits well intentioned people against each other both just calling 'em like they 'em.

I want everyone to find in life whatever makes them content, happy and at peace.

I too want people to find what makes them happy, etc. I think that truth will lead to that end better than falseness. And I believe that Christianity is truth.

I spend hardly any time finding fault (real or imagined) in anyone else's religious ideas unlike some people we both know. Instead I just point out the errors in specific statements here. I do point out errors in the thinking of atheists or Christians or Mormons or whoever happens to be typing. I ignore some of the errors of all those people too at times.

I firmly believe that a person who refines his thinking enough as iron sharpens iron will arrive at a better and better position. This is why I don't spend time trying to convince you to change from agnosticism to Christianity but instead just point out when you cross over the line from agnosticism to direct statements about the falsity of a thing that cannot be disproven.

 

[Dr.Who]

Unfortunately religion has made a lot of people very dead

If that made any difference at all in determining if it were true or false then atheism should scare us all much more. But alas the positives of religion tend to be suppressed by some and the black spots magnified way out of proportion.

We are curious though, which priest abused you?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

No that was to indicate that religion is not benign

It is obviously not true.

Here's another, it is a method for the corrupt to control the stupid.

Which one are you?

BTW are you schizophrenic?

 

[top gun]

I too want people to find what makes them happy, etc. I think that truth will lead to that end better than falseness. And I believe that Christianity is truth.

I spend hardly any time finding fault (real or imagined) in anyone else's religious ideas unlike some people we both know. Instead I just point out the errors in specific statements here. I do point out errors in the thinking of atheists or Christians or Mormons or whoever happens to be typing. I ignore some of the errors of all those people too at times.

I firmly believe that a person who refines his thinking enough as iron sharpens iron will arrive at a better and better position. This is why I don't spend time trying to convince you to change from agnosticism to Christianity but instead just point out when you cross over the line from agnosticism to direct statements about the falsity of a thing that cannot be disproven.

Everything you've said above is why even if we disagree I can still respect you on this issue.

My little old 86 year old Aunt is the most God faring honest Christian I know. Goes to Church every Sunday and participates in countless church & charity events even at her age.

In all my 51 years I've never seen her proselytize or try to convert somebody. When at her home we say a little prayer before a meal and the rest she does by leading by example.

I like things that way... and I like thinking everyone can find their own path without condemnation.

 

[bododie]

By any standards of responsibility that makes god responsible for what lucipher became

. But that doesn't make Him responsible for what individual humans become. Any person who hates Americans, hates Christians, apparently loves Muslims and rapists because he never has anything bad to say about them, is result of being a weak, hate filled human, who wants to blame other humans who believe in God for his own plight. One word: Mommy, maybe Daddy if anyone knows who he was.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Erm that sounds reasonable and well thought through.

The fact is that if god exists as per the bible then he made everything including the devil.

What a thing to do.

Can you imagine that? Making something as nasty as the devil and allowing him to go round with a trident in a red fancy dress costume with a little goatee beard seducing people into spending eternity being burned.

I mean, have you ever even touched an iron? It really hurts.

And god made someone who is going to do that all over your body for ever!!!

God is pure and ultimate evil.

 

[Dr.Who]

No that was to indicate that religion is not benign

Pretty much nothing that people do is completely benign. When men take the revelation of God and build a religion upon it there is no surprise that they will both make mistakes and commit sins.

It is obviously not true.

Since all of it can't be disproven then it is illogical to say that it is obviously not true.

Here's another, it is a method for the corrupt to control the stupid.

NO doubt that there are corrupt people who use religion and many other institutions do control the stupid. Would you do away with all institutions? Of course not.

Which one are you?

I would be corrupt. But as near as I can tell I am less corrupt than you.

BTW are you schizophrenic?

NO one has suggested it yet. And as a former shrink I have enough experience with schizophrenics to be pretty sure that I am not one.

Now it is your turn.

What experience in your life has personally caused you so much outright hostility toward religion? I have doubt that anyone could develop the kind of hostility that I see coming from you without having had some negative personal experience.

 

[numinus]

How you handle things is of no concern of mine.

Quite right. And I intend to say that a stupid idea is indeed, stupid.

Duh?

Nope... just plain old fashion regular logic looking for enough information to base a conclusion. You can "assert" anything you like... assertions are not truths nor fact. Your whole case is based on the supernatural. I'm fine with you saying you believe in the supernatural be it voodoo, witchcraft, fairies or anything else.

Regular logic??? There are various forms of logic, fyi, none of which is anything similar to your 'agnostic' nonsense. I'm not even sure if it is at all fair to call your nonsense agnosticism.

Duh?

I could say it all started with an entire race of aliens that are just too mentally & scientifically advanced and too far out of our reach for us to begin to understand how they bend time and space.

We already know how time and space curves. You are free to ask aliens for help regarding that, if you wish.

Duh?

You couldn't "prove" that wasn't true anymore than you can "prove" your own story is true.

I'm quite sure alien 'genesis' has already been discarded for various scientific reasons.

1st... Google cognitive thinking it's not that difficult.

No need to google. I know what it means. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you.

Duh?

2nd... Belief in a political or judicial system is a learned response to trial and error that brings a wanted conclusion. There's nothing mystical about it.

Nothing in the political theory of john locke (which is the basis of the american government) has anything to do with empirical truth.

Unless, of course, you have some empirical evidence as to the 'equality of men', or the 'inalienability of certain rights', or perhaps the absolute nature of the body politic.

Duh?

3rd... The hard-on quote is kinda creepy dude...

Not at all. It is quite evident you are not using your head. Might you be using another part of your anatomy in lieu of critical thought, one may wonder?

I mean like they simply come up with their own interpretations to explain what they would not be able to understand lacking scientific abilities. As in Native American Indians or the Mayans who had over 190 different "Gods".

Correct. Anyone may or may not have a different interpretation of the same immutable truth. What is common to ALL religions is the belief in the existence of a power, both immanent and emminent.

Duh?

The differences over history are striking different especially considering that you promote the that the real answer is an absolute. Hindus believe you are reincarnated as a good or bad thing depending on your past life. Scientologist believe it was all about aliens. Ancient Greeks had all their various Gods... on and on and on...

Excluding scientology, all religions believe in some sort of a first cause that is beyond the real, common-sense, material world. They all got that right, now, didn't they?

However I give you props on the ink blot analogy... in an ink bolt test there actually is no picture. It's just a random spot meaningless spot that people themselves read into. EXCELLENT comparison to your supposition.

It was a perfect analogy. Human subjectivity attaches different meanings to the exact same thing.

Yep and that truth is nothing more than basic survival with confusion and guessing about causes of the unknown. Often they go to magic... witch doctors, medicine men and such.

Survival?

The highest manifestation of religion is when one subverts his own life in the pursuit of a higher goal outside himself -- which contradicts 'survival'.

Duh?

Yada, yada, yada, even a "first cause" theory doesn't explain a "God". Because as we've already established if it was a "God" where'd he come from?

Over and over and over to the point of absurdity. If you cannot understand what science is saying, what makes you so sure it is true? Oh, I forgot, you're agnostic.

Duh?

And then he'd be coming from nothing. Get off the hamster wheel my friend you're just going to get dizzier.

You might want to get off it yourself. And you might want to take your stupid friend dawks with you.

The first cause isn't contingent on something else. That is why it is said to be necessary. It cannot NOT EXIST. That is why it is infinite. Otherwise, it would have come from nothing, or it wouldn't be the first -- which is what your space-time singularity suggests.

Duh?

My friend my mind is open... only unlike yours just not so open that it flops out on the table from the magic only explaination.

Of course it is open. In fact, it is so open, air passes through it at will.

I've used the littlest words I could think of but I can see it's still hard for ya.

Oh, it doesn't matter if you use little or big words. The truth is independent of your comprehension of it. The fact that you use little words only demonstrates the state of your comprehension.

Maybe that's your problem... you're part of the wrong group.

I'm certainly not a part of your pretend-agnostic group, if that's what you mean.

 

[PLC1]

Regular logic??? There are various forms of logic, fyi,

Right off hand, I can only think of two: There is regular logic, the kind that most of us use, that is based on fact and reason. There is Nummilogic, which is based on empty space. Is there a third one I'm not aware of?

 

[Dr.Who]

Right off hand, I can only think of two: There is regular logic, the kind that most of us use, that is based on fact and reason. There is Nummilogic, which is based on empty space. Is there a third one I'm not aware of?

This wiki page lists several kinds of logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

[PLC1]

This wiki page lists several kinds of logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

You're right, there are quite a few. I believe all of them rely on fact and reason, but apply logic a little differently. I don't see Numilogic listed, though. I wonder why?

 

[Dr.Who]

You're right, there are quite a few. I believe all of them rely on fact and reason, but apply logic a little differently. I don't see Numilogic listed, though. I wonder why?

Inductive logic fails to use fact and reason to it's full extent. Interestingly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning.

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

 

[numinus]

You're right, there are quite a few.

And, in the process, exposing your general ignorance on subject matter at hand. That being the case, can you think of any good reason why sensible folks should believe anything you say, hmmm?

I believe all of them rely on fact and reason, but apply logic a little differently. I don't see Numilogic listed, though. I wonder why?

You are wondering, eh?

Isn't your general ignorance on the subject of logic reason enough?

If you must know, its called predicate logic. You are free to ascribe it to me if you wish.

Duh?

 

[PLC1]

And, in the process, exposing your general ignorance on subject matter at hand. That being the case, can you think of any good reason why sensible folks should believe anything you say, hmmm?



You are wondering, eh?

Isn't your general ignorance on the subject of logic reason enough?

If you must know, its called predicate logic. You are free to ascribe it to me if you wish.

Duh?

Of course, it's predicate logic.

In mathematical logic, predicate logic is the generic term for symbolic formal systems like first-order logic, second-order logic, many-sorted logic or infinitary logic. This formal system is distinguished from other systems in that its formulas contain variables which can be quantified.

Now, if we're going to ascribe it to you, we have to know whether we're talking about first-order logic, second-order logic, many-sorted logic or infinitary logic. So, which one is it that is based on empty space again? Most of them appear to be based on mathematics.