crowfeather
One
Aha. White Man him plenty smart. Him know what crow say. Him see great medicine in words of crow.
Crow him grateful to White Man.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheistic Double Standard?
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
Aha. White Man him plenty smart. Him know what crow say. Him see great medicine in words of crow.
Crow him grateful to White Man.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
You know, It's like the God that I and so many others believe in. We know one exists, but none of us really understand. We get impressions, but nothing so tangible that we could pass along to someone else, and then, when we try to do that, we actually fail quite miserably.
crowfeather
One
Tell me about it
But it's not your fault. You do your best. What we attempt is largely doomed to fail.
I look at it this way: one in ten-thousand will hear your message and allow it to get through. That's as good as it gets. We'd like it to be more, but that's not gonna happen.
Of course, it doesn't help one bit that the 9,999 all take your words as personal slights, and rain fire down on you.
I hope you're tough!
Actually, I don't believe in God. I've gazed upon his very face. I know God. It's different from belief, or faith. Very different.
Take heart. As long as you, yourself, are untainted, you've done more than most.
Fight the good fight by not fighting.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
We can say we believe in God, and also know there is a God. I have not seen His face, but I have stood in His presence. And there are no words to describe that.Tell me about it
But it's not your fault. You do your best. What we attempt is largely doomed to fail.
I look at it this way: one in ten-thousand will hear your message and allow it to get through. That's as good as it gets. We'd like it to be more, but that's not gonna happen.
Of course, it doesn't help one bit that the 9,999 all take your words as personal slights, and rain fire down on you.
I hope you're tough!
Actually, I don't believe in God. I've gazed upon his very face. I know God. It's different from belief, or faith. Very different.
Take heart. As long as you, yourself, are untainted, you've done more than most.
Fight the good fight by not fighting.
I have to admit, with regard to your advice, I find that much easier said than done. First, its difficult to not be insulting when being honest sometimes, and second, it's difficult to actually turn the other cheek when that is the right course of action. Something I'm trying to work on.
crowfeather
One
Well then, here's a hint...
Turning the other cheek doesn't mean what you think it does.
It means operate without fear. Even unto death.
You and I know there is no death. Anyone with a functional Soul has nothing to fear.
Be brave. Do not retreat. Never be intimidated.
Turning the other cheek doesn't mean what you think it does.
It means operate without fear. Even unto death.
You and I know there is no death. Anyone with a functional Soul has nothing to fear.
Be brave. Do not retreat. Never be intimidated.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
That actually sounds quite reasonable.
crowfeather
One
I suppose that's good.
Reason really isn't my thing, though. Truth is.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
All signs point to you still not understanding my point at all. Regardless, you've raised some (completely unrelated) points of your own that we can talk about:
Can we?
My Dad used to jokingly say that there was a leprechaun living at the bottom of every bottle of Irish whiskey, and most of the time they were invisible, but you could see them if you drank the whole thing in one sitting and then looked down the neck of the bottle.
I have a bottle of Irish whiskey right here in my cabinet, so if we take my Dad's story meant in fun as a serious claim, I really don't have any way to demonstrate that the claim is wrong at the moment (since I'd never drink an entire bottle of whiskey before driving to work). Do you have a way?
Leprechauns and gods aren't really different at all, actually. It always strikes me as strange when theists bring up leprechauns, fairies, Greek gods, etc. as examples of things that are obviously false. All of these fantastic beings were the objects of real, sincere religious belief by a significant number of people not too long ago.
Edit: what I take from people using these sorts of examples is that even religious people consider religious beliefs to be ridiculous and obviously false once they stop being promoted in a society.
I don't have to think that the many, many people who believed in leprechauns were insane; there are very good neurological and societal reasons for why people used to believe in them... reasons that still apply today when talking about gods.
But I'm interested to find out if you actually believe what you're saying: do you really think that the majority of Ireland was mentally ill until the island was converted to Christianity, at which point they were cured?
I think you have a poor understanding of my thinking on this subject.
I've never seen any reason to think that any theist I've ever communicated with has actually "experienced God".
BTW: since you seem to be lumping all theists together, there's a similar question you could be asking yourself: "why do billions of other people get to experience God as Lakshmi, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Elegua, etc., while I only get to experience the Christian trinity?"
And what do you think it is lacking? Remember that it has held up in every test that has been performed.
The biggest problem in understanding quantum mechanics is attempting to use classical notions of particle and wave while doing so. You don't understand the more accurate theory in terms of the less accurate one.
That's a bit of a problem, then.
If you can't answer the question "how do you know those impressions came from God?" in a reasonable way to someone else, how can you be sure that your conclusion really is reasonable?
If it sounds ridiculous or foolish when you say it out loud, maybe this a sign that it really is ridiculous or foolish.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The case is closed concerning the person I was responding to. I will leave it open in your case for now.
We have evidence for God (mountains of it), but not for another universe. Another universe by definition (even if it existed) would not be detectable from this universe.
So:
1. God - Has inexhaustable evidence based positive arguments for his existence.
2. Another universe - It's only merit is that no one can prove they are impossible.
Cause and effect do not apply to God's existence. An uncaused first cause does not stand in need of a cause. Your suggestion to the contrary (what Dawkins called his central argument) has been called by well credentialed philosophers, the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.
Let me give you the two relevant philosophical principles that apply here.
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. (God did not begin to exist and so is not in the set of things that require a cause).
2. The cause must be sufficient to produce the effect. (God did not begin to exist so he has no need for a sufficient cause).
3. Everything that exists has an explanation either internal to it's self (God) or external to it's self (everything in the universe or all universes).
Ok, your just doing what the other guy did (which was what I specifically predicted to begin with) so I will give you one more chance to add something meaningful but then I have to move on. You guys doing exactly what I predict makes my participation unnecessary at this point.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
LOL.
Not sure if you were being satirical when you schluffed off necessary causation as the 'worst' philosophical argument ever and proceeded to cite (the often debunked) Kalams cosmological argument as solid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were.
If not, I invoke Occam's Razor and am taking it back a step to 'the universe itself has always existed, thus never began to exist'.
Why go further than that?
How do you know the universe began to exist? Why is it that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? For that matter, what does it mean to be a cause?
For example, quantum fluctuations begin to exist, but are not caused. So your initial assumption is invalid.
You assume there must be a cause. That hasn't been established. And 'sufficient' in what sense? Through the action of a law of physics?
Why do you assume that only God has an explanation 'internal to itself' (whatever that means)? Why is it that the universe could not have such an explanation?
Next, why do you assume only *one thing* has an explanation internal to itself and not many things (say, each subatomic particle)?
People have different definitions for "evidence". Mine tends to be quite broad. It recognizes evidence for gods - in a sense - but also recognizes just as much evidence against gods, if not more.
I also recognize evidence for gods that are incompatible with Christianity.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Didn't the last actual polymath die over a hundred years ago? I find theoretical science to be very unpersuasive. As for the quantum, last I heard there were at least 10 different views concerning it's laws or description. I think half were deterministic and the other half non-deterministic. Quantum theory is in it's infancy, once it grows up and matures it may carry some weight with me in a debate.
Why is it that the only science that contradicts God lies at the bottom of the deepest end of the theoretical science pool? Why can't you find an argument in the science that is actually well known and reliable? Why doesn't algebra, Newton's laws of motion, combinatorial, discrete math, or the BGVT negatively impact God? Why are materialists willing to be chased of the map of known reality all together to escape the only ultimate hope for mankind?
The evidence for God is not relevant to the thread, but we have an embarrassment of riches in that regard.
First, tell me what your credentials are in math and physics. At best a few scholars may be competent in quantum theory, show that you are among them.
I have 2 degrees in math and working on a third in secondary mathematics education, and work in a DOD lab, and have never even met anyone competent in Quantum theory.
The basics of quantum theory are very well known by now. it is a non-local, probabilistic theory that obtains its probabilities as projection operators on a Hilbert space. It is possible to formulate it as either the vectors in Hilbert space changing or the operators changing (they have the same predictions and are completely equivalent descriptions---like Laplace and Hamiltonian descriptions of classical dynamics).
Mostly because the concept of a God is too vague to be countered. Which of several possible definitions do you want to use? First cause? Creator? Morality giver?
Well, because math is the language Physics is how it is used to understand reality. But, again, the basic issue is what a good test for the existence of a deity would look like. What test would convince you, if it went counter to your expectations, that no deity exists? Until *that* question is answered, no progress on this issue can be had.
I strongly disagree. We have an embarrassment of bad arguments, that is for sure.
I have a PhD in math (Abstract Harmonic Analysis and Functional Analysis primarily). I have taken the PhD classes and qualifying exams in physics. That included exams on QM, EM, and Stat Mech.
What do you mean by competent? Able to solve and interpret the Schrodinger equation? Or do you want a full knowledge of string theory also? The first is pretty common. The other much less so.
There are intermediate stages, of course. Ability to solve the Schrodinger equation and to use the representations of the rotation group to find forbidden transitions? Still reasonably common.
Which two degrees do you have in math?
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
** Blind Post **
Not to take the side of the theist; but, proving a negative seems hardly feasible. It is very likely that you provided evidence of the improbability of such a being; a claim with which I would personally share that nonbelief; but hard evidence that proves the negative? Hmmm.
Not to take the side of the theist; but, proving a negative seems hardly feasible. It is very likely that you provided evidence of the improbability of such a being; a claim with which I would personally share that nonbelief; but hard evidence that proves the negative? Hmmm.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
EDIT
Say god is an "empty space" (We can't see it).
Empty spaces are defined by the walls (Example: traditions/culture/history)
A theist is saying that the empty space exists because of the walls.
A atheist (many) tell theist to prove the empty space exist without referring to the walls that defines it. It's like they want theists to make present something that is, well, empty without referring to the actual thing that makes it exist in the first place.
Some atheist think that theist believe god is some guy floating in the sky like casper (in other words, theist making a claim [there's an empty space] without being backed up by evidence [the walls]) Theist repeatedly give atheist the walls-the text, the traditions, the culture, their experiences.
ALL of these things define god.
The issue is that theist do not separate the walls from the empty space. For example, they don't separate the bible from god.
So, in my other post I gave evidence, I just gave detailed evidence that the walls define empty space; an empty space does not exist on its own as many theist say. It is depended on something.
You used negative and positive. Theist are saying negatives exist without understanding that their negative cannot exist without the positive. Many god-religions such as Bahai go out of the way to take out the positive of their religions (traditions, rituals, dogma) so they can keep the negatives.
Again, though, with all god-believers of the western realm. You understand god by first understanding how theist define god (a feeling, connection, thought, gut, so forth). Then you see how it relates to humanity and study (psychology, place in the world, culture, etc) these are the walls/the positive.
You drop what theist say about "god existing" because god does exist. The negatives do exist; the empty space does exist. Just many (not all) theist can't tell the difference between a negative and a positive. They know. They aren't aliens. They are just blind to it.
Nothing wrong with that. Just take their word for it and move on.
Say god is an "empty space" (We can't see it).
Empty spaces are defined by the walls (Example: traditions/culture/history)
A theist is saying that the empty space exists because of the walls.
A atheist (many) tell theist to prove the empty space exist without referring to the walls that defines it. It's like they want theists to make present something that is, well, empty without referring to the actual thing that makes it exist in the first place.
Some atheist think that theist believe god is some guy floating in the sky like casper (in other words, theist making a claim [there's an empty space] without being backed up by evidence [the walls]) Theist repeatedly give atheist the walls-the text, the traditions, the culture, their experiences.
ALL of these things define god.
The issue is that theist do not separate the walls from the empty space. For example, they don't separate the bible from god.
So, in my other post I gave evidence, I just gave detailed evidence that the walls define empty space; an empty space does not exist on its own as many theist say. It is depended on something.
You used negative and positive. Theist are saying negatives exist without understanding that their negative cannot exist without the positive. Many god-religions such as Bahai go out of the way to take out the positive of their religions (traditions, rituals, dogma) so they can keep the negatives.
Again, though, with all god-believers of the western realm. You understand god by first understanding how theist define god (a feeling, connection, thought, gut, so forth). Then you see how it relates to humanity and study (psychology, place in the world, culture, etc) these are the walls/the positive.
You drop what theist say about "god existing" because god does exist. The negatives do exist; the empty space does exist. Just many (not all) theist can't tell the difference between a negative and a positive. They know. They aren't aliens. They are just blind to it.
Nothing wrong with that. Just take their word for it and move on.
Last edited: