Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[Wildswanderer]

So when you wish to know the temperature of something, do you stick your finger in it and go by how "hot" or "cold" it feels, or do you think you might get a more accurate answer if you use a thermometer instead?

And thus use an objective measuring device instead of your own subjective hot/cold sensation in your finger?

Who's the one who doesn't get it?

You. If you think people don't use their senses to make calculations. What do they use? ESP?
Everything we do is based on how we perceive the world through our senses. If our senses fool us we can't know anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You. If you think people don't use their senses to make calculations. What do they use? ESP?
Everything we do is based on how we perceive the world through our senses. If our senses fool us we can't know anything.

Note how you completely ignored the examples given, like which you would use for best results when trying to determine the temperature of something: your finger (= your senses) or a thermometer (= an objective measuring tool).

f our senses fool us we can't know anything

Only in the juvenile black and white world you seem to be living in.

 

[gnostic]

Summary: Why do you believe in God? What do you find to be the most compelling evidence that God exists?

Long Version:
I have found that I am getting frustrated at the thought of people who do not listen to reason, logic, evidence, and facts. You may have noticed this frustration seeping into the conversations I have on RF. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just angry at you for not seeing what I see, which is not really fair. I'll will try to have more patience and explain things more clearly in the future.

One way to influence others is to first be influenced by them. In other words, seek first to understand, then to be understood. Maybe I would be less frustrated if I actually knew the reasons why you believe in God. Help me understand, and in turn I will respectfully respond, and if you care to hear I will respond with the reasons why I don't believe in God.

Thank you in advance for the conversation

I am not angry with people believing in their deity or deities, or following their respective religions and scriptures.

It is each individual’s choice to follow or not follow their beliefs.

But I do share your frustration when people (especially creationists) cannot learn from their mistakes or when they make up things that are not true in regards to history or to natural sciences.

If they are going argue about the scriptures being accurate - historically or scientifically - then they should at least learn the basics of actual history or the basics of science that they are arguing against.

Their intellectual competence and intellectual honesty are seriously lacking.

I don’t understand why some people would argue against about some things that they don’t know about. Do they really enjoy being irrational?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Note how you completely ignored the examples given, like which you would use for best results when trying to determine the temperature of something: your finger (= your senses) or a thermometer (= an objective measuring tool).

A tool that was created using our perception of reality. Duh

 

[gnostic]

A tool that was created using our perception of reality. Duh

But a tool that have been tested. Do you really think that a single thermometer you brought from chemist or supermarket, is the only one?

Other more advanced thermometers do provide fairly accurate than cheap ones, but that they worked. If you were to buy a number of thermometers, different brands, different models, you can test them yourself, and see just how close the results of each one, and can compare them against each other. And for a bit of objectivity, you could have friends or family to help and verify if you all read the same values on each thermometers.

That's how you would test thermometer's reading, by checking against other thermometers in the same environment or a room.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But a tool that have been tested. Do you really think that a single thermometer you brought from chemist or supermarket, is the only one?

Other more advanced thermometers do provide fairly accurate than cheap ones, but that they worked. If you were to buy a number of thermometers, different brands, different models, you can test them yourself, and see just how close the results of each one, and can compare them against each other. And for a bit of objectivity, you could have friends or family to help and verify if you all read the same values on each thermometers.

That's how you would test thermometer's reading, by checking against other thermometers in the same environment or a room.

Lol. You still aren't understanding. Explanations of things everyone knows aren't helping.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A tool that was created using our perception of reality. Duh

..and which is independently and objectively tested and verified.

Here's what you sound like right now

Well, not just "right now". Throughout the thread, actually...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol. You still aren't understanding. Explanations of things everyone knows aren't helping.

You're being incredibly childish and juvenile.

I'm not buying this "playing dumb" of you for a second.

At this point, I'm convinced that you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest... all just in an effort to not having to admit how ridiculous your "argument" here is. All just in an effort to keep denying the obvious of how scientific methodology reveals things about reality to us which are counter-intuitive, which show how our subjective perception is not as trustworthy as some would like to believe.


And all of that together, is nothing but a silly psychological defense mechanism. These are walls of stubbornness you have erected around yourself to protect your fundamentalist religious beliefs.


It's obvious to everybody here. You ain't fooling anyone. And I suspect: not even yourself.

I wonder what it is that you hope to accomplish with this sort of behavior.

 

[Wildswanderer]

All just in an effort to keep denying the obvious of how scientific methodology reveals things about reality to us which are counter-intuitive, which show how our subjective perception is not as trustworthy as some would like to

There's no such thing as objective perception.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's no such thing as objective perception.

Using your finger to determine the temperature of a cup of water is using subjective perception.
Using a thermometer to do the same is using an objective measuring tool.

Which do you think will yield the most accurate results?

 

[tas8831]

You're being incredibly childish and juvenile.

I'm not buying this "playing dumb" of you for a second.

At this point, I'm convinced that you are being deliberately intellectually dishonest... all just in an effort to not having to admit how ridiculous your "argument" here is. All just in an effort to keep denying the obvious of how scientific methodology reveals things about reality to us which are counter-intuitive, which show how our subjective perception is not as trustworthy as some would like to believe.


And all of that together, is nothing but a silly psychological defense mechanism. These are walls of stubbornness you have erected around yourself to protect your fundamentalist religious beliefs.


It's obvious to everybody here. You ain't fooling anyone. And I suspect: not even yourself.

I wonder what it is that you hope to accomplish with this sort of behavior.

On a positive note, I haven't caught him plagiarizing recently!

 

[gnostic]

There's no such thing as objective perception.

Using your finger to determine the temperature of a cup of water is using subjective perception.
Using a thermometer to do the same is using an objective measuring tool.

Which do you think will yield the most accurate results?

And if Wildswanderer is concerned that using a thermometer isn’t good enough, then I would use multiple number of thermometers, one by one, on this cup of water.

Surely Wildswanderer would and should understand that if the others precisely measure the same temperature as the 1st thermometer, then that should satisfy the requirement of “objective perception”?

Would it or not?

 

[tas8831]

There's no such thing as objective perception.

So no objective truth, then. Cool.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So no objective truth, then. Cool.

Ok if you're cool with science being subjective.

 

[night912]

You. If you think people don't use their senses to make calculations. What do they use? ESP?
Everything we do is based on how we perceive the world through our senses. If our senses fool us we can't know anything.

Technically, ESP is considered as being one of our senses, regardless of it being actually true or not.

 

[tas8831]

Ok if you're cool with science being subjective.

You're the one that thinks objectives observations are not objective.

But I commend you for unwittingly acknowledging that you just demolished one of the key excuses religionists typically provide for accepting bible lore uncritically - that it contains objective truths.

 

[tas8831]

Technically, ESP is considered as being one of our senses, regardless of it being actually true or not.

By whom?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok if you're cool with science being subjective.

Not sure what definition of objective you're using ...

objective
adjective

ob·jec·tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretationsobjective artan objective history of the waran objective judgment
bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimumEach question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.

2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Definition of OBJECTIVE

 

[tas8831]

Not sure what definition of objective you're using ...

objective
adjective

ob·jec·tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretationsobjective artan objective history of the waran objective judgment
bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimumEach question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.

2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Definition of OBJECTIVE

He must be using that Bill Dembski/Ken Ham dictionary.

 

[Astrophile]

Frankly just as there are no atheists in foxholes it gets less absurd for most people when they get older.

During the 40 years that I have been an atheist, the stories in the Bible have become less and less probable, and my understanding of how living things work has made the idea of a life after death seem very unlikely. Perhaps, at the age of 74, I am still not old enough. If I am still around in six years, and if I remember, I will let you know whether religion seems any less absurd to me than it is now.