To the Anti-Religious

[Commoner]

It can be demonstrated, but not measured. It can be demonstrated, but relatively. But if you're going to define evidence out of existence, then you're right, there is no point in discussing that which you've already decided can't exist.

You have been asked to propose a method you find suitable. But you can't make up rules as you go along. That is pointless.

 

[rageoftyrael]

what atotalstranger was pointing out was that you can't have MORE of two different things. I cant claim to have more brown hair on my head than white, then turn and around and claim i have more white hair than brown, and act as if both statements are equally true. that is what he was saying about the car parts analogy.

 

[Vile Atheist]

But I didn't claim that they share or do not share "most" of their parts. I claimed they share/don't share many of them. And both statements are true. Same goes for their design. Their design is similar, but not the same. Therefor, their designs are different, but still similar.

Absolutism only works when we're discussing ideals. Ideally, 2+2 absolutely equals 4. But in actuality, no two anythings can absolutely equal two of anything else. In actuality, the only way any thing can be absolutely equal to any thing else, is for them to be the same thing.

I assumed you meant "most" because that's the only way that statement of yours could be a contradiction. If you claim "Cars and trucks have some of the same parts and some different parts", assuming the the amount of similar parts is around 50%, that statement is perfectly true and not contradictory.

We've been at it for 100 years, and still the picture is far from complete. I'm sure along the way scientists and biologists have found many contradicting bits of evidence. But this is not the discussion at hand, and you and I are not up to the level of expertise required for this kind of discussion.

Errmm...I don't think so. It's pretty complete. Again, if you'd care to point out these contradicting bits of evidence, feel free to point them out and I (and I'm sure others here) will answer for them. And while I'm certainly no biologist, I've read quite a few books on the subject in addition to learning about it in university. So that sort of discussion would probably be within my capacity, though I'm certainly no expert.

But we are preparing to discuss the actuality of God. This is not going to be achieved through scientific method. So let's PLEASE stop using scientific analogies. God is not gravity. God is not evolution. God is not a physical phenomena that can be measured like gravity can, and God is not a biological process that can be observed like evolution can. God is a subjective spiritual theory that science can neither verify nor disclaim. The rules of evidence are not going to be the same as those of physical science. Nor will they be the same as those used in philosophical (idealized) debate. The rules of evidence for this kind of discussion will have to rest on subjective experiences and collective common sense. And it will have to be understood that we will get no conclusive proof.

There's a reason why can't rely on "subjective evidence". You may think broccoli tastes great. Your subjective evidence - your tastebuds sensing something delicious - makes that claim true for you. To you, broccoli tastes great. But when I taste it, broccoli tastes like a camel's testicles. Who is right here? We both have "subjective evidence".

 

[Vile Atheist]

It can be demonstrated, but not measured. It can be demonstrated, but relatively. But if you're going to define evidence out of existence, then you're right, there is no point in discussing that which you've already decided can't exist.

How can God be demonstrated objectively?

 

[Commoner]

There's a reason why can't rely on "subjective evidence". You may think broccoli tastes great. Your subjective evidence - your tastebuds sensing something delicious - makes that claim true for you. To you, broccoli tastes great. But when I taste it, broccoli tastes like a camel's testicles. Who is right here? We both have "subjective evidence".

OK, I think you need to explain yourself here. How the heck do you know how (camel's) testicles taste like?

 

[Vile Atheist]

OK, I think you need to explain yourself here. How the heck do you know how (camel's) testicles taste like?

I've backpacked in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

OK, I think you need to explain yourself here. How the heck do you know how (camel's) testicles taste like?

I've backpacked in Saudi Arabia.

No no no no....not fair....you can't have a back-and-forth like that without telling the story. We're waiting.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No no no no....not fair....you can't have a back-and-forth like that without telling the story. We're waiting.

It was the summer of 84. I tried to communicate through the blowing sands of the Rhub al Khali to my translator, Ahmad, that we had no rations left. He was a young man, scarcely over 24. Olive skin, booming voice, and built like a twig.

Our eyes met, wordlessly communicating the gravity of the situation. He looked towards Wally, our camel, whom I named after the town we purchased him in - Al Wali. Suddenly, from the pocket of his rags, he procured a flint knife and muttered quietly to the air before lunging at the beast from behind, felling the testes.

Wally let out a roar of pain. "WHAT IN THE NAME OF SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS ARE YOU DOING!?!!" I exclaimed, dazed and confused. He picked up a bloody, sand-grain covered ball and offered me one. "You eat?" he offered innocently.

"I most certainly will not!" I retorted, aghast. But as the hours grew into days, it looked more and more delectable. Each grumble of my stomach seemed to be telling me "Eat it, you goddamn fool!". Maybe it was the hot desert air, but I dusted the sand from that testicle and consumed it. The rough, sun-dried skin being tough as leather in contrast to the soft and sensitive innards.






........Or this could all be ********......I was born in 91.......

 

[rageoftyrael]

good story writing skills, anyway, lol

 

[PureX]

How can God be demonstrated objectively?

God is not an object. I doubt that God can be demonstrated objectively. The only way we humans have of experiencing God is subjectively. But then we can say the same about love, or anger, or pain, and few are arguing that these don't exist.

 

[PureX]

You have been asked to propose a method you find suitable. But you can't make up rules as you go along. That is pointless.

I don't think there can be "rules". I think this sort of discussion requires that we keep our minds open, and muddle through using mutual respect and common sense to keep the conversation on track. I don't think it can be a debate. The subject is just too ephemeral for that, and the result becomes ad hominem.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

If there are any such “truths” you guys haven’t found them. Nor have you demonstrated any systematic way of discovering them,
This just a biased opinion, though, isn't it. Same as you accuse others of.

Feel free to list any of those universal eternal and absolute truths you like.

Are we understand there are none?

 

[Commoner]

I don't think there can be "rules". I think this sort of discussion requires that we keep our minds open, and muddle through using mutual respect and common sense to keep the conversation on track. I don't think it can be a debate. The subject is just too ephemeral for that, and the result becomes ad hominem.

Then I really see no point in discussing it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

God is not an object. I doubt that God can be demonstrated objectively. The only way we humans have of experiencing God is subjectively. But then we can say the same about love, or anger, or pain, and few are arguing that these don't exist.

Agian, that's th point you aren't understanding the difference between intangible subjective and physical objective concepts.

Emotions like love exist, but only as a by product of our brain chemistry. I've said this a bunch of times now, but i will say it again: There is no such thing as love, it's purely a concept. There is no physical object that is love that's why it's subjective, it exists only in our bodies, our minds. Yet we know it exists because nearly everyone experiences it and for the most part we can see the areas of the brain that light up when one experiences the emotion.

One could argue that god is a completely mental concept and this is fine, but one can't also make the claim that it is also a physical thing in the same breath without being dishonest or mistaken. To explain: one cannot say that god exists in our heads, yet created the world, the universe without presenting some evidence to support that assertion. Without showing one thing that exists purely as a mental concept. If you cannot present evidence, you're an idiot, mistaken, or a liar.

Comparing god with love is a poor analogy because If something is said to influence objective things, it too must be objective. If one claims that something can alter or create something within the tangible universe the only way we should have of studying it is objectively.

 

[Vile Atheist]

There is no physical object that is love that's why it's subjective, it exists only in our bodies, our minds.

Comparing god with love is a poor analogy because If something is said to influence objective things, it too must be objective.

Does love (a subjective concept) not influence people (whom are objective)?

 

[PureX]

Emotions like love exist, but only as a by product of our brain chemistry.

Emotions are not the "by product" of our brain's chemistry, they are the purpose of our brain's chemistry. Emotions didn't develop because the chemicals had nothing better to do with themselves. The chemistry developed because the emotions were useful in carrying on the organism's survival.

Thoughts, emotions, ideas, these are how the human species thrives and survives. They are the human genetic code's raison det're. And this includes the idea of God.

I've said this a bunch of times now, but i will say it again: There is no such thing as love, it's purely a concept. There is no physical object that is love that's why it's subjective, it exists only in our bodies, our minds. Yet we know it exists because nearly everyone experiences it and for the most part we can see the areas of the brain that light up when one experiences the emotion.

One could argue that god is a completely mental concept and this is fine, but one can't also make the claim that it is also a physical thing in the same breath without being dishonest or mistaken. To explain: one cannot say that god exists in our heads, yet created the world, the universe without presenting some evidence to support that assertion. Without showing one thing that exists purely as a mental concept. If you cannot present evidence, you're an idiot, mistaken, or a liar.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that EVERYTHING is a concept in the human mind. A chair, a table, a rock, these objects do not exist in actuality. They ONLY exist in our minds. The matter exists, but the configuration that we call a table or a rock is an intellectual creation.

EVERYTHING we humans experience is experienced as an intellectual creation. So how is the idea of "God" any less objective than the idea of a chair, or a rock?

Comparing god with love is a poor analogy because If something is said to influence objective things, it too must be objective. If one claims that something can alter or create something within the tangible universe the only way we should have of studying it is objectively.

There is no such thing as "objective study". All study is done with the human mind, and the human mind is not objective.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Does love (a subjective concept) not influence people (whom are objective)?

Yes but that's not exactly what I meant. Love is a subjective concept that can't create, destroy, or alter matter. Acts of love are not love, they are simply expressions of our physical bodies trying to convey the emotion within our heads. When one claims that their god is equal to love to love they often mean that their god is an experience, and this is fine until they say that their god created the universe/ man/ earth or that their god is the universe, in which they are giving an objective description. They seem to think labeling their god as love justifies their belief, in which it really doesn't unless they specifically claim that their god is nothing more than a factor of their mind. We cannot measure the subjective with a standard, but we may measure the objective and it should be easily demonstrated. People who label their diety as a subjective concept seem to use this as a way to keep their belief in a nice little box so science can't touch it and it can't be explained. It's quite sad.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Emotions are not the "by product" of our brain's chemistry, they are the purpose of our brain's chemistry. Emotions didn't develop because the chemicals had nothing better to do with themselves. The chemistry developed because the emotions were useful in carrying on the organism's survival.

Thoughts, emotions, ideas, these are how the human species thrives and survives. They are the human genetic code's raison det're. And this includes the idea of God.

Quote:"

But that is just a biased opinion isn't it? And I still haven't seen any of these "universal truths" you guys are supposed to be discovering.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Emotions are not the "by product" of our brain's chemistry, they are the purpose of our brain's chemistry. Emotions didn't develop because the chemicals had nothing better to do with themselves. The chemistry developed because the emotions were useful in carrying on the organism's survival.

Sorry about that, I meant evolution, I was in my school's library at the time suppose to be doing homework... does anyone else find this site a little addicting?

Thoughts, emotions, ideas, these are how the human species thrives and survives. They are the human genetic code's raison det're. And this includes the idea of God.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that EVERYTHING is a concept in the human mind. A chair, a table, a rock, these objects do not exist in actuality. They ONLY exist in our minds. The matter exists, but the configuration that we call a table or a rock is an intellectual creation.

EVERYTHING we humans experience is experienced as an intellectual creation. So how is the idea of "God" any less objective than the idea of a chair, or a rock?
There is no such thing as "objective study". All study is done with the human mind, and the human mind is not objective.

I'm not overlooking, I just found it irrelevant at the moment. Everything in the mind is conceptualized, I will agree with this. But one must percieve an object before one concpetualizes it. You are suggesting that we can do it the other way around, we conceptualize it and then percieve it. Perhaps this is the case, but as of yet you haven't demonstrated anything of the like. We do percieve matter as we wish, but you or any theist as of yet has actually demonstrated that the supernatural entity they call god actually exists as an objective thing. There is no matter to support the perception of god as you suggest. We can put our hands on to touch, open our eyes to see, and even inhale the air about to smell a chair, table, or anything else for that matter. We should be able to do some sort of test or study to see if your god exists as an objective thing as you suggest, but as of yet no one, including you, has been convincing or even correct with their "evidence".


BTW: A chair, a rock, and a table don't exist only in our minds, but the perceptions of these items do.

 

[PureX]

I'm not overlooking, I just found it irrelevant at the moment. Everything in the mind is conceptualized, I will agree with this. But one must perceive an object before one conceptualizes it. You are suggesting that we can do it the other way around, we conceptualize it and then perceive it.

We do both, because it happens simultaneously. Our preconceptions dictate what we perceive all the time. It's how magic tricks work, and optical illusions. It's why witnesses to violent car accidents all tell somewhat different versions of what happened.

We do perceive matter as we wish, but you or any theist as of yet has actually demonstrated that the supernatural entity they call god actually exists as an objective thing.

That's because God is not an objective thing. But neither is love or pain or embarrassment or longing, yet most of us have experienced these concepts as part of our reality.

What makes "God" any less real than a "broken heart"? And a broken heart can actually kill a person.