You say that there is a god...

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aren't the ones that don't rely on naturalism called pseudo-science?

Well, yes and no. But there are parts of science which is not based on naturalism and still considered science in some cultures. E.g. I have a university level book in Danish that has a different cultural understanding of science that includes 7 versions and natural science is only one of them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's a simple proven fact that you cannot know what's happening with everyone everywhere.

Straw man. Not my claim.

I don't think you know what my position is. I don't think you can paraphrase my argument or conclusion.

What is it you wished to continue to discuss? I've made my case, and you've given your counterargument and expressed your discontent with me at length. You've given me no reason to believe I'm wrong. Your reasons are things like me not knowing what's happening with everyone everywhere, not having enough data points and not being a qualified therapist. You seem to think that that is refutation. It's not. It doesn't falsify the claim. It doesn't even contradict the claim. My claim and your comments in response can both be true at the same time. That's why it's not rebuttal. It's mere dissent.

Read @dybmh's posts carefully, and think about what he is telling you about your thinking and attitude. Clearly, I am not the only one seeing it, and don't fool yourself (may be a little late for that) into thinking, it's just us two.

Dybmh is not qualified to give me life advice.

I understand that you don't like it, but my attitude is fine. What you and others see is an opinion and evidenced argument to support it that offends you. People object to being told their god belief is insufficiently supported, and they frequently have an emotional response. People don't like to be told that when they say that they experience a god, that somebody else believes they aren't.

And you'll just be seeing more of it more often delivered more forcefully as time proceeds. The skeptics have been finding their voice for a few decades now. Remember that it was only a century ago that Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution. But with the wave of best selling atheist authors like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, and the rise of the Internet, atheism has become more socially acceptable. People who never heard atheists speak before are being confronted with arguments they haven't heard in church or anywhere else until recently, and it's a culture shock. It's understood as uppity, insolent, and god-hating consistent with the belief that atheists are inherently immoral.

Here's some life advice worth considering: I suggest that believers make an effort to stop having or at least expressing their emotions in these discussions. It adds nothing, and is often the end of discussion and the beginning of complaining. It's an off-putting choice that undermines the believer's ethos as we have seen in this thread when posters are accused of not being serious or not arguing in good faith.

What I really recommend is for all believers to take the position that their god belief is not supported by argument or evidence, that it is believed by faith instead. All the believer's problems on RF vanish. Nobody will argue with him or call him dishonest. They still will reject belief by faith for themselves, but I doubt anybody minds people believing in gods except when it impacts the lives of unbelievers.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't. But appreciate that some people do. In my view friendship is something more than a willingness to be friendly. It is an intentional and gradual alignment of purpose and trust.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Straw man. Not my claim.

I don't think you know what my position is. I don't think you can paraphrase my argument or conclusion.

What is it you wished to continue to discuss? I've made my case, and you've given your counterargument and expressed your discontent with me at length. You've given me no reason to believe I'm wrong. Your reasons are things like me not knowing what's happening with everyone everywhere, not having enough data points and not being a qualified therapist. You seem to think that that is refutation. It's not. It doesn't falsify the claim. It doesn't even contradict the claim. My claim and your comments in response can both be true at the same time. That's why it's not rebuttal. It's mere dissent.

Dybmh is not qualified to give me life advice.

I understand that you don't like it, but my attitude is fine. What you and others see is an opinion and evidenced argument to support it that offends you. People object to being told their god belief is insufficiently supported, and they frequently have an emotional response. People don't like to be told that when they say that they experience a god, that somebody else believes they aren't.

And you'll just be seeing more of it more often delivered more forcefully as time proceeds. The skeptics have been finding their voice for a few decades now. Remember that it was only a century ago that Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution. But with the wave of best selling atheist authors like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, and the rise of the Internet, atheism has become more socially acceptable. People who never heard atheists speak before are being confronted with arguments they haven't heard in church or anywhere else until recently, and it's a culture shock. It's understood as uppity, insolent, and god-hating consistent with the belief that atheists are inherently immoral.

Here's some life advice worth considering: I suggest that believers make an effort to stop having or at least expressing their emotions in these discussions. It adds nothing, and is often the end of discussion and the beginning of complaining. It's an off-putting choice that undermines the believer's ethos as we have seen in this thread when posters are accused of not being serious or not arguing in good faith.

What I really recommend is for all believers to take the position that their god belief is not supported by argument or evidence, that it is believed by faith instead. All the believer's problems on RF vanish. Nobody will argue with him or call him dishonest. They still will reject belief by faith for themselves, but I doubt anybody minds people believing in gods except when it impacts the lives of unbelievers.

Winner frubal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I consider everyone a "friend" until they prove otherwise. Peace

I don't. But appreciate that some people do. In my view friendship is something more than a willingness to be friendly. It is an intentional and gradual alignment of purpose and trust.

I'd say you're both correct. These are two different meanings for friend, both in common usage. If one is comfortable with strangers, he might call one friend without knowing him. I don't use the word the way Hammer did, although I use the word amigo with Mexican strangers (I live in Mexico) when I'm sure that it's not considered too familiar, as when tipping ("no cambio, amiga" = keep the change) or after being thanked ("de nada, amigo" = you're welcome).

Later, they might get to know one another and become friends in the sense of enjoying one another's company and having common history and interests. As ppp implies, now there is a level of trust based in experience. This is a person you might loan money to or trust to keep your secrets.

And then there's the kind of friend that you have loyalty to and might make significant sacrifices for. Most of us older than 50 won't be making any more of those than we have now.

 

[F1fan]

I'd say you're both correct. These are two different meanings for friend, both in common usage. If one is comfortable with strangers, he might call one friend without knowing him. I don't use the word the way Hammer did, although I use the word amigo with Mexican strangers (I live in Mexico) when I'm sure that it's not considered too familiar, as when tipping ("no cambio, amiga" = keep the change) or after being thanked ("de nada, amigo" = you're welcome).

Later, they might get to know one another and become friends in the sense of enjoying one another's company and having common history and interests. As ppp implies, now there is a level of trust based in experience. This is a person you might loan money to or trust to keep your secrets.

And then there's the kind of friend that you have loyalty to and might make significant sacrifices for. Most of us older than 50 won't be making any more of those than we have now.

The community at Beliefnet was pretty unique. That forum split between atheists and liberal theists versus fundamentalists of various stripes. Those folks did develop friendships with each other and actually met in person when the opportunity came. I haven’t seen that on any other forum. When they closed the debate forums many of those folks joined a Facebook group to keep in touch. We all still debate certain issues and keep up on who is doing what.

It amazes me that some folks use the anonymity of the internet as an excuse to be as vile as possible just to hurt others. It seems similar to those who abuse animals. To my mind it is the opposite for me. Being anonymous is a reflection of my character and I work to remain objective and avoid getting angry and personal.

If we are here to discuss ideas, then let’s discuss ideas.

 

[ZoroKing]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

I have proof there is someone who can alter my body, so I believe there is a god.

 

[The Hammer]

I'd say you're both correct. These are two different meanings for friend, both in common usage. If one is comfortable with strangers, he might call one friend without knowing him. I don't use the word the way Hammer did, although I use the word amigo with Mexican strangers (I live in Mexico) when I'm sure that it's not considered too familiar, as when tipping ("no cambio, amiga" = keep the change) or after being thanked ("de nada, amigo" = you're welcome).

Later, they might get to know one another and become friends in the sense of enjoying one another's company and having common history and interests. As ppp implies, now there is a level of trust based in experience. This is a person you might loan money to or trust to keep your secrets.

And then there's the kind of friend that you have loyalty to and might make significant sacrifices for. Most of us older than 50 won't be making any more of those than we have now.

True. I use friend for anyone I am friendly with. But for the latter it's "close friends" or "best friends." Everything else is based on how well I trust a person, and trust doesn't extend to just friends.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"You can assume that much of what is true for you is true for them." That's what was claimed.

No, I'm talking about this:

"And that is exactly what psychologists and psychiatrists do. They listen to the words of their patients and interpret them based in their own understanding and experience. Then, they correct the patient when appropriate, helping them reinterpret their thoughts."

That works? You assume that what is true for you is true for your clients? Sounds like a horrible clinical practice.

The above is what works. The poster basically described Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. It's a very effective tool to use in clinical practice. But you say it's "horrible." Okay.

See attached. A harvard PHD disagrees with you.

Is there some particular section you want to draw my attention to ... ?

 

[Angelical]

Has everyone heard of Giants and Aliens?

Or how about Titans? Can we agree King Atlas and Theia (Light) and Chronos (Time) exist? Does everyone agree those are real?

 

[ZoroKing]

Has everyone heard of Giants and Aliens?

Or how about Titans? Can we agree King Atlas and Theia (Light) and Chronos (Time) exist? Does everyone agree those are real?

From my own experience, I've seen aliens talking to me on youtube for like 50 seconds. it happened on youtube

 

[F1fan]

I have proof there is someone who can alter my body, so I believe there is a god.

Your plastic surgeon is a god? Must do great work.

 

[F1fan]

From my own experience, I've seen aliens talking to me on youtube for like 50 seconds. it happened on youtube

Those foreigners can really chat it up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The community at Beliefnet was pretty unique. That forum split between atheists and liberal theists versus fundamentalists of various stripes. Those folks did develop friendships with each other and actually met in person when the opportunity came. I haven’t seen that on any other forum. When they closed the debate forums many of those folks joined a Facebook group to keep in touch. We all still debate certain issues and keep up on who is doing what.

It amazes me that some folks use the anonymity of the internet as an excuse to be as vile as possible just to hurt others. It seems similar to those who abuse animals. To my mind it is the opposite for me. Being anonymous is a reflection of my character and I work to remain objective and avoid getting angry and personal.

If we are here to discuss ideas, then let’s discuss ideas.

Is there a limit to rationality and evidence? Not that they don't work at all, but rather if they only work in some cases?

 

[Jainarayan]

why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

You shouldn't. I don't care if anyone believes me or not. My belief is not predicated on me convincing someone else. If I try to convince you, whom am I really trying to convince: you or myself?

 

[ZoroKing]

Those foreigners can really chat it up.

I actually couldnt hear what they were saying, my speaker was echoing and I couldnt hear

 

[F1fan]

Is there a limit to rationality and evidence? Not that they don't work at all, but rather if they only work in some cases?

Why would there be a limit? Can there be too much evidence? No. And rationality is just following a set of rules. It's like asking if there is a limit to driving 90 kilometers per hour.

 

[F1fan]

You shouldn't. I don't care if anyone believes me or not. My belief is not predicated on me convincing someone else. If I try to convince you, whom am I really trying to convince: you or myself?

It does beg the question: if you can't convince others your judgment is sound how did you convince yourself? To my mind this is what my inner dialog is, as I ask if there is any adequate evidence for any idea that crosses my path. This is why I am an atheist, there has been no adequate evidence to my mind, nor to other critical thinkers. Theists seem to have a different inner dialog, where the truth of certain religious matters isn't subjected to critial thought.

 

[ppp]

I have proof there is someone who can alter my body, so I believe there is a god.

I do not see the connection.

 

[ppp]

You shouldn't.

Ok.

I don't care if anyone believes me or not. My belief is not predicated on me convincing someone else. If I try to convince you, whom am I really trying to convince: you or myself?

Under the hypothetical conditions imposed by your last sentence, you would be truing to convince.