Does God Exist?

Everytime I hear the comment about "open mind" it makes me want to puke. Seriously. For reasons..far to many to go into. It is a comment best kept out of this type of conversation.
In the end, it all comes down to one thing.
Hope.
Now, I could go on as to why this is, but after reading this thread in its entirety, I dont think those reasons would be lost on any of the particpants.

 

Another thing I've learned over the years?it isnt such a bad idea to refrain from making passive aggressive comments to one another either.They dont in any way contribute to this conversation other than to serve ones own ego. Im not aiming that statement at anyone in paticular, but prestenting the suggestion for both sides of the cion.
Just sayin...

 

The alternative to G.W. in the 2000 election was Al Gore who actually got more popular votes. A major factor in deciding the electoral college outcome was the Nader vote. Naderites claimed there was no meaningful choice between Bush and Gore. Boy, were they wrong! That was one election in which a relatively small number of votes could have made a big difference. In the United States, elections are often a choice between two evils, but c'est la vie. Evil is relative. Now the 2004 election, in which the choice was G.W. or John Kerry was more debatable, but even so, the choice was clear. We got more war, more torture, more debt, and the collapse of the economy.

 

I don't believe that said that mankind invented natural disaster but did say they invented deforestation and desertification. I didn't say they invented disease but they ofttimes decide who dies from it. In fact there are not many natural disasters that mankind hasn't found a way exacerbate.

Agriculture and farming? You're joking right? "Modern" agriculture and farming is one of the major reasons for deforestation and desertification and what about fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and what they are doing to the ecology? In any case I don't believe I said that agriculture and farming is one of the good things in the first place.

 

You said food is good.

Agriculture and Farming provide humans food.

 

Actually it's you that doesn't understand evolution but then that is another story altogether.

 

Good question, a believer in the Bible knows that there are two powerful forces in the universe and both can do "magic" tricks and so more is needed than just "magic" tricks to tell if "someone" is a messenger of God or not.

One way is to determine if the message he is delivering agrees with God's previous messages the Bible and next is it beneficial and upbuilding.

 

I can't speak for Asmo but personally I believe god to be what you call an "infinite persisting deity".

 

What do think is the difference or how do you think one can be distinguished from the other?

 

May you always be able to sing and dance with one hand free.

 

Challenging beliefs is getting someone to question how and/or why they arrive at the beliefs they hold, it requires one (usually) to use critical thinking. Disrespecting beliefs is simply denigrating one's beliefs, without any attempt to elicit critical thought.

In a topic like this, which clearly some hold with such emotional fervor, it seems some can mistake having their beliefs challenged for their beliefs denigrated and conversely, those who originally challenge beliefs may default to denigration after several attempts at getting one to critically think about their assertions. Alas we're human.

 

Actually the earth has always provided humans with food and can do so without much help from mankind.
(THE ONE-STRAW REVOLUTION An Introduction to Natural Farming - MASANOBU FUKUOKA)

 

I didn't forget about this post...

Which I think is a reasonable objection. But hey if man comes up with farming techniques that are better for the enviornment, I'm for that.

 

Interesting. Thanx.

I'm not sure a totally agree though. To me it seems challenging just to make someone else question their beliefs could be somewhat denigrating in of itself, especially if you do it with the motive of trying to show them that you think they haven't been using their critical thinking . A questioning without respect for another's beliefs is, in of it self, disrespect. To me it is that very disrespect that leads ugly labeling and ad hominem attacks.

A person can show respect for what another believes without having to accept their beliefs.

For instance Okiefreak and I have had very long debates over our differences in belief and I can't speak for him but I respect his beliefs and better understand them even though I don't accept them as mine.

 

I didn't expect you had.

 

If you have dissenting views, that is essentially the whole point of arguments in logic and rhetoric. LOL!

Ad hominem attacks are attacks on character which are excessive and/or unrelated to the arguments.

However, if you can understand how an ad hominem type of fallacy is irrelevant to arguments, you can perhaps understand how other fallacies are equally as irrelevant. A few Other fallacies which you have been called out for in the past few days:

Argument ad Populum
False Dilemma
Moving the goal posts

These are all from different people as well, so if you are unwilling to be challenged and examine your own thoughts on these subjects, perhaps this particular forum is not for you.

By and large, I don't really follow the Christianity forum but you might be better received there, if you are offended by some of the content in this forum.

From what I have seen, a lot of your assertions rely on misinterpretations of the Bible, shielding your views from criticism (which falls in line with one of Sam Harris arguments) and changing the context or misunderstanding the arguments you are responding to.

 

religious fundamentalism is negativelyncorrelated with IQ scores. not calling anyone dumb either, the thing about statistics is that they cant be taken personally. they only apply to a large group, individuals can deviate from the norm.

with that said, some religious fundamentalists do come off to me as not too bright.

 

The line of challening someone's beliefs to disrespecting them is clearly crossed in some posts. It is also clear that this is not solely because of an over enthousiastic urge to challenge eachother beliefs but that it partly comes from a huge personal dislike of those beliefs of their discussion partner. Because it can not be proven or because it can not be made sound in reality it is ok to disrespect their belief or explanation it seems. This also seems to stem from a strong sense of being right. I don't see how you can argue seriously that a person like mr. Writer is respecting beliefs of people other than that he can agree with.

I would like to hear his own thoughts on what I wrote in the last few posts regarding him (instead of just see him liking your posts ). Maybe he thinks the question is rhetorical or something, or he doesn't have to because I haven't still kept up with his questions (not sure). It's cool that you share your thoughts too, but really, he's the one who seems unreasonable from my perspective.

Maybe it is an interesting question to see it explained why the atheistic stance seems more reasonable to you guys than the agnostic. Mr. Writer? Guerilla too of course if you like

edit: ^Maelstrom/Fierce flower? Please share some of your fine logic and reason you are often talking about


Also, instead of merely hearing the agnostic or theist views on these things, I think your and others views can be fun and interesting as well, so:

What are your thoughts on the outside of the universe? And if God could be something else than an invocation or personal belief would It be intertwined with time/space/the universe or is it more plausible to stand apart and outside of it? Or would there also be a time/space continuum outside....? Just theorizing!

Others are encouraged to share their views too naturally!

 

Hmm ad hominem attacks like 'scumbag' you mean?

And, if he is unwilling to let his explanations be challenged... that seems a hypothetical if, as he has been willing enough. Though when the challenging gets mixed up with disrespect often enough (which is the case here) it is more than reasonable to say fuck this shit. But he seems to have granted his discussion partner with opposite views almost always the respect of an answer. It is just so that his discussion partner finds the explanation unbearable and worthy of disrespect. There's no false conflating of this from me. It is clearly visible. Maybe you don't see it that clear because you tend to agree with Writer's way of challenging such beliefs?