At times like this...

[Strathos]

Wouldn't you rather say "I'm glad that Creation is true, because that means COVID-19 has a function that can be immunized"?

I'd have to understand what that means first to want to say it.

 

[Kylie]

It does work, but first you have to humble yourself.

So it relies on something which may not happen. ANd for people like me, who would be happy to do it provided certain evidence is presented, it in fact ensures that it CAN'T happen.

So, yeah, that's still a design flaw.

 

[Kylie]

Wouldn't you rather say "I'm glad that Creation is true, because that means COVID-19 has a function that can be immunized"?

We can immunize against Covid 19 even if creation was not true. There are many scientists hard at work on a vaccine as we speak.

 

[Strathos]

So it relies on something which may not happen. ANd for people like me, who would be happy to do it provided certain evidence is presented, it in fact ensures that it CAN'T happen.

So, yeah, that's still a design flaw.

It can. You just have to change your attitude.

 

[Kylie]

It can. You just have to change your attitude.

My attitude is that I will examine the evidence for and against any position presented to me, and I will accept the side that produces evidence that can withstand that scrutiny. Do you think that examining the evidence for and against a position before making a decision regarding that position is a bad idea? If so, why? And if it's NOT a bad idea, why are you asking me to ignore that process and instead do something different?

Sounds like you're asking me to justy believe without evidence in the hopes that if I decide to believe what you say, I'll be willing to accept anything that supports what you say without giving it a critical examination.

In other words, believe what you say and don't look to closely at things that appear to support what you say. And go out of my way to disregard anything that doesn't agree with what you say.

Now why would I want to do that?

 

[Strathos]

My attitude is that I will examine the evidence for and against any position presented to me, and I will accept the side that produces evidence that can withstand that scrutiny. Do you think that examining the evidence for and against a position before making a decision regarding that position is a bad idea? If so, why? And if it's NOT a bad idea, why are you asking me to ignore that process and instead do something different?

Sounds like you're asking me to justy believe without evidence in the hopes that if I decide to believe what you say, I'll be willing to accept anything that supports what you say without giving it a critical examination.

In other words, believe what you say and don't look to closely at things that appear to support what you say. And go out of my way to disregard anything that doesn't agree with what you say.

Now why would I want to do that?

The only thing standing between you and God is yourself. If you really want to get to know Him, He will be waiting there for you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Saw this recently:

Boy: Saw that cute girl at the bar. I'm really really into her. I think I'll go home and hopes she finds me.

 

[Larniavc]

God did warn us. Isaiah 24: 4-6



A virus that kills its host is unsuccessful from an evolutionary perspective. So its place is in a host where it can both reproduce and not harm the host.

Not true. As long as the host can pass it on to someone else (preferably more than one) the virus propagates even if the host dies.

 

[Larniavc]

"Good" doesn't mean perfect. There is always the issue of sin.



All I'm saying is that the idea that God would create everything to be harmless and helpful would never work out due to the sinful nature of mankind. That was the whole point of the Garden of Eden story. It's allegorical.

Wasn't it originally perfect? Lions eating grass and such.

 

[Kylie]

The only thing standing between you and God is yourself. If you really want to get to know Him, He will be waiting there for you.

Hey, guess what? I, like many other atheists, have indeed been open to God. A while ago, my husband said to me that since his religion was important to him, he wanted me to give it a go as well. So I said that I would be open to God and if God wanted to give me what I needed to be e believer, then I would accept it. So I prayed to God to give me what I needed, and you know what I got? Go on, have a guess.

Now the thing is, I was sincere in wanting to get to know God if he was real. And I got nothing. And yet you assume that I have never even tried because you can't comprehend how someone could do what you did and get a different result. You assume that because I'm an atheist that I haven't been open to God, because you just can't comprehend how I could be open to God and not become a believer.

Well, too bad. I've done what you said, and you - just like lots of other Christians before you - have just assumed that I haven't because you can't understand that people can do it and not get the same results that you did.

 

[Strathos]

Hey, guess what? I, like many other atheists, have indeed been open to God. A while ago, my husband said to me that since his religion was important to him, he wanted me to give it a go as well. So I said that I would be open to God and if God wanted to give me what I needed to be e believer, then I would accept it. So I prayed to God to give me what I needed, and you know what I got? Go on, have a guess.

Now the thing is, I was sincere in wanting to get to know God if he was real. And I got nothing. And yet you assume that I have never even tried because you can't comprehend how someone could do what you did and get a different result. You assume that because I'm an atheist that I haven't been open to God, because you just can't comprehend how I could be open to God and not become a believer.

Well, too bad. I've done what you said, and you - just like lots of other Christians before you - have just assumed that I haven't because you can't understand that people can do it and not get the same results that you did.

If you expected to get nothing, that means you were approaching the attempt with an inherent bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you expected to get nothing, that means you were approaching the attempt with an inherent bias.

Did she even imply that that was the case? Why do you refuse to accept the obvious answer?

 

[Ophiolite]

If you expected to get nothing, that means you were approaching the attempt with an inherent bias.

There can come a point, Strathos, where atheists and agnostics can get tired of this not so subtle mind reading by theists. When that point is reached there is a strong temptation to "give as good as we get". Let me assure you that would be seriously unpleasant for all of us.

I make those observations, not as a threat, but as an indication of my frustration at this insistence "you" know how we must be thinking. Please reflect on the possibility that you may be mistaken.

 

[Strathos]

There can come a point, Strathos, where atheists and agnostics can get tired of this not so subtle mind reading by theists. When that point is reached there is a strong temptation to "give as good as we get". Let me assure you that would be seriously unpleasant for all of us.

I make those observations, not as a threat, but as an indication of my frustration at this insistence "you" know how we must be thinking. Please reflect on the possibility that you may be mistaken.

Mistaken about what?

 

[Ophiolite]

Mistaken about what?

Mistaken about your views on how atheists and agnostics have arrived at their positions.

 

[Kylie]

If you expected to get nothing, that means you were approaching the attempt with an inherent bias.

I expected to get the truth. Whether God exists or not makes no difference to me. I am not hoping for one result or the other.

Anyway, if you are arguing that we only get what we expect to get, then I'll say that you only get evidence for God because that's what you expect, so we can't trust your conclusions either.

 

[Strathos]

Mistaken about your views on how atheists and agnostics have arrived at their positions.

What do you think my views are on that?

I expected to get the truth. Whether God exists or not makes no difference to me. I am not hoping for one result or the other.

Anyway, if you are arguing that we only get what we expect to get, then I'll say that you only get evidence for God because that's what you expect, so we can't trust your conclusions either.

That's not what I was saying.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

In other words, you can't find God if you go about looking for Him like a scientist. That is the wrong type of epistemology for that kind of knowledge.

 

[Kylie]

That's not what I was saying.

In other words, you can't find God if you go about looking for Him like a scientist. That is the wrong type of epistemology for that kind of knowledge.

So I have to believe in it before I get the evidence? Like I've said many times before, this seems to be just asking me to lower my standards of evidence.

 

[Strathos]

So I have to believe in it before I get the evidence? Like I've said many times before, this seems to be just asking me to lower my standards of evidence.

No, you just have to approach it from a different angle than you are used to.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In other words, you can't find God if you go about looking for Him like a scientist. That is the wrong type of epistemology for that kind of knowledge.

What that passage says is that you have to trust God when you already believe in him. It says nothing about finding him in the first place.