Disobedience has consequences.

[Davian]

Then why are you here?

To observe the behaviour of religionists having their beliefs challenged.

First hand experiences are not empirical proof. They fail to meet the requirements of scientific methodology or the concept of falsifiability.

empirical
adjective
1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

That does leave you with a couple of conundrums.

1) How am I to observe what goes on in your head?
2) If what goes on in other's heads is evidence, then by your standards my experience with Santa (and millions of others) would count towards the existence of Santa as reality.

Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

Santa

• Davian
• Jun 5, 2014

Do you want to go there?

 

[Davian]

That is your opinion. and one I will not back down from.

Even after demonstrating that I am right. This is fascinating to observe.

I am not open minded to all things.

Are you infallible?

Why do you believe I must care what everyone thinks?

Dunno. Myself, I would like to be shown how I am wrong, regardless of the topic.

There is no decision to make.

Are you now agreeing that belief is not a choice, not a conscious decision?

This construct of yours is an attempted trap so you can say... Ah ha! you see?!?? Sorry I don't play such games.

It is called a thought experiment. Are we not in a philosophy forum?

Oh my... I don't see the intentions behind this question. Man this is a hard one. Let me see.... Its a reference to a fairy tale in accordance to belief.

No, it is an exploration of the nature of belief. You just think you cannot be wrong.

Man, I cant tell where your going with that one.

These aren't even genuine questions. There poorly laid traps in attempt to make a moot point.

If you don't want to do philosophy, why are you here?

 

[Davian]

No, I wouldn't feel silly at all.

Santa, I really would like a new specialized touring bike. A 16 speed shamano shift, and saddles. I don't like clip-ons, so if you would please just give me regular pedals. Thanks dude.

While I do not think that this is the appropriate venue for letters to Santa, was that request sincere? Do you think you might actually get that bike? Perhaps we should wait until he comes to a mall near you.

 

[Davian]

You know why? He aint real... no power, or authority in O'l Saint nicks name.

He is real to millions of individuals. He has been real to me, as an adult. I still get goosebumps as I recall the experience.

Or a leprechaun, or the FSM, Or the god in a jar.

I have never believed any of those to be real.

All of that is just foolishness to try and confuse the validity of God. It is meaningless.

...says the guy unable to define what he believes in any testable, falsifiable manner.

I do however confess Jesus Christ as the word of God made flesh, and the one true God.

Wrong forum. There are other forums on this site that would be more appropriate for preaching.

 

[oi_antz]

I do not get into semantics. They are pointless. The message is:
(Joh 14:6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

It simply doesn't matter how you term it. The event will happen.

I am not questioning whether the time will come when the event happens, but what that event is makes a huge difference to a person's acceptance of it as a method of justice. These scriptures do not answer my question. Edit: I was mistaken before, I remembered that I had asked this of Skavau but in fact I had asked it of you - Davian, look!

Does that book explain how your religion successfully repeals the laws pf physics?

No, Acts has nothing to say about science, it is all history. Please come back to the original topic for the question:

Do you believe there is statements in the bible that contradict reality, and do you believe there are statements in the bible that do not contradict reality?

- You have answered this already WRT the book of Genesis. I would like to know what you will say about other books that are found in the bible, say for example, the book of Acts.

An argument from ignorance, a fallacy in informal logic.

I am not making the claim that you are mistaken about your experiences. Do not misrepresent my position. The burden is on you to show that you are not mistaken.

Why is that? I am not demanding it, are you?

Perhaps you are a biological miracle, and you are immune to all of those memory issues previously referenced, and you should take yourself to the nearest neuroscientist. The Nobel committee awaits.

I didn't suggest that I was. But you seem to be suggesting that memory problems cause me to be mistaken about my belief in the reality of God. That is a positive claim you are making, and the onus is on you to prove it. I doubt you will accept this, let's see.

Not if you are still at the point where you think fallacious arguments support your position.

I disagree with this.

I can confirm that it is in fact true, I do not take you seriously.

Your problem, a relief for me TBH.

What error did I make?

You suggested I could not be taken seriously because I am able to believe Genesis as fact as well as fiction.

Allegedly.

You don't want to know what they are, but you will dismiss them anyway? Ok..

My experience in these forums has shown me that there is no position, however contradictory to another, that cannot be in some way shown to have a scriptural basis in the Bible.

Yes, because everyone is free to be wrong.

Just common sense, unborn babies for example.......but frankly the story is so obsurd we can't even have a serious discussion about it.

It is your belief about the story that causes this, rather than the story itself. FYI. I am willing to have a serious discussion about it, but you are not. Yet, you will want to express your opinions about it. So.. like I said to Davian just now, it is your problem and a relief for me.

An infringement on one's civil liberties is obviously wrong. No-one would like to be oppressed, even dictators would not like their actions used on or against them. No-one restricts what they like to do. Supporting free association, expression and thought results in a freer society which is to the benefit of all of us.

What I am driving at is why this is wrong. Surely that if someone is likely to harm others, then the freedom of information that will enable them to make weapons should be restricted. Yet the same information could be accessed safely by someone who for instance needs to make explosives for construction. The point being, is an authoritative government capable of having your support, if we assume the government is perfect (which we should suppose is not possible in any government that a human is in charge of).

Until of course, I die, and God decides to exile/torture/torment me for my conviction?

You haven't shown me the basis for this belief. I wonder if you just like the ad hominum rather than the truth. It seems that way, but you don't seem like that sort of person.

Is he not overdue by a couple thousand years? How long can we expect to hear about this rumoured return?

FYI: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6:10-11&version=NKJV

And the burden of proof lies on you to convince a non-christian of that

I don't think this is true, can you please explain why you do?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I don't think this is true, can you please explain why you do?

I'm gonna use my wings scenario here; it's my favorite.

My claim: "I have retractable wings."

Naturally, knowing human anatomy, we have more than enough reason to be dubious of this claim right? Well after you ask me for proof and my response was "It's not my job to prove it true, you have to prove that I don't."

Do you see how this logically doesn't follow? Why is it up to you to prove a negative? Can you prove I don't have wings? No. Here's why.

You look behind me. No wings. Caught me?

They're under my jacket.

You feel my back for wings. No wings. Caught me?

My wings are small.

You feel a more fine area for smaller wings. No wings. Caught me?

My wings are very thin.

You get frustrated and yank my jacket off. No wings. Caught me?

Nope. My wings are under my skin.

See? No matter what you do. I can create a new scenario with which my wings exist and can keep doing so, no matter how ludicrous it gets. My claim that I have the wings will still stand even though I have not proved it. And all you've proven and continue to prove is that under a,b,c scenario I do not have wings, but what about d,e,f?

This craziness is easily rectified by withholding belief in my claim until it is proven true. Until I show you myself that I indeed have wings, you're justified in calling my claim false. Because I have not proven it to be true in any scenario, It is not true that my wings reside under my jacket, under my skin. And you're justified to not believe so until I prove to you that the claim is true.

It's the same with people who ask atheists to prove God does not exist. We can't do that. The scenarios play out similarly to the wings. Scenario A, Scenario B, Scenario C, Scenario D, to the infinite. If we tried to prove a negative your claim would remain true forever.

But because that's not how logic works, we withhold our belief until the claim is proven true. And are under no contract to prove it false. Burden of proof.

If I didn't explain it well enough (as I do tend to be scramble minded at 4:43 AM sorry) here's an excellent example of what I just explained from James Randi.

 

[Davian]

On behalf of myself, and all of the other participants of this thread, I ask that you not lump all of your responses together, forcing us to edit this mess down just to respond.

Thanks.

No, Acts has nothing to say about science, it is all history.

Your opinion is noted.

Please come back to the original topic for the question:

Do you believe there is statements in the bible that contradict reality, and do you believe there are statements in the bible that do not contradict reality?

Yes.

- You have answered this already WRT the book of Genesis. I would like to know what you will say about other books that are found in the bible, say for example, the book of Acts.

I have no specific comment. Once the promotor of a [claimed] perceptual motion machine has failed to demonstrate that his device works as claimed, I do not see the value in further discussion of the sales brochure.

You suggested I could not be taken seriously because I am able to believe Genesis as fact as well as fiction.

I was not in error. I cannot take you seriously.

FYI: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6:10-11&version=NKJV

And Jesus said to them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And did one then reply: "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma of which we find the ultimate meaning in our interpersonal relationships."

And Jesus said unto him, "What?"

I don't think this is true, can you please explain why you do?

As a religionist, not thinking that you are to shoulder the burden of proof for the claims your religion makes is an ideal position to take. I only wonder, do you know it is a snipe hunt, or not?

 

[oi_antz]

On behalf of myself, and all of the other participants of this thread, I ask that you not lump all of your responses together, forcing us to edit this mess down just to respond.

Thanks.

Ok, thanks, I had not seen that as a problem, but I will keep that in mind. All I know is I made about ten responses in a row this morning and it made me feel like I was overly dominant. I did this for my own comfort, but I did not know you would have a problem with it. I will consider your perspective, I think you are right, especially for those using touch screen devices.

Your opinion is noted.

Yes.

I have no specific comment. Once the promotor of a [claimed] perceptual motion machine has failed to demonstrate that his device works as claimed, I do not see the value in further discussion of the sales brochure.

Hang on, who is the promoter? Are you saying that Genesis and Acts are the same brochure? If so, I will want to argue about that. The writer of Acts should not be held accountable for the content that the writer of Genesis has produced.

I was not in error. I cannot take you seriously.

You have not explained why though, so at this point you seem to be trolling.

And Jesus said to them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And did one then reply: "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma of which we find the ultimate meaning in our interpersonal relationships."

And Jesus said unto him, "What?"

I hope this gave you joy Please let me know if it was meant to serve another purpose too, I did not make that assumption.

As a religionist, not thinking that you are to shoulder the burden of proof for the claims your religion makes is an ideal position to take. I only wonder, do you know it is a snipe hunt, or not?

Well I will gladly shoulder the burden of proof for claims I make, if I am expecting someone to believe them, but I will not allow someone to be dishonest in order to deny that proof. However, you are actually speaking about me having to shoulder a burden of proof for claims that someone else has made, because I have chosen to believe those claims. Please explain why you think this is reasonable, because I don't yet think it is.

.. plus, it is easier for me to respond to all posts if I do them in one post, because now I need to scroll through this page again to find the next post I need to refer to. The multi-quote thing, that is what it is designed for. Maybe you will just need to solve your own problems and I will mine, rather than you expect me to solve yours and still have mine.

 

[oi_antz]

I'm gonna use my wings scenario here; it's my favorite.

My claim: "I have retractable wings."

Naturally, knowing human anatomy, we have more than enough reason to be dubious of this claim right? Well after you ask me for proof and my response was "It's not my job to prove it true, you have to prove that I don't."

Do you see how this logically doesn't follow? Why is it up to you to prove a negative? Can you prove I don't have wings? No. Here's why.

You look behind me. No wings. Caught me?

They're under my jacket.

You feel my back for wings. No wings. Caught me?

My wings are small.

You feel a more fine area for smaller wings. No wings. Caught me?

My wings are very thin.

You get frustrated and yank my jacket off. No wings. Caught me?

Nope. My wings are under my skin.

See? No matter what you do. I can create a new scenario with which my wings exist and can keep doing so, no matter how ludicrous it gets. My claim that I have the wings will still stand even though I have not proved it. And all you've proven and continue to prove is that under a,b,c scenario I do not have wings, but what about d,e,f?

This craziness is easily rectified by withholding belief in my claim until it is proven true. Until I show you myself that I indeed have wings, you're justified in calling my claim false. Because I have not proven it to be true in any scenario, It is not true that my wings reside under my jacket, under my skin. And you're justified to not believe so until I prove to you that the claim is true.

It's the same with people who ask atheists to prove God does not exist. We can't do that. The scenarios play out similarly to the wings. Scenario A, Scenario B, Scenario C, Scenario D, to the infinite. If we tried to prove a negative your claim would remain true forever.

But because that's not how logic works, we withhold our belief until the claim is proven true. And are under no contract to prove it false. Burden of proof.

If I didn't explain it well enough (as I do tend to be scramble minded at 4:43 AM sorry) here's an excellent example of what I just explained from James Randi.

Your analogy assumes that you don't have wings and that you are making a false claim. This makes it a strawman.

But my question was actually that LostMarbels has said he believes Jesus is God's Word, and acknowledges Him as his worthy King. You have said that LostMarbels has some burden of proof to convince a non-Christian of that. I said that I don't think LostMarbels has any burden of proof for such a thing, as he is allowed to believe what he wants and doesn't need to convince anyone else to agree. I just wonder why you think he is obligated to convince you. Can you please explain that?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But my question was actually that LostMarbels has said he believes Jesus is God's Word, and acknowledges Him as his worthy King. You have said that LostMarbels has some burden of proof to convince a non-Christian of that. I said that I don't think LostMarbels has any burden of proof for such a thing, as he is allowed to believe what he wants and doesn't need to convince anyone else to agree. I just wonder why you think he is obligated to convince you. Can you please explain that?

The point is that if someone claims something, whether they believe it or not, then they must provide evidence if they are to expect someone else to believe it. If LostMarbels doesn't care if anyone believes or not, then they need to realize that any statement they make is utterly pointless. It certainly doesn't help their religion any. You can imagine two people with different religions in a room going "No, you're wrong" without offering anything substantive until the end of time. No minds are changed because neither recognizes the burden of proof.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

The point is that if someone claims something, whether they believe it or not, then they must provide evidence if they are to expect someone else to believe it. If LostMarbels doesn't care if anyone believes or not, then they need to realize that any statement they make is utterly pointless. It certainly doesn't help their religion any. You can imagine two people with different religions in a room going "No, you're wrong" without offering anything substantive until the end of time. No minds are changed because neither recognizes the burden of proof.

Yes but this is discussion about the NATURE of God-real or imagined.
Please stick to the topic

 

[Catherineanne]

You really believe that endorphin stuff?

It is irrelevant whether I believe it or not. It is a matter of science.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

It is irrelevant whether I believe it or not. It is a matter of science.

Yes and it is called shock.Which comes about from being in a state of terror and extreme stress.
Does the term gas chamber ring any bells?

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes and it is called shock.Which comes about from being in a state of terror and extreme stress.

No, shock is something different. Shock does not release endorphins.

Nice try, though.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

No, shock is something different. Shock does not release endorphins.

Nice try, though.

You are very naive.I have worked with animals most of my life.
Most do not die good deaths if they are left to nature.
Here is a David Attenborough clip of a young elephant being eaten alive by lions.
Very unpleasant but it might open your eyes.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...giD0oJ764YyCQuNKR-AxAzQ&bvm=bv.93990622,d.dGc

 

[SkyWriting]

An Atheist does not not trust a God, they don't believe in a God(s). There's a difference.

It's a good difference! Those who trust in false Gods in scripture seem to fare less well.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is not what Jesus said in The Sermon on the Mount-

Could you be specific on how the sermon differs?
http://biblehub.com/matthew/5.htm

 

[Colter]

Colter said: ↑

Just common sense, unborn babies for example.......but frankly the story is so obsurd we can't even have a serious discussion about it.

It is your belief about the story that causes this, rather than the story itself. FYI. I am willing to have a serious discussion about it, but you are not. Yet, you will want to express your opinions about it. So.. like I said to Davian just now, it is your problem and a relief for me.[/QOUTE]

Belief or disbelief about the veracity of a story does not change the story itself. If the Noah flood story were recently discovered in a cave it would be easily considered a fictional tale by a common audience, but because the story is in scripture, otherwise sane men and women will consider it factual. They will bend reality in justification of the fetish of priestly writings.

 

[SkyWriting]

Even here.

I didn't say that it was. You wrote, "You'd be surprised at who lives outside your front door" and then posted statistics, out of context, to make it appear that Norway has a far huger population of Christians than it actually does. You even went and bolded the word Christian. It seemed that you were trying to refute Skavau's point, when it was correct.

That doesn't sound like me. Let me check. Oh. When I did my search I used the word "Christian"
which causes that word to be bolded. And I just cut and pasted it as is.

"Recent poll results for Norway give this breakdown when it comes to religious beliefs.

• 29 percent believe in a god or deity
• 23 percent believe in a higher power without being certain of what
• 26 percent don't believe in God or higher powers
• 22 percent have doubts"

"Church attendance is a poor measure of the Norwegian state of faith," said post-doctoral fellow Thorgeir Kolshus at the University of Oslo, according to The Associated Press. "Religion is a very private thing for Norwegians."

"People are saying that it's very good, and we are seeing this from both conservative groups and more secular groups. It's definitely not only Christians buying it. It's atheists too – people are saying the Bible is important for us, for our culture, and for the nation."

 

[SkyWriting]

Indeed. It is seriously lacking in evidentiary support.
I guess that about wraps it up for God.

There can't be any. You can't use a prybar on air.
You can't use physical tools to measure a Spirit.

You have to use spiritual measurements.

A new survey shows that 51 percent of people in the world believe in God. Only 18 percent don’t and 17 percent are undecided.