Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not only that, but all other answers are wrong, everyone else is an unethical wolf stalking innocent sheep, and as we've learned elsewhere, those who disagree lead purposeless, meaningless lives.
I do wonder, if not for indoctrination of youth, social pressure, the coercion of afterlife punishments and rewards depending on unquestioning obedience, and the (occasionally literal) demonization of non-believers, would any religion be relevant today? Would any survive on merit alone?
Just as long as you remember that sincere belief doesn't give anyone special privileges. Discussion of things you believe - even if that discussion isn't uncritical acceptance - are not personal attacks, no matter how sincerely you believe them. Just as you have a sincere religious belief, I have a sincere belief that simply having a religious belief doesn't make them immune from discussion if the believer brings them out into public.
Who was the OP of this thread again?
This thread is not about my faith and had a person been paying attention, they would see that this post is about proper etiquette within a rational, purposeful conversation.
The beginning was to show that no matter the evidence it never becomes enough (which is fine) for certain people making them believe they just can't be wrong so I ask If that is required of religion, it must be applied to the rest of life with such strictness.
This infinite line of questioning gets no where.
And the conversation continued in the many issues of this section which leads practically every thread into the ditch of criticism and negativity.
Interesting response. For some reason, using the methods outlined as a valid way to determine the truth of a subject is offensive when it is used to determine the truth of the wrong type of fantastic claim. No reasons are given for this special pleading, but it is obviously quite offensive to consistently apply the tools offered up by apologists to the wrong subject.
I'd be curious to know why this sort of consistent investigation is so objectionable. If the process leads to obvious nonsense when applied to situations other than the desired god-based outcome, the person pointing that out isn't at fault.
I don't have a posting history with Freodin. If you do and are going off of previous posting history, that's another matter. In the discussion I saw, I don't see where he was being insincere. You had an opportunity to explain the answers to his questions. Which you attempted to do. You didn't like his response, and then blamed him. That's what it appeared like to me.This isn't the first dance I have had here with Freodin. If you go back to post #160 you will find that this particular line of phony inquiry started with an admission that he had an agenda to begin with, to try another avenue to make a point. Like those spies sent in to trip up Jesus but ended up hearing the truth and finding God.
Freodin said: "Let's try something else..."
His thesis was exposed at the end of the exchanges: "If all we have to find out the truth is our differing experiences, we are stuck. That's were this pesky concept of evidence comes in."
Atheist hide behind the demand for evidence of the inner spiritual life of believers because they know from the outset that it can't be proven in their fictitious science lab. So they take believers down paths of confusion while getting a sick sense of self satisfaction out of peppering one with more and more artfully insincere questions.
You are dealing with Lucifers meme with this bunch.
Is telling someone they have a contrarian spirit and that they are asking stupid questions going to help people get along ?Yes, if we are to get along on earth then no one has the right to assert "authority" over another's beliefs.
I liken it to the appreciation of art, everyone comes away with a different experience of the composition, no one interpretation is perfect. We agree the art is there......but then some Atheist with a rebellious, contrarian spirit, will start asking stupid questions like "how do we know that's art?"
To the bolded part: yet all throughout history people have claimed to experience God, gods, and supernatural beings apart from "inner relationships" only. So if people are seeing burning bushes, being freed from prisons by angels, finding discs in the US, parting seas, having arms and legs grow back, etc ... all accounts common to various Christian denominations, etc ... is it ridiculous to ask for physical evidence ? And if you are unable to produce anything of the sort, why is that the problem of others ? According to commonly referenced scriptures, did the Egyptians not experience and see some of the same things the Israelites saw in their exodus ? The Egyptians didn't believe in the God of the Hebrews, yet according to the scriptures they saw some pretty extraordinary evidence. Enough to convince them to pay heed to the Hebrews. Did the unbelievers in Jesus' day not see the same miracles Jesus performed ? Didn't many of them actually believe Jesus was doing those things by the power of evil ? So even then, evidence was still there, and as I recall, even Jesus appealed to it (I had to Google this lol, it's from John 14):That is true, I have conceded that on many occasions with you and others. You should know this, in fact, I think you do know this, that the inner relationship between God and man is indescribable and unprovable in any absolute sense. Therefore, when a spiritualist is questioned by a materialist using the material approach, we must resort to analogies. But when we do that the questions just multiply. 2 questions becomes 4, 4 becomes 8, 8 becomes 16,32,48 and then others chime in with more......
I don't care that people are put-off by me, and spare me the psychobabble and your failed attempts at guilt tripping doctor!! I absolutely question the motives of Atheist who join Christian forums pretending to "just want to understand" while mocking us as imagining gods and something about Star Trek, and Santa clause and all that garbage!
I not only disagree but I declare them useless and bigoted, unless you can provide evidence against such claim. If not, this is where we are left.
Let me ask you: if when asked for evidence, would you like to be able to perform a miracle in response ? Or demonstrate a "supernatural" type of feat to back up your points or whatever is being questioned ? If you could, would you wish to have God speak on your behalf with the person asking the claims ? Voice from heaven, voice in some fashion, SOMETHING in other words ?This thread is not about my faith and had a person been paying attention, they would see that this post is about proper etiquette within a rational, purposeful conversation.
The beginning was to show that no matter the evidence it never becomes enough (which is fine) for certain people making them believe they just can't be wrong so I ask If that is required of religion, it must be applied to the rest of life with such strictness.
This infinite line of questioning gets no where.
And the conversation continued in the many issues of this section which leads practically every thread into the ditch of criticism and negativity. Asking for evidence is one thing but to ask of evidence for everything, including the evidence itself and the evidence of evidence of evidence (and on it goes)begins to steer the conversation into the ditch.
You mention; "no matter the evidence", but I have yet to see you produce any objective evidence, to support your claim.
This is why, beliefs in God, come down to faith and not evidence, that can be applied to others and there is nothing wrong with believing on faith.
Could I be wrong in not believing in a God? Sure, I could be wrong, but I see no logical reason, to believe one exists. If you want to, knock yourself out.
Let me ask you: if when asked for evidence, would you like to be able to perform a miracle in response ? Or demonstrate a "supernatural" type of feat to back up your points or whatever is being questioned ? If you could, would you wish to have God speak on your behalf with the person asking the claims ? Voice from heaven, voice in some fashion, SOMETHING in other words ?
Why or why not ?
How is it off topic ? Your OP deals with your personal thoughts and feelings concerning the manner in which people ask for "evidence" and communication goes, etc and so forth. And how does it confirm your original post ? If it is confirming your OP ... wouldn't that mean it's on topic with the OP lol ?If you wish to have this discussion, which is completely off topic and only confirms my original post, make another thread. This is completely off topic.
Again, this thread is not about my belief, you are simply ignoring my post and just continuing on some point you are trying to prove.
kristina411 said:I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.
Again, this thread is not about my belief, you are simply ignoring my post and just continuing on some point you are trying to prove.
You have not asked for evidence from me of anything. I however just asked you for your evidence to support your claims against Christians to which you had none.
You and I are through with this discussion, it goes no where when only one person is receptive.
Do you agree with the basic psychological principles that influence our beliefs? For example, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, etc.?
A thread you started about evidence and it's relation to justifying claims of your beliefs isn't about justifying claims of your beliefs?
He isn't off topic at all, that is the topic.
How is it off topic ? Your OP deals with your personal thoughts and feelings concerning the manner in which people ask for "evidence" and communication goes, etc and so forth. And how does it confirm your original post ? If it is confirming your OP ... wouldn't that mean it's on topic with the OP lol ?
I'm being serious in my questions, not rhetorical.
Seriously, how is it off topic ?
And I don't see the point in making another thread just to ask you, specifically, a question about yourself :-/
That was clearly an example and not the topic. Should the word "can" be thoroughly discussed as well, since I undoubtedly used that word in my post as well?
This mindset is merely an attempt to get under ones skin, but I have better things to do. Take care.
If you wish to know what evidence is acceptable by anyone, this is not the post.
If you look at the original post it was to ask if so much evidence is required of all other aspects of life. This was a start to a conversation on etiquette behavior in discussions. It is not about any evidence specifically but about all evidence indirectly.
Your questioning is about direct evidence of my personal views. Completely off topic.
This is one of the common themes in these discussions. Theists are asked for evidence that back their claims, and they immediately shift the burden of proof. It is Russell's Teapot:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.--Bertrand Russell
The thread is about how you present your beliefs and how people ask you for evidence (and how believers are asked for evidence in general), and whether it is appropriate because that is how you presented it in your OP.
Getting under your skin by discussing the exact subject exactly as presented isn't appropriately termed an "attempt to get under ones skin".
If someone doesn't want to answer a personal question about themselves, I don't typically push for an answer. So I'll drop it.If you wish to know what evidence is acceptable by anyone, this is not the post.
If you look at the original post it was to ask if so much evidence is required of all other aspects of life. This was a start to a conversation on etiquette behavior in discussions. It is not about any evidence specifically but about all evidence indirectly.
Your questioning is about direct evidence of my personal views. Completely off topic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?