Flat out denial.

Colter said:

Which part? That you have faith in doctrines of doubt and fine tune defense of your doctrines by engaging people who have faith in the Living God? Or that Lucifer's pride lead him to take himself to seriously?

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

All of it. If you're going to accuse someone of deceiving themselves You'd better be able to back it up. I've given you a perfectly valid and sound argument to back up my contentions. Its logic is impeccable and its premises are undeniably true. You rejected it without argument. So who is the one deceiving himself? I take reason very seriously. In fact I consider it a matter of life and death. Apparently, you don't and you like to just assert things about people who disagree with you which attacks their character instead of producing a rational argument.

Click to expand...

paulm50 said:

The problem with "Faith". Is in how far you want t take it.

The Bible has been proved wrong more than it's been proved right. Even Jesus, if he actually said it, has been proven wrong, and don;t get me started on Revelations which was clearly written by a mad man. And included to scare people into staying in line.

I know the 10 Commandments are good, most of what Jesus taught is very good. I question the rest, because if man was born in sin, why should we accept none of the bibles writers and heroes were without sin. When many of them, according to the bible, were clearly sinners.

My biggest doubt of gods existence comes not from science, it's from the world around us now and for the last 2,000 years. When Man has never hesitated in killing his fellow Man on the least excuse. Religious wars among warring Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. All following the same religion, just a slightly different version. Then different religions killing each other. Then different tribes killing each other.

All because god or Jesus fails to return, as promised. Jesus could of saved billions of lives if he had only stayed around longer. Is the slaughter a gods intention or a lack of their being a god to stop it?


There may well be a creator. The writers of the bible had no knowledge or contact with him. Unless one's perception is only what a books says, and even then one ignores a lot of it.

Evidence of how evolution works, is all around us. Our food, pets and gardens prove how easy it is to make living things evolve.

Click to expand...

Colter said:

Oh, I heard your argument, I disagree with it, a majority of philosophers disagree with Rand's apparently iron clad, grotesquely self centered ideology.

At the end of it all we both have different and unprovable beliefs.

"The exquisite and transcendent experience of loving and being loved is not just a psychic illusion because it is so purely subjective. The one truly divine and objective reality that is associated with mortal beings, the Thought Adjuster, functions to human observation apparently as an exclusively subjective phenomenon. Man's contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB
​

God is there you just deny him, you hide behind the inability of others to prove their subjective experience with God. That's what Lucifer did, "He traded on reverence as ignorance."​

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

Whether or not a majority of philosophers disagree with Ayn Rand is irreverent. My argument made no mention of Ayn Rand. My argument is valid and sound and therefore its conclusion is true. I have met my burden of proof so I am completely, rationally justified in my belief.

"At the end of it all we both have different and unprovable beliefs."

Wrong. I've proven mine conclusively.

"God is there you just deny him"

Prove it!!!

If you deny premise 2 of my argument, that existence has metaphysical primacy, then are you saying this is so because you want it to be so? Be very careful that you do not affirm premise 2 with your answer.

You are exhibiting the very behavior that the OP finds so frustrating.

Click to expand...

Colter said:

As I said long ago, there are two different realms of existence, if either science or religion denies one then they are viewing the universe in distortion. The frustration in the OP is your inability to disprove the God that we experience in faith. We cannot prove beyond doubt because to the finite mind God is experienced like personalities are experienced. But neither can you disprove God.

"As mind pursues reality to its ultimate analysis, matter vanishes to the material senses but may still remain real to mind. When spiritual insight pursues that reality which remains after the disappearance of matter and pursues it to an ultimate analysis, it vanishes to mind, but the insight of spirit can still perceive cosmic realities and supreme values of a spiritual nature. Accordingly does science give way to philosophy, while philosophy must surrender to the conclusions inherent in genuine spiritual experience. Thinking surrenders to wisdom, and wisdom is lost in enlightened and reflective worship." UB 1955​

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

"As I said long ago, there are two different realms of existence"

Prove it!!!!

"But neither can you disprove God."

I have already done so with a valid and sound argument.

I think you owe me an apology for calling me dishonest.

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

All of it. If you're going to accuse someone of deceiving themselves You'd better be able to back it up. I've given you a perfectly valid and sound argument to back up my contentions. Its logic is impeccable and its premises are undeniably true. You rejected it without argument. So who is the one deceiving himself? I take reason very seriously. In fact I consider it a matter of life and death. Apparently, you don't and you like to just assert things about people who disagree with you which attacks their character instead of producing a rational argument.

Click to expand...

Colter said:

LOL! That's why people who know God smile at your foolishness, knowing God we know your argument is a fallacy. If you are not wise enough to distinguish between your conscious mind perceiving external material realities and the preexisting material realm then what would be my conceptual basis to prove this to you? But of coarse you are wise enough to concede it without this silly demand for proof. That's where you are exhibiting the reverse of what the OP is lamenting. We find it equally sad that you see without seeing and hear without hearing.

Click to expand...

JacksBratt said:

I looked for this sound argument. Is it in this thread. Could you direct me to the post # please?

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

It was a long time ago so I'll reproduce it here.

1. If existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the Christian God does not exist.

2. Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Therefor the Christian God does not exist.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

Faith and belief are not easily 'educated' out of us. It also seems to me that there is more hand wringing by unbelievers than by believers over belief.

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

It was a long time ago so I'll reproduce it here.

1. If existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the Christian God does not exist.

2. Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Therefor the Christian God does not exist.

Click to expand...

nonbeliever314 said:

I'm done trying to debate religious people. But I'll retire with a question and some discussion... What causes some of you, in the heat of a debate, to flat out deny things that are ridiculously obvious? Like when a scientist says "No, you're wrong, this is how this works....." etc, but you still take the original idea that you were just shown wrong about and still run with it? Why do you do that?

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

It's called faith.

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

I see that you refuse to address my argument and that you are demonstrating everything that the OP said. You can "smile at my foolishness" but you can't refute the argument I presented to you and you offer no proof that your assertion that there are two realms of existence is true. Why should I concede something that you have made no argument for Is all of what you say true because you want it to be true? Be careful that you do not concede my argument with your answer.

Asking for proof of a claim is silly? I think you are silly. You need to go back to the kids table. This is a place for adults to have serious discussions about very important issues. At the kids table you can talk about whatever you want to; Unicorns, fairies, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but you are not taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Kirsten said:

Evidence is subjective. People claim there is no evidence to suggest there is a creator. Many believe that everything in existence is evidence of a creator. It all depends on your perception of the world around you.

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Denial in people who are this type; evolution deniers, moon landing deniers and the like, use denial not consciously in the manner of; "I know this is good evidence so I am just going to deny it". They use it as a rudimentary part of a strong belief that is crucial to their psyche and the denial becomes subconscious and virtually automatic. Virtually to the point, where they have brain washed themselves.

It all comes down to pain. Is it more painful to accept the evidence that my belief is wrong, or is it more painful to use defense mechanisms to protect the belief. Those who deny well evidenced reality, choose the path of less pain. With some people, they may get to a point, where it actually becomes more painful and requires too much energy and inner turmoil to keep denying and they eventually give up their belief. The ones who hang onto their belief though, keep building stronger and stronger defense mechanisms.

Click to expand...

JacksBratt said:

Thanks, thought I missed something.

Click to expand...