Observations : Create Your Own God

[ScottA]

It's easy enough to make claims, not so easy to substantiate them. Illusion or no, I'll take the palpable and consistent appearance of objective reality over what is, no offence, just another unsubstantiated claim of the undefinable ineffable.

That of course is the typical position of most of humanity having to experience life for themselves. So, then, like children not wanting to take advice from parents or even their older brothers and sisters...most don't take advantage of the advice of those who have gone before: history repeats itself, and lessons have to be relearned.

But seriously (you can't be serious), who could substantiate those things learned from age, let alone new birth? The problem is not that the claims cannot be substantiated, but rather that you need to touch the stove for yourself. Is the problem, that we do not show the scars of having learned the hard way - that you do not believe? Because, we can tell you...but going back to your station in life and showing you the future...ain't going to happen.

So, take our advice, or touch the stove, or don't. But, "We told you so."

 

[quatona]

That of course is the typical position of most of humanity having to experience life for themselves. So, then, like children not wanting to take advice from parents or even their older brothers and sisters...

What makes you think you are like my parents or my elder siblings, in the first place?

But seriously (you can't be serious), who could substantiate those things learned from age

So, how many years are you ahead of me?

The problem is not that the claims cannot be substantiated,

That´s most definitely a problem for their credibility.

but rather that you need to touch the stove for yourself.

It´s not that complicated if you want to assist someone in learning what he can only learn by experience: "Here´s the hot stove. It´s really hot. If you want to, check it out."

Is the problem, that we do not show the scars of having learned the hard way - that you do not believe?

I guess the problem is that you are not me - we have had different starting points, different problems, different lives and made different experiences. Your personal experience is yours. Mine is mine. You don´t rely on mine, I don´t rely on yours - for good reasons.

So, take our advice, or touch the stove, or don't.

Ok. Where´s the stove? Let me learn about those immediate consequences you encountered.

But, "We told you so."

Must be comforting.

 

[ScottA]

What makes you think you are like my parents or my elder siblings, in the first place?
So, how many years are you ahead of me?

It's just an analogy. I could have (and have) said that it's like being on some vantage point and offering what can be seen to someone else who is not at the vantage point. It's not a contest. You can take it or leave.

That´s most definitely a problem for their credibility.

We're not applying for your approval. Our credibility has already been established...and has nothing to do with you.

It´s not that complicated if you want to assist someone in learning what he can only learn by experience: "Here´s the hot stove. It´s really hot. If you want to, check it out."

Go for it.

I guess the problem is that you are not me - we have had different starting points, different problems, different lives and made different experiences. Your personal experience is yours. Mine is mine. You don´t rely on mine, I don´t rely on yours - for good reasons.

You could look at it that way. Or you could say we were both born, experience adolescence, school, peer pressures, the hard reality of life after growing up, the joys that don't occur often enough, accomplishments, illness, and sometime death. And the person 20 cars ahead of you might just be able to let you know what is around the bend up ahead. Just sayin'.

Must be comforting.

No...it's sad, and wasteful, and unnecessary, and unfortunate, even foolish.

Ok. Where´s the stove? Let me learn about those immediate consequences you encountered.

It's at the end of the world - your world. When you get there, we'll have much to talk about. Until then, you're a babe in a wide, wonderful world. Enjoy.

 

[quatona]

It's just an analogy.

...and I can´t know which parts of your analogy were actually just redundant.

I could have (and have) said that it's like being on some vantage point and offering what can be seen to someone else who is not at the vantage point. It's not a contest.

Good, so we´re at different vantage points. You see things I don´t see, I see things you don´t see.

We're not applying for your approval.

"We" - pluralis majestatis or MPD?

Our credibility has already been established...

....apparently not in any demonstrable way, though.

and has nothing to do with you.
Go for it.

Sounds like you are just pretending to have a conversation with me but actually are just talking to yourself in my presence.

You could look at it that way. Or you could say we were both born, experience adolescence, school, peer pressures, the hard reality of life after growing up, the joys that don't occur often enough, accomplishments, illness, and sometime death. And the person 20 cars ahead of you might just be able to let you know what is around the bend up ahead. Just sayin'.

So again you use an analogy that pictures you as the person ahead of me. Are you going to tell me again that this was just a redundant part of your analogy, or are you going to own your arrogance by now?

No...it's sad, and wasteful, and unnecessary, and unfortunate, even foolish.

Then why do you say it, even though it´s foolish?

It's at the end of the world - your world. When you get there, we'll have much to talk about. Until then, you're a babe in a wide, wonderful world. Enjoy.

Yes, daddy. Whatever you say, daddy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... So, then, like children not wanting to take advice from parents or even their older brothers and sisters...most don't take advantage of the advice of those who have gone before: history repeats itself, and lessons have to be relearned.

I could make the same comment back to you, and with considerably more justification.

But seriously (you can't be serious), who could substantiate those things learned from age, let alone new birth? The problem is not that the claims cannot be substantiated, but rather that you need to touch the stove for yourself. Is the problem, that we do not show the scars of having learned the hard way - that you do not believe? Because, we can tell you...but going back to your station in life and showing you the future...ain't going to happen.

Behind all the hand-waving, the claim - like others of its kind - remains unsubstantiated. Further, it is contradictory to what we have - after centuries of hard work - learned about the universe we occupy, hot stoves and all. Our experience of learning about the world has shown us that these are powerful reasons not to believe.

But, "We told you so."

That's what they all say.

 

[ScottA]

...and I can´t know which parts of your analogy were actually just redundant.

Good, so we´re at different vantage points. You see things I don´t see, I see things you don´t see.

"We" - pluralis majestatis or MPD?

....apparently not in any demonstrable way, though.

Sounds like you are just pretending to have a conversation with me but actually are just talking to yourself in my presence.

So again you use an analogy that pictures you as the person ahead of me. Are you going to tell me again that this was just a redundant part of your analogy, or are you going to own your arrogance by now?

Then why do you say it, even though it´s foolish?

Yes, daddy. Whatever you say, daddy.

You don't seem to be interested enough to see your way through the challenge.

There is nothing arrogant about being born tall and telling someone else what they cannot see over the fence if they happen to be shorter (this is an example - nothing here is redundant). But I was once down where you are, and I am not here putting up with your attitude because I see myself as better than you, but as comparable and in need.

 

[quatona]

You don't seem to be interested enough to see your way through the challenge.

Challenge?

There is nothing arrogant about being born tall and telling someone else what they cannot see over the fence if they happen to be shorter (this is an example - nothing here is redundant).

Then your claim that you are taller is unsubstantiated.

But I was once down where you are,

No, you never were up where I am. (Now, that was easy.)

 

[ScottA]

I could make the same comment back to you, and with considerably more justification.
Behind all the hand-waving, the claim - like others of its kind - remains unsubstantiated. Further, it is contradictory to what we have - after centuries of hard work - learned about the universe we occupy, hot stoves and all. Our experience of learning about the world has shown us that these are powerful reasons not to believe.
That's what they all say.

That is not true. It is apparent that you are [admittedly] unqualified in the area of the bigger spiritual part of life.

Sight cannot be "substantiated" to the blind. You can stop demanding it. Get real.

The whole universe was "created" and you have been duped. We're trying to help you see past the illusion. But you are certainly welcome to pass...but then, why even make a case?

 

[ScottA]

Challenge?


Then your claim that you are taller is unsubstantiated.

No, you never were up where I am. (Now, that was easy.)

Predictable. As if figured: the little train that can't. Never mind.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It is apparent that you are [admittedly] unqualified in the area of the bigger spiritual part of life.

A statement you can't justify...

 

[ScottA]

A statement you can't justify...

His denial, is my justification...you know, as in "admittedly." If he would like to acknowledge the bigger spiritual side of life...I will gladly retract.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

His denial, is my justification...you know, as in "admittedly." If he would like to acknowledge the bigger spiritual side of life...I will gladly retract.

Prove a "bigger spiritual side of life".

 

[ScottA]

Prove a "bigger spiritual side of life".

No - it doesn't work that way - nobody's going to drag you up either.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No - it doesn't work that way - nobody's going to drag you up either.

So without the ability to prove your point, I can dismiss you as delusional.

 

[ScottA]

So without the ability to prove your point, I can dismiss you as delusional.

Absolutely (and you can stand on one foot if you like). But then you will just be putting off knowing the truth until you die. Your choice.

But, I gotta tell ye...you really sound messed up...and we're just trying to help. I mean, you show up here on a "Christian" site, and call yourself a "seeker", and then won't receive anything, but instead, cop an attitude and make demands. You sound like a little kid demanding that he won't take any ice cream unless it's just so. So, don't be surprised if the answer is: "Fine, go without then."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Absolutely (and you can stand on one foot if you like). But then you will just be putting off knowing the truth until you die. Your choice.

It still surprises me when Christian resort to the childish "Oh yeah? You'll get yours in the end!" when they don't have an actual argument. You do realize that atheists aren't scared of things we don't believe exist, right?

But, I gotta tell ye...you really sound messed up...and we're just trying to help.

Funny, I feel the same way about you...

I mean, you show up here on a "Christian" site, and call yourself a "seeker", and then won't receive anything, but instead, cop an attitude and make demands. You sound like a little kid demanding that he won't take any ice cream unless it's just so. So, don't be surprised if the answer is: "Fine, go without then."

Lol. My "demands" of actual evidence correspond to the way humans have determined truth from falsehood for millennia. In fact, I guarantee that you use the same methods in your day-to-day life. Or maybe you don't, in which case I have some magic beans I think you should buy...

 

[ScottA]

It still surprises me when Christian resort to the childish "Oh yeah? You'll get yours in the end!" when they don't have an actual argument. You do realize that atheists aren't scared of things we don't believe exist, right?

Funny, I feel the same way about you...

Lol. My "demands" of actual evidence correspond to the way humans have determined truth from falsehood for millennia. In fact, I guarantee that you use the same methods in your day-to-day life. Or maybe you don't, in which case I have some magic beans I think you should buy...

So...which is it, are you "seeking" or lying? Because, if you were really a "seeker", you should drop the attitude...and if you are lying, you get what you deserve. And coming here and putting your nose against the glass - now that's, childish. But, hey, I love kids!

Okay, take a lesson smart guy: Evidence from another world...doesn't work here. Stop asking.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So...which is it, are you "seeking" or lying? Because, if you were really a "seeker", you should drop the attitude...and if you are lying, you get what you deserve.

I seek knowledge evidenced in a rational way. Which is something you seem unable to provide. The term "seeker" has nothing to do with accepting any of the infinite possible claims without evidence.

And coming here and putting your nose against the glass - now that's, childish. But, hey, I love kids!

Lol. I'm the one with the attitude, huh?

Pot. Kettle. Black...

Okay, take a lesson smart guy: Evidence from another world...doesn't work here. Stop asking.

So with this nonsensical statement... once again...

Without actual evidence for your beliefs, I (and basically every non believer here) should assume that you're delusional until shown differently.

 

[quatona]

Predictable. As if figured: the little train that can't. Never mind.

If you have anything but unsupported appeals to your own authority and superiority come back to me.

 

[ScottA]

I seek knowledge evidenced in a rational way. Which is something you seem unable to provide. The term "seeker" has nothing to do with accepting any of the infinite possible claims without evidence.



Lol. I'm the one with the attitude, huh?

Pot. Kettle. Black...



So with this nonsensical statement... once again...

Without actual evidence for your beliefs, I (and basically every non believer here) should assume that you're delusional until shown differently.

So, then...everything you do not understand...is "nonsensical?" - Because, that was critical information. If you do not understand it, you will not be able to advance.