Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GH · 10-30-2002, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecularFuture:
Hey � wait a minute� You're an atheist! Ugg - I should've read your profile first! I saw a few things that looked a little theistic in your reply and I jumped on it without thinking. Sorry about that.

No problem. I probably could have written that a little more clearly, anyway.

K · 10-30-2002, 06:34 PM

SOMMS:

Quote:

How would you know?

TerryTryon summed it up beautifully. Plus, I have personal experience with Christianity. I used to think I had an open line to God. I saw all the same "evidence" that you are probably seeing.

Goliath · 10-30-2002, 07:11 PM

SOMMS,

Quote:

What if ones revelation of God is dependent upon their attitude toward God?

Uhhhhh...so what? Since I do not believe that your god exists, I don't have an attitude with him/her/it per se.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Jobar · 10-30-2002, 08:32 PM

What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards God...or the idea of God?

What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards the Invisible Pink Unicorn...or the idea of the IPU?

What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards reptoids...or the idea of reptoids?

What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards the Loch Ness Monster...or the idea of the LNM?

What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards Allah...or the idea of Allah?

What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards cute brain-eating cat aliens...or the idea of cb-eca?

Where do we stop, SOMMS? Do we have to check to see if a positive mental attitude makes a difference for every single one of the practically infinite number of imagined-but-unevidenced entities that the minds of humanity can come up with?

And if you say that we do not have to do this- why do you think your God is different?

HRG · 10-31-2002, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
All,

There seems to be a slight disconnect here.

I am not saying that one must first assume God exists before they 'see' God. This is the main thrust of Vibr8gKiwi, K and Kvalhion's posts. I am also not saying that one must force themselves to believe in God...this was the point of SecularFuture's post.

I am saying that for those with a certain attitude evidence for God is provided. However, for those with a different attitude...there is little or no evidence.

In this way the evidence one has is contingent upon their attitude.

It is a hallmark of objectively existing things that the amount evidence for them is (almost) uncorrelated with the attitudes of the observer or investigator.

If you must have the "right attitude" (brain state, hormonal balance etc.) to observe something, it may be part of your subjective reality, but not of objective reality.

Regards,
HRG.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 10-31-2002, 07:54 AM

Psycho,

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:


Well, a theorem proof is a priori reasoning (i.e. from logic alone) and doesn't require any evidence (axioms aren't evidence; they're assumptions.

This is exactly my point.

There is absolutely no physical evidence for either logic or math...they are both tautologies. We have no 'empirical' evidence for them. Yet we believe/use/rely upon them on a daily basis.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Biff the unclean · 10-31-2002, 08:11 AM

Wait a minute.
Logic and math aren't tautologies, they are methods and processes of human thought.
God is supposed to be an entity. You are trying to hide God by changing the definition of what he is when the definition doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Also the entire OP is taken straight from the Hans Christian Andersen children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes." Only the select, the really cool people, can see the clothes...or in this case the Deity.

Ronin · 10-31-2002, 08:20 AM

SOMMS is attempting to present the argument ad nauseum defense to 'evidence' in order to equate that a belief in a sky fairy is similar to disbelief in the same.

Reality is quantifiable ~ while nonsensical imagination is not.

That there is a difference is obvious to anyone with a functioning nervous system.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 10-31-2002, 08:25 AM

SecularFuture,

Quote:

Originally posted by SecularFuture:

Before I became a secularist I was very open to “God”. The lack of evidence, and reason, is what transformed me into a secularist. My analytical thinking skills wouldn’t allow self-deception and belief in mythology or the supernatural.

• There is no evidence or reason to believe in a God

Yes...I understand your position on this...you've said this before.

But what I am saying is that this is part of a circular pattern.

Notice:
Closed attitude => no evidence for God
No evidence for God => no belief in God
No belief in God => Closed attitude

And again...you keep saying
No evidence for God => no belief in God

So we are essentially saying the same thing...just different parts of it.

Let me ask you a more meaningful question. Suppose, for arguments sake, that God did exist. Again, I'm not asking you to believe in God...this is (from your point of view) just a hypothetical situation.

God exists and he created everything. The cosmos, the universe, time and space, matter and energy. He tuned it for life and created mankind, created your family, created you.

Would you acknowledge God's sovereign power and authority over everything?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Llyricist · 10-31-2002, 08:33 AM

Quote:

There is absolutely no physical evidence for either logic or math

The physical evidence for logic and math reside in their consistent abilities to predict real world phenomenon, observable by others in an unambiguous way.

on edit: observable and reproduceable by others

(did I leave any gaping holes in that??

)

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Llyricist ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-30-2002, 08:32 PM	#34
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards God...or the idea of God? What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards the Invisible Pink Unicorn...or the idea of the IPU? What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards reptoids...or the idea of reptoids? What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards the Loch Ness Monster...or the idea of the LNM? What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards Allah...or the idea of Allah? What if the lack of evidence you see is due to your disposition towards cute brain-eating cat aliens...or the idea of cb-eca? Where do we stop, SOMMS? Do we have to check to see if a positive mental attitude makes a difference for every single one of the practically infinite number of imagined-but-unevidenced entities that the minds of humanity can come up with? And if you say that we do not have to do this- why do you think your God is different?

10-31-2002, 08:11 AM	#37
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Wait a minute. Logic and math aren't tautologies, they are methods and processes of human thought. God is supposed to be an entity. You are trying to hide God by changing the definition of what he is when the definition doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Also the entire OP is taken straight from the Hans Christian Andersen children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes." Only the select, the really cool people, can see the clothes...or in this case the Deity.

10-31-2002, 08:20 AM	#38
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	SOMMS is attempting to present the argument ad nauseum defense to 'evidence' in order to equate that a belief in a sky fairy is similar to disbelief in the same. Reality is quantifiable ~ while nonsensical imagination is not. That there is a difference is obvious to anyone with a functioning nervous system.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.