Mageth

It's Ok if you don't belive in God...you just can't believe in any of the above stuff either.

That makes absolutely no sense. By this argument, what is it OK for me not to believe in? Am I required to believe either everything or nothing?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft,
Oh...logic is not a thing? Really? You mean like love, justice, math, music, wisdom, language, beauty, and consiousness aren't really things. None of these exist right?




Aha! Circular definition my friend. 'Abraham Lincoln' is defined by a collection of matter whose attributed actions are known as 'Abraham Lincoln'. Try again.




Ah...and man's relationship with God (like man's relationship with each other) is not 'interpretive' or subjective? Sorry...not buying this. Mankind's relationship with God should be as variant and expressive as mankind is.




You have absolutely no proof that someone you don't know will like you...so you haven't sufficient evidence to seek friendship with them.




PandaJoe. And about the evidence equivalent to 'milk at store'...you already have it.





Translation...I don't apply similar reasoning to other aspects of my life that I do to God. Not sure your aware of this or not Philosoft...this is the definition of hypocrisy.





Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sontas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mageth,

It doesn't?

Requiring one standard for God and a completely different standard for everything else in your life is not hypocritical?


How so?





Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

MadMez

Hello Albert, thanks for replying. You posted..

"You see, in Mad’s mad world, time spent praying is time debited from helping the poor. Of course, time spent watching sitcoms or applying makeup or playing sports or eating junk food or relaxing in the sun or traveling or wasting bandwidth here or… you get the picture. Only wasting time on God is wasting time. Wasting time on all form and manner of other patently silly things is just, well, counted to your credit as helping the poor. But then again, that’s how it is in Mad’s mad world, not the real world theists inhabit."

I absolutely agree that time spent watching sitcoms or applying makeup or playing sports or eating junk food or relaxing in the sun is time that could be spend helping the poor, and am glad you see prayer as a similar waste of time.
I am, however, puzzled as how you see the example I gave (which was a secular trip to Guatemala in 2001 to build ovens in village housing, my wife ended up stranded because of 9/11) as a silly thing. Should we have stayed at home and prayed for the ovens to get built? You're telling me I wasted my time and (lots of money) to do this, as prayer would have cured the lungs of the inhabitants?
And, just so I've got this straight, the Roman Catholic cathedral built in Abidjan's in 1996 for $280 million was not a waste of time and money? So in the real world you inhabit, that Cathedral was the best possible use of time, money and resources, and will be seen as such in, say, 200 years?

Mageth

SOMMS:

Requiring one standard for God and a completely different standard for everything else in your life is not hypocritical?

I try to apply similar evidentiary standards for everything. Lack of evidence of god(s) existence in reality outside the human mind leads me to lack belief in them.

Consider logic. Logic could be considered a construct of the human mind, to have no real "existence" outside the human psyche. I grant god(s) the same consideration. God(s) do "exist", but like logic, their existence is confined to the human psyche. Thus, I'm applying the same "standard" to god(s) as I do to logic.

Consider the rest of my post:

By this argument, what is it OK for me not to believe in? Am I required to believe either everything or nothing?

I would add to that, how do I (or you) discriminate among beliefs? I'm sure there are things you don't believe, such as the Greek/Roman pantheon of gods. What "standard" do you apply for your (lack of) belief in those gods, and any other gods besides the JC god?

If you're justified in your non-belief of any other god, then why can't I be justified in my non-belief of the god of the bible?

Dr. Retard

Hey, I'll defend the religious pluralism one. God, if anything, is supposed to be concerned about human religious beliefs. And yet he allows the evidence out there to be so scattershot and equivocal that, quite naturally, people just disagree with each other from cultural influence, since they've got nothing else to go on. So nothing is ever cleared up. This doesn't make sense. The whole universe is subject to God's control, yet he doesn't straighten things out as regards religion?

What this has to do with cultural traditions in music is completely beyond me.

CaptainOfOuterSpace

The Bible

beastmaster

I do not know if God exists or not, and I've heard no single "convincing argument" for the non-existence of God.

I am an atheist because I have inferred, based on the totality of my life experience and observation of phenomena, and without regard to any evidence that is not reasonably available to me, that there is no God. Call it a smell test if you will: when I open my senses to the universe I detect an absence of God(s).

Although there is some (weak) evidence that may be interpreted as contradicting materialism and there are gaps in the explanatory power of materialism, I have concluded that materialism, on the whole, better explains the totality of the evidence than religious supernaturalism. Every God premise I have examined ends up with a whole bunch of "I don't knows" and rampant self-serving speculation, and leaves me with a furrowed brow and a hell of a lot more confusion than I started out with.

Philosoft

They are not material things. They do exist.

How about instead, you consider the entirety of what I wrote? "Abraham Lincoln" is defined as a particular collection of matter. The fact that there exists a highly probable historical model that includes actions by "Abraham Lincoln" is justification enough to believe "Abraham Lincoln" existed.

"Mankind's relationship with God" should be whatever God wants it to be. This has zero explanatory value, and it is probably entirely ad hoc.

What? How do you reverse engineer "sufficient evidence" from "absolutely no proof"? You are badly equivocating your standards.

Really? I've been to the places I expect milk to be before. Know what I usually found? Milk.

Hey, you give me a coherent concept to which I can apply my reason and I'll do so. I really don't think that's asking too much.

CaptainOfOuterSpace

Abraham Lincoln never claimed to be able to defy the laws of physics.