# Your most compelling reason for NOT believing in God



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 29, 2017)

New thread per atlashunter's request to not derail his.

I'd like to hear from the atheists your single most convincing reason to NOT believe in a God.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”



There is lots of evidence, you just don't accept it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> There is lots of evidence, you just don't accept it.



Please post it on the thread I made asking for your best evidence. So far we've got an unverifiable claim of angels and an assertion that asking if something exists demonstrates that it does in fact exist.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jul 29, 2017)

This quote has always pretty well summed up my reasoning for being agnostic.



> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
> Epicurus



If there is a god, i see it more as being a creator and nothing else.  A Johnny Appleseed of universes so to say; plants a seed and continues along the way to his next creation.


----------



## ky55 (Jul 29, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> New thread per atlashunter's request to not derail his.
> 
> I'd like to hear from the atheists your single most convincing reason to NOT believe in a God.



The bible would be right up around the top of my list.

Millions of children dying in misery every year is kinda convincing too...

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs178/en/

"Key facts

5.9 million children under the age of 5 years died in 2015.
More than half of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions.
Leading causes of death in children under 5 years are preterm birth complications, pneumonia, birth asphyxia, diarrhoea and malaria. About 45% of all child deaths are linked to malnutrition.
Children in sub-Saharan Africa are more than 14 times more likely to die before the age of 5 than children in developed regions."


*


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 29, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> New thread per atlashunter's request to not derail his.
> 
> I'd like to hear from the atheists your single most convincing reason to NOT believe in a God.


I'll assume you are asking A/A's and not just A's. If not, please disregard.
I guess the single most convincing reason for me is the fact that no god can be proven to exist so I don't believe one exists.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2017)

There is so much but, probably one of the most telling to me is the fact that modern man has been around for about 200,000 years. Multiple religions and Gods have come around in only the last 5 to 6000 years. Christianity being one of the newest at 2000 years old. 
IF I was a God, a God that demanded belief and worship from my creation or there will be everlasting torment, I would ensure that everyone had what they needed to believe because I love them. 
I would create humans that were totally different from any other species. I would leave books that couldn't be destroyed and the words would turn in to the language of whoever was reading them. I would not have created diseases at all. I don't want people suffering at all. I think we all can agree torture is wrong. 
If I had a problem with babies dying, I would lead by example. No more miscarriages. No more cancer, starvation, abuse, or anything else killing babies. I could go on and on but, pretty much basic logic. The only evidence of a God we have, is a book, written by men, thousands of years ago, saying there is a God.  

Then there is the question of WHY? Why would a GOD create something for the sole purpose of worshipping 'him' or else? Crazy!


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 29, 2017)

660griz said:


> There is so much but, probably one of the most telling to me is the fact that modern man has been around for about 200,000 years.



take a few minutes to check out mitochondrial DNA... and get back with me on how long man has been around


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2017)

swampstalker24 said:


> This quote has always pretty well summed up my reasoning for being agnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a god, i see it more as being a creator and nothing else.  A Johnny Appleseed of universes so to say; plants a seed and continues along the way to his next creation.



The argument against evil can be a persuasive one, although I don't see how love exists apart from evil existing. 

God could have made the world with only good.
God could have made the world with only evil.
God could have made the world with neither good or evil.
God could have made the world with both good and evil.

The last statement is the only one I see where love can exist. We can't love God in any of the other three scenarios.

Sorry for the derailment Atlas.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> take a few minutes to check out mitochondrial DNA... and get back with me on how long man has been around



OK. Seems redundant but..."A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms"


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2017)

The Bible got me to disbelieve in that God, the lack of evidence keeps me there.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 29, 2017)

660griz said:


> OK. Seems redundant but..."A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms"



wonder why the error rates for mito dna don't match a 200,000 year human appearance?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> wonder why the error rates for mito dna don't match a 200,000 year human appearance?



You get that from the Ken Hamm Institute of Creationology? And why did they only do non-Africans?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> And why did they only do non-Africans?



Beat me to it.

Then there is this.

"But, regardless, all of the models produced estimates placing this ancient mother's age at around 200,000 years.

"We actually show if one uses different models, one comes up with a very similar estimate, so this makes the estimate more robust," Kimmel said.

The estimates produced by models that assume population growth occurred in discrete, random bursts fell within 10 percent of each other. "


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The argument against evil can be a persuasive one, although I don't see how love exists apart from evil existing.
> 
> God could have made the world with only good.
> God could have made the world with only evil.
> ...



Not following your logic there but my take on the problem of evil is that it makes a strong case against a particular kind of god but not gods in general. It presents no problem for a deist god that doesn't care or an evil or impotent god.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

660griz said:


> Beat me to it.



Maybe because Adam and Eve were white. ?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe because Adam and Eve were white. &#55357;&#56834;



And the old chimp branch shows up.

_The proposal that all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) types in contemporary humans stem from a common ancestor present in an African population some 200,000 years ago has attracted much attention. To study this proposal further, two hypervariable segments of mtDNA were sequenced from 189 people of diverse geographic origin, including 121 native Africans. Geographic specificity was observed in that identical mtDNA types are shared within but not between populations. A tree relating these mtDNA sequences to one another and to a chimpanzee sequence has many deep branches leading exclusively to African mtDNAs. An African origin for human mtDNA is supported by two statistical tests. With the use of the chimpanzee and human sequences to calibrate the rate of mtDNA evolution, the age of the common human mtDNA ancestor is placed between 166,000 and 249,000 years. These results thus support and extend the African origin hypothesis of human mtDNA evolution._


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> You get that from the Ken Hamm Institute of Creationology? And why did they only do non-Africans?





> Originally Posted by 660griz
> Beat me to it.


We weren't supposed to notice that.
Its just a minor detail anyway


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> We weren't supposed to notice that.
> Its just a minor detail anyway



And we're the intellectually dishonest ones.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 29, 2017)

bullethead said:


> The Bible got me to disbelieve in that God, the lack of evidence keeps me there.


I can easily see why you would say this. The bible talks of gifts of the spirit, yet we only see the speaking in tongues. And what a deluge of faking that is.  Where is the gift of healing? When has a blind man been healed by  other than medicine. Or a paraplegic get up, no muscle, and walk. Either it's embellished or it's an accumulation of false stories. One might say "what's the difference". Embellished can happen as stories get passed along orally, yet, underneath, may contain the context of truth. It gets easier to see the hold "religion" has the farther I get away from it. Although, my faith is as strong as ever. Most would wonder why my faith is not shaken by the realization of the bible contradictions, etc. I suppose I would have to say to that, because it's not founded on the bible being without issue. Rambling now, I suppose. Just conversing


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> And we're the intellectually dishonest ones.


Sometimes I feel bad for believers who don't realize they are being purposely mislead by "one of their own" who are obviously taking advantage of the fact that they wont question it like they would if we said it.
Then on the flip side I say "hey if you don't question it, it's because you are getting exactly what you want to hear".

Its not a coincidence that every A/A in here immediately noticed that and know why it matters.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”



Ok.  Forget physical evidence.  We could and have went over it all time and time again.  What about non physical evidence. 

Say there were beings on the far side of the universe that could via telepathy,  communicate with you and you with them.  You could never see, touch, smell, taste, or audibly hear them but via telepathy you could "chat" back and forth.  Would you believe in them given no "physical" evidence for them existed?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 30, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ok.  Forget physical evidence.  We could and have went over it all time and time again.  What about non physical evidence.
> 
> Say there were beings on the far side of the universe that could via telepathy,  communicate with you and you with them.  You could never see, touch, smell, taste, or audibly hear them but via telepathy you could "chat" back and forth.  Would you believe in them given no "physical" evidence for them existed?


"Say " "imagine" "pretend"
Anyone is capable of conjuring up just about any far fetched scenario. Imagination is awesome.
Needing that scenario so badly that an individual convinces themself that the scenario is real and also allows it to interact with daily life and decisions is where it gets spooky.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ok.  Forget physical evidence.  We could and have went over it all time and time again.  What about non physical evidence.
> 
> Say there were beings on the far side of the universe that could via telepathy,  communicate with you and you with them.  You could never see, touch, smell, taste, or audibly hear them but via telepathy you could "chat" back and forth.  Would you believe in them given no "physical" evidence for them existed?



How would you verify it was beings and not your imagination?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> How would you verify it was beings and not your imagination?



 That's essentially my question to you and btw it's a good and legitimate question.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's essentially my question to you and btw it's a good and legitimate question.



There may be a way but off the top of my head I can't think of one. Do these beings answer prayers by chance?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> How would you verify it was beings and not your imagination?



If I was with five people and we all heard the same thing at the same time that would be compelling.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 30, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> If I was with five people and we all heard the same thing at the same time that would be compelling.



Yeah he didn't say if they could communicate that way with everyone. Also didn't say if these beings could possess animals and make them talk or otherwise intervene in this world. Let's assume they can't.

I think one thing you could do assuming those remote beings wanted to confirm themselves is design an experiment. You find people who claim to be doing this communication who don't know each other. Preferably geographically and linguistically separated. You take them to an isolated room. They are asked to give the remote beings a sequence of pictures to communicate with other participants in the experiment to draw along with another sequence of their choosing. If the other participants all draw the same thing then you know some communication is happening.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> There may be a way but off the top of my head I can't think of one. Do these beings answer prayers by chance?



Nope.  No answered prayers. No special powers.  Just regular run of the day, ordinary alien folks capable of personal 2 way communication.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah he didn't say if they could communicate that way with everyone. Also didn't say if these beings could possess animals and make them talk or otherwise intervene in this world. Let's assume they can't.
> 
> I think one thing you could do assuming those remote beings wanted to confirm themselves is design an experiment. You find people who claim to be doing this communication who don't know each other. Preferably geographically and linguistically separated. You take them to an isolated room. They are asked to give the remote beings a sequence of pictures to communicate with other participants in the experiment to draw along with another sequence of their choosing. If the other participants all draw the same thing then you know some communication is happening.



Good experiment.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 31, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ok.  Forget physical evidence.  We could and have went over it all time and time again.  What about non physical evidence.
> 
> Say there were beings on the far side of the universe that could via telepathy,  communicate with you and you with them.  You could never see, touch, smell, taste, or audibly hear them but via telepathy you could "chat" back and forth.  Would you believe in them given no "physical" evidence for them existed?



No. First, I would see a shrink.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 31, 2017)

More evidence: All the patients at St. Jude's


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

May as well add evolution to the list.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 31, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ok.  Forget physical evidence.  We could and have went over it all time and time again.  What about non physical evidence.
> 
> Say there were beings on the far side of the universe that could via telepathy,  communicate with you and you with them.  You could never see, touch, smell, taste, or audibly hear them but via telepathy you could "chat" back and forth.  Would you believe in them given no "physical" evidence for them existed?



H.P. Lovecraft explored that angle, not only with space, but time. It was an entertaining story, too.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> If I was with five people and we all heard the same thing at the same time that would be compelling.




I would add that if they gave all of us information that no one else knew about, like the formula for clear titanium or the plans for a space ship or the location of Bigfoot I would find that even more compelling.  

The Bible gives similar scientific revelation in the form of The Cleansing of Leprosy. (Leviticus 14)


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> The Bible gives similar scientific revelation in the form of The Cleansing of Leprosy. (Leviticus 14)



I see what you did there. ?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I see what you did there. ?




Like Bullet and Walt said,  they were believers until they started REALLY looking into it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Like Bullet and Walt said,  they were believers until they started REALLY looking into it.



With answers like that straight from the creator his self you'd think they would be setting up clinics all over the place.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> With answers like that straight from the creator his self you'd think they would be setting up clinics all over the place.



We're probably "taking it out of context"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> There may be a way but off the top of my head I can't think of one. Do these beings answer prayers by chance?



What if you "heard" the voices in your head and you were fairly certain they weren't your own. What would you think about that?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> May as well add evolution to the list.



This one used to be a big issue for me. Not to say that evolution from mud to people is completely proven. I am content with the understanding that evolution, even if it was from mud to human, is the way it was designed.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 31, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> This one used to be a big issue for me. Not to say that evolution from mud to people is completely proven. I am content with the understanding that evolution, even if it was from mud to human, is the way it was designed.



There you go. God's week was 4.5 billion years.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> What if you "heard" the voices in your head and you were fairly certain they weren't your own. What would you think about that?



I would consider it far more probable that my mind is playing tricks on me than that I'm in communication with beings on the other side of the universe and would seek help. That's what the sane version of me would do. Now if I was too mentally ill to recognize that my mind might be less than reliable and seek other means of verifying/falsifying my experience then who knows? And by the way, I wouldn't call it voices but I did have an experience where words came to me that at the time I thought might not be my own. In hindsight I think I was fooling myself. It's easy to happen when you want it to happen.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> This one used to be a big issue for me. Not to say that evolution from mud to people is completely proven. I am content with the understanding that evolution, even if it was from mud to human, is the way it was designed.





atlashunter said:


> I would consider it far more probable that my mind is playing tricks on me than that I'm in communication with beings on the other side of the universe and would seek help. That's what the sane version of me would do. Now if I was too mentally ill to recognize that my mind might be less than reliable and seek other means of verifying/falsifying my experience then who knows? And by the way, I wouldn't call it voices but I did have an experience where words came to me that at the time I thought might not be my own. In hindsight I think I was fooling myself. It's easy to happen when you want it to happen.



I've asked many believers how they know that it's the voice of God they hear and the only answer I ever get is "I just know.  I can feel it in my heart."  That's pretty useless in my opinion.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 31, 2017)

660griz said:


> There you go. God's week was 4.5 billion years.



When the first two As put it in to the scheme of everything else we believe, is that so hard to believe? When the bible first starts using the word "day" there was no earth for which to measure a day by. I haven't studied the words in the original language, so no need to ask.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 31, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> It's easy to happen when you want it to happen.



Are you saying back when you were a believer? Or are you saying you can want yourself in to thinking up anything??


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I've asked many believers how they know that it's the voice of God they hear and the only answer I ever get is "I just know.  I can feel it in my heart."  That's pretty useless in my opinion.



It's definitely useless to you, I agree.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Are you saying back when you were a believer? Or are you saying you can want yourself in to thinking up anything??



When I was a believer.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> This one used to be a big issue for me. Not to say that evolution from mud to people is completely proven. I am content with the understanding that evolution, even if it was from mud to human, is the way it was designed.



It definitely has theological implications that are problematic.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> It's definitely useless to you, I agree.




People say things like "I just knew it" in regards to many things: meeting their wives for the first time, choosing a house or a car, etc.  and it makes the experience seem so mystical.  With some MINOR examination, the reasons that we felt the way we did can be sussed out.  Most people prefer the "magic" as if it will somehow diminish the experience if it can be explained.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I would add that if they gave all of us information that no one else knew about, like the formula for clear titanium or the plans for a space ship or the location of Bigfoot I would find that even more compelling.
> 
> The Bible gives similar scientific revelation in the form of The Cleansing of Leprosy. (Leviticus 14)





atlashunter said:


> I see what you did there. ?




Was this a thread killer?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2017)

Maybe sfd can tally the responses.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2017)

My biggest reason was the fact that there have been so many religious beliefs. Many of them being different beliefs, far older than Christianity but containing some of the same stories. Along those lines is how in the last few hundred years, less developed cultures idolized travelers from other parts of the world as gods just because they couldn't understand or believe what they were seeing.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Aug 3, 2017)

660griz said:


> Then there is the question of WHY? Why would a GOD create something for the sole purpose of worshipping 'him' or else? Crazy!



He's clearly a pretty insecure fella if he exists.

I'll echo what many others have said here. Something claimed as a fact without evidence can be dismissed as nonsense without evidence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe sfd can tally the responses.



No hard tally, but a couple fall into the question/problem of suffering, and the rest ask for evidence.  Everything else just seems to be off subject chatter which is fine.  

I think String has answered the suffering/pain question the best it can be addressed.  As far as the evidence based reasons, I find and always have found that to be a bit hypocritical in the fact that I think most people conduct most of their lives and base most of their decisions based on faith of some sort or another.  I step out of bed every morning without first feeling to make sure the floor is there.  I conduct business decisions based on nothing more than words.    I take it on faith these words will communicate my thoughts to you.  We all do this, and all of it takes some amount of faith.  

Also it's not as if Christians' faith is groundless.  I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a Christian that would say they have no reason for their belief.  All of us have reasons for our beliefs based on evidence.  For the most part it's not physical evidence that you can touch or reproduce at will, but to say there's no evidence is patently false. I think it's a fair statement to say that it's hypocritical to demand from others more evidence for something than you demand for yourself for the same thing.  

In this case, we're dealing with God and God is a being, albeit a spirit being, but a being nonetheless.  So ,what evidence is reasonable for us to expect a spirit being to exhibit and does he meet that evidential criteria?  I think that's a fair question.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 8, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Everything else just seems to be off subject chatter which is fine.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I find and always have found that to be a bit hypocritical in the fact that I think most people conduct most of their lives and base most of their decisions based on faith of some sort or another.  I step out of bed every morning without first feeling to make sure the floor is there.


 Was it there when you went to bed? Did ya feel anything during the night to lead you to believe it wouldn't be there. 

Faith definition 

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.



> In this case, we're dealing with God and God is a being, albeit a spirit being, but a being nonetheless.  So ,what evidence is reasonable for us to expect a spirit being to exhibit and does he meet that evidential criteria?  I think that's a fair question.



What evidence would I expect from an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent spirit that demanded I believe and worship him or be burned forever? 
A LOT!!!

Like I have stated before, a book that can't be destroyed and is displayed in whatever the language the bearer can understand.
A planet that can be 100% inhabited and/or humans that don't need to breath and eat...like the one that created us in his image.
Micro-organisms that can kill us wiped off the planet and a written apology from God for creating them to begin with.

That would be a good start. 
Just for fun, God could put the river back on top of the Grand Canyon. That would get everyone's attention.


----------



## Israel (Aug 9, 2017)

660griz said:


> Was it there when you went to bed? Did ya feel anything during the night to lead you to believe it wouldn't be there.
> 
> Faith definition
> 
> ...



Being able to complain...is a gift, too.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 9, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> My biggest reason was the fact that there have been so many religious beliefs. Many of them being different beliefs, far older than Christianity but containing some of the same stories. Along those lines is how in the last few hundred years, less developed cultures idolized travelers from other parts of the world as gods just because they couldn't understand or believe what they were seeing.




Off topic chatter. That's fine.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No hard tally, but a couple fall into the question/problem of suffering, and the rest ask for evidence.  Everything else just seems to be off subject chatter which is fine.
> 
> I think String has answered the suffering/pain question the best it can be addressed.  As far as the evidence based reasons, I find and always have found that to be a bit hypocritical in the fact that I think most people conduct most of their lives and base most of their decisions based on faith of some sort or another.  I step out of bed every morning without first feeling to make sure the floor is there.  I conduct business decisions based on nothing more than words.    I take it on faith these words will communicate my thoughts to you.  We all do this, and all of it takes some amount of faith.
> 
> ...


Lets take your question and break it down. Lets start here -


> In this case, we're dealing with God and God is a being, albeit a spirit being, but a being nonetheless.


If God is a being then we need to define being and then we can figure out what to expect from it. So -


> be·ing
> [ËˆbÄ“iNG]
> DEFINITION
> present participle of be.
> ...


1. doesn't apply in this case. Different usage of the word.
2. doesn't apply in this case. I think we can agree God is not a person.
3. This is the one that applies. Lets look at it.


> a real or imaginary living creature, especially an intelligent one:


We cant call God "real" as it cant be proven that God actually exists. So we have to move on to "imaginary".
If God is imaginary then you can expect from it anything that can one can imagine is reasonable.
So the answer to this question -


> So ,what evidence is reasonable for us to expect a spirit being to exhibit and does he meet that evidential criteria?


Is -
Anything you can imagine an imaginary being should exhibit.
If you disagree that God is imaginary then you are back to having to prove God exists. 
And round and round we go.......
The rest of your post is just "filler" and as such is inconsequential to the question until you prove God is real.

Dang dictionary, always screwing things up.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 9, 2017)

660griz said:


> What evidence would I expect from an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent spirit that demanded I believe and worship him or be burned forever?
> A LOT!!!



This one is so easy to answer. What evidence would you require to believe in Zeus or Poseidon? They make an exception for their own deity and then act surprised when others don't.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I step out of bed every morning without first feeling to make sure the floor is there.



I believe there are plenty of good examples. This one is pretty poor...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

660griz said:


> Was it there when you went to bed? Did ya feel anything during the night to lead you to believe it wouldn't be there.
> 
> Faith definition
> 
> ...





> Did ya feel anything during the night to lead you to believe it wouldn't be there


Maybe he sleeps in a hammock in which case it must be a pleasant surprise every day when his feet hit the floor.


----------



## Israel (Aug 9, 2017)

We get a bit hamstrung by the language, though...don't we? 
If we are going to limit all the "being" of being to what the dictionary can describe...we've already set out to reduce a person/word/concept that almost all would agree (the _If he_ exist(ers)....and also the _He exist(ers)_) is in a manner of "being" that is at least, in some way, above definition.

(And rightly one could say..."then _why do you try _to describe Him?) A real conundrum if all we have is language.

We have "our words"...which work for the most part in the stuff we apply them to...but...we could see there could be a little straining to try and define...who is, by definition...above man's efforts at definition. He is (or _would be_, if you must) Himself...the Definer. (or indeed one would have a small containable...god) Things are according to His understanding, not our fiat. with words.

So what to do? He'd have to translate his being "of meaning" to us, his logic...if there is to be any hope of any communing in understanding. Sure, he could concede to allow for our "best guesses" (and I believe He has, and does)...but there would surely be a lack of real eye to eye understanding.

I am of the faith that He has given what is not of "best guess", or even a _better _dictionary, but something altogether different...Himself...as reason. Himself as logic. Himself as "word". In and through Jesus Christ.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

Israel said:


> We get a bit hamstrung by the language, though...don't we?
> If we are going to limit all the "being" of being to what the dictionary can describe...we've already set out to reduce a person/word/concept that almost all would agree (the _If he_ exist(ers)....and also the _He exist(ers)_) is in a manner of "being" that is at least, in some way, above definition.
> 
> (And rightly one could say..."then _why do you try _to describe Him?) A real conundrum if all we have is language.
> ...





> We get a bit hamstrung by the language, though...don't we?


Is it the language that hamstrings us or is it us that hamstring ourselves by using it in a way that it is not intended to try to make it fit our own wants/needs?
From that point you moved right into the concept that language can't be applied to Him.
Which of course only works if there is actually a Him.
And language also addresses that -


> 3. a real or imaginary living creature, especially an intelligent one:


Its not the language doing the hamstringing, its that up to this point no one can prove God exists.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 9, 2017)

It's not the language it's the lack of evidence that hamstrings theists.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

> Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg
> I step out of bed every morning without first feeling to make sure the floor is there.





TripleXBullies said:


> I believe there are plenty of good examples. This one is pretty poor...


I think sometimes you Christian types (  ) confuse "faith" with decisions etc that you are actually making based on history, overwhelming evidence etc.
SFD calls it faith when he doesn't check if the floor is/isnt there first.
Is that faith or is it because every day when you wake up the floor has been there and based on that you don't bother checking because why would you? Its always been there.
Maaaybeee you might credit "faith" for it if sometimes its there and sometimes its not and you take it on "faith" that this isn't another one of those times when its not there.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 9, 2017)

I watched What the Health on Netflix last night. Some vegans got a Netflix to put it up. PLENTY of people will put FAITH in the evidence and studies talked about in the doc and stop eating meat! 

I put faith that they are stupid vegans trying to brainwash people. I put faith in meat and dairy not guaranteeing me to get cancer and diabetes. I have always been a milk drinker. I frequently drink a gallon of milk a day. They showed a pretty convincing little clip about how whatever in milk attacks your pancreas. My sister is very thin and drinks very little milk. She has type 1 diabetes. I've used my own experience and observations and evidence and put faith in the studies, reports and what best fits what I want... TO EAT MEAT.







WaltL1 said:


> I think sometimes you Christian types (  ) confuse "faith" with decisions etc that you are actually making based on history, overwhelming evidence etc.
> SFD calls it faith when he doesn't check if the floor is/isnt there first.
> Is that faith or is it because every day when you wake up the floor has been there and based on that you don't bother checking because why would you? Its always been there.
> Maaaybeee you might credit "faith" for it if sometimes its there and sometimes its not and you take it on "faith" that this isn't another one of those times when its not there.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 9, 2017)

Being

BE'ING, participle present tense [See Be.] Existing in a certain state.

Man, being in honor, abideth not. Psalms 49:12.

BE'ING,noun Existence; as, God is the author of our being

In God we live, and move, and have our being Acts 17:28.

1. A particular state or condition. [This is hardly a different sense.]

2. A person existing; applied to the human race.

3. An immaterial, intelligent existence, or spirit.

Superior beings, when of late they saw.

A mortal man unfold all nature's law--

4. An animal; any living creature.

Animals are such beings, as are endowed with sensation and spontaneous motion.

Webster


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

gemcgrew said:


> Being
> 
> BE'ING, participle present tense [See Be.] Existing in a certain state.
> 
> ...


Things sure have changed since 1828 haven't they?
It would appear they kept the name but updated the thinking just a tad.


> Webster subscribed to the biblical account of the origin of language, believing that all languages derived from Chaldee, an Aramaic dialect.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Things sure have changed since 1828 haven't they?
> It would appear they kept the name but updated the thinking just a tad.



If the only "things" considered are people.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> If the only "things" considered are people.


Not true.
"Things" that were once considered fact have been shown not to be fact or at a minimum unprovable as a fact.


> Webster subscribed to the biblical account of the origin of language, believing that all languages derived from Chaldee, an Aramaic dialect.



It was once considered fact that nearly any health issue could be cured by this "thing" called bleeding you.
Once that was proven not to be the case, "things" changed.

Its curious to me that the Christianity (and probably all or most religions) blame people for everything.
Certainly it cant be the _____ religions fault/is wrong/cant prove their claims.

Darn people updating medical journals, making globes round instead of flat, not executing people for cheating on their spouse............... just cant leave well enough alone.


----------



## ky55 (Aug 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Not true.
> "Things" that were once considered fact have been shown not to be fact or at a minimum unprovable as a fact.
> 
> 
> ...



Sure would be nice to go back to wiping ourselves with a handful of sand and dying from rotten teeth. 
Those were the good old days.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Not true.
> "Things" that were once considered fact have been shown not to be fact or at a minimum unprovable as a fact.
> 
> 
> ...



O.K., I got it.  Bleeding once cured disease, but it no longer does.  The thing changed.  Thanks.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 9, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> O.K., I got it.  Bleeding once cured disease, but it no longer does.  The thing changed.  Thanks.




Reminds of a joke from my youth.

Little Johnny rings the doorbell at little Billy's house.
He asks Billy's mother if Billy can come out and play.
Billy's mother replies, "Don't be silly. You know that Billy doesn't have any arms or legs."
Johnny replies, "I know that, but I just like to watch him flop around."

Who wants to be Johnny? Who wants to be Billy?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> O.K., I got it.  Bleeding once cured disease, but it no longer does.  The thing changed.  Thanks.


Lets skip the nonsense and go with facts.
The Webster dictionary of 1828, which is what Gem posted, was based on this -


> Webster subscribed to the biblical account of the origin of language, believing that all languages derived from Chaldee, an Aramaic dialect.


PROVE that is a fact and you will have shown that people, who you are laying blame at the feet of, should never have updated/changed or in any way blemished Websters dictionary of 1828.
After you are done with that you can move on to this -


> O.K., I got it.  Bleeding once cured disease, but it no longer does.


Do a quick search on the diseases/sicknesses that bleeding/bloodletting was believed to cure and see how they have been proven to be wrong.
Yes the concept can still be found in use today (leeches etc).
One I found particularly humorous was bleeding you to cure you of the stomach ache you had because you ate too much.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

gemcgrew said:


> Reminds of a joke from my youth.
> 
> Little Johnny rings the doorbell at little Billy's house.
> He asks Billy's mother if Billy can come out and play.
> ...


I wouldn't want to be either.
But then again I wouldn't try to slide in a dictionary from 1828, with obvious issues in its accuracy as some sort of rebuttal.
So maybe its me that's a bit off.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets skip the nonsense and go with facts.
> The Webster dictionary of 1828, which is what Gem posted, was based on this -
> 
> PROVE that is a fact and you will have shown that people, who you are laying blame at the feet of, should never have updated/changed or in any way blemished Websters dictionary of 1828.
> ...



I have obviously failed to make my point — which point may indeed be nonsense; others can judge.

There have been hundreds of thousands of words, probably millions, written attempting to describe and define "being" (ontology); and if "being", as we know it, continues, it is reasonable to assume that the rate of such writing will continue without consensus being reached.  Will all this effort, past or future, make any change in the "thing" toward which the effort is directed?  "No" is my contention.  What people think, even what they do, may or may not change — depending on the nature of the thinking or doing considered — but the ultimate nature of being will be unchanged.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I wouldn't want to be either.
> But then again I wouldn't try to slide in a dictionary from 1828, with obvious issues in its accuracy as some sort of rebuttal.
> So maybe its me that's a bit off.


Is it safe to say that your preferred dictionary edition and the definition you quoted is 100% accurate? It will withstand scrutiny and will not vary in the future?

Also, if providing "Webster" at the bottom of my quote is "slide in", what is the leaving out of any indication of source called?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I have obviously failed to make my point — which point may indeed be nonsense; others can judge.
> 
> There have been hundreds of thousands of words, probably millions, written attempting to describe and define "being" (ontology); and if "being", as we know it, continues, it is reasonable to assume that the rate of such writing will continue without consensus being reached.  Will all this effort, past or future, make any change in the "thing" toward which the effort is directed?  "No" is my contention.  What people think, even what they do, may or may not change — depending on the nature of the thinking or doing considered — but the ultimate nature of being will be unchanged.





> without consensus being reached


I don't just take or pick the definition I like. I look at several dictionaries and their definitions specifically to check that there IS a consensus that has been reached.
And there is. The placement of words may vary but the definitions do not.


> Will all this effort, past or future, make any change in the "thing" toward which the effort is directed?  "No" is my contention.


Any my contention is "Yes".
In this case the "thing" is the definition of "being" that applies to the discussion.
The changes have been shown. 


> but the ultimate nature of being will be unchanged.


The way you are using the word being in your sentence does not apply. That usage was the first that was shown not apply to the discussion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

gemcgrew said:


> Is it safe to say that your preferred dictionary edition and the definition you quoted is 100% accurate? It will withstand scrutiny and will not vary in the future?
> It is safe to say that the definition I quoted is what is accepted today as being the accurate definition.
> Should that definition be changed from accurate to inaccurate in the future then I certainly hope it will be changed, just as it did from the definition you supplied.
> And I will no longer use it exactly for that reason.
> ...


......


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't just take or pick the definition I like. I look at several dictionaries and their definitions specifically to check that there IS a consensus that has been reached.
> And there is. The placement of words may vary but the definitions do not.
> 
> Any my contention is "Yes".
> ...



So in considering the statement "God is a being", within your chosen definition of "person", and your chosen definition of "real", and your chosen definition of "proof", and your chosen definition of "being", you are left with God is imaginary.  I can understand that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> So in considering the statement "God is a being", within your chosen definition of "person", and your chosen definition of "real", and your chosen definition of "proof", and your chosen definition of "being", you are left with God is imaginary.  I can understand that.


You are grasping for straws.
1. The Christian claim of what God "is", is what disqualified "person" , not me.
2. SFD's wording "God is a being" is what chose which definition of "being" applies , not me.
3. I did not use the word proof or supply any definition for it.
4. Real has a definition in the dictionary. Feel free to find one that you agree with and post it up.

Unless you can provide something better than the nonsense you are offering up, I bid you a goodnight.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> You are grasping for straws.
> 1. The Christian claim of what God "is", is what disqualified "person" , not me.
> 2. SFD's wording "God is a being" is what chose which definition of "being" applies , not me..


I confess that I do not understand either of these.



> 3. I did not use the word proof or supply any definition for it.


Correct; I was referring to your use of "proven".



> 4. Real has a definition in the dictionary. Feel free to find one that you agree with and post it up.


See below.


> Unless you can provide something better than the nonsense you are offering up, I bid you a goodnight


So I am speaking nonsense, as I suspected.
Goodnight.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> See below.I confess that I do not understand either of these.
> Correct; I was referring to your use of "proven".
> 
> 
> ...





> 1. The Christian claim of what God "is", is what disqualified "person" , not me.
> 2.SFD's wording "God is a being" is what chose which definition of "being" applies , not me..





> I confess that I do not understand either of these.


I supplied this definition of "being"
be·ing


> ËˆbÄ“iNG
> DEFINITION
> present participle of be.
> NOUN
> ...


In choosing which definition (#1 or #2 or #3) is applicable, I have addressed why #1 and #2 do not apply. #2 does not apply because God is not a "person". A "person" is not Omni-everything, a "person" can not perform actual miracle etc.


> 2. SFD's wording "God is a being" is what chose which definition of "being" applies , not me..


"a being"
#1 doesn't apply. Different usage of being.
#2 doesn't apply. God is not a person.
#3 does apply.
Didn't choose the one I like, only one applies.


> Correct; I was referring to your use of "proven".


My use of proven was "The existence of God can not be proven.


> prov·en (proÍžoâ€²vÉ™n)
> v.
> A past tense and a past participle of prove.
> adj.
> Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.


One might believe God exists but it has not been proven to be a fact.


> So I am speaking nonsense, as I suspected.


Ok maybe nonsense is unfair.
Might point is you are not providing anything factual to rebut what I'm saying just making less than factual statements like -
"within your chosen definition of______"  X 5
and - "you are left with God is imaginary"
I didn't claim God is imaginary. It was this definition that applied for the above reasons.
3. a real or imaginary living creature, especially an intelligent one.
We eliminated "real" because it cant be proven to be real..
So whats left?
If you could prove God exists, it would be then be proven to exist, and instead of real being eliminated we would eliminate imaginary.
But it would still be #3 that applies.

I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not using my opinions, I'm not using my beliefs or disbeliefs.
Its all right there.
If you want to challenge that, don't challenge me, challenge it.


----------



## Israel (Aug 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I wouldn't want to be either.
> But then again I wouldn't try to slide in a dictionary from 1828, with obvious issues in its accuracy as some sort of rebuttal.
> So maybe its me that's a bit off.



Had we lived in the days of our fathers we would not have stoned the prophets.

God proves. Man is tried.


----------



## Israel (Aug 10, 2017)

When one sees the bonds of their language, one sees the bounds of their own minds.


----------



## Israel (Aug 10, 2017)

Soon after, she’s visited by a military colonel who’s interested in her expertise. He plays warbled audio of aliens potentially trying to communicate with them, or each other; Louise asserts that she’d have to witness their exchange in person to have a shot at understanding. The colonel threatens to pursue the help of another linguist, who, it’s implied, is Louise’s competitor. “Ask him the Sanskrit word for ‘war,’ and its translation,” Louise pleads. When the colonel reappears, he says the other linguist said “gavisti” means “an argument,” whereas Louise translates the same word as “a desire for more cows.” 



From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I supplied this definition of "being"
> be·ing
> 
> In choosing which definition (#1 or #2 or #3) is applicable, I have addressed why #1 and #2 do not apply. #2 does not apply because God is not a "person". A "person" is not Omni-everything, a "person" can not perform actual miracle etc.
> ...



Look how this has morphed and grown.

I have no desire to count the number of items here which are in need of clarification, much less deal with all of them.  Underlying several of those items is the question of the existence or nonexistence of anything metaphysical.  I have no desire to attempt to convince you of the existence of the metaphysical.  Do you desire to attempt to convince me of the nonexistence of the metaphysical?


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not making this stuff up. I'm not using my opinions, I'm not using my beliefs or disbeliefs.
> Its all right there.
> If you want to challenge that, don't challenge me, challenge it.


I was taking the long road to establish my point. You jumped right to it.

What am I going to do for the rest of the day?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Look how this has morphed and grown.
> 
> I have no desire to count the number of items here which are in need of clarification, much less deal with all of them.  Underlying several of those items is the question of the existence or nonexistence of anything metaphysical.  I have no desire to attempt to convince you of the existence of the metaphysical.  Do you desire to attempt to convince me of the nonexistence of the metaphysical?


The only thing that has morphed and grown is my explanation because you said you didn't understand.
And now you have no desire to understand. 
Nice.


> Do you desire to attempt to convince me of the nonexistence of the metaphysical?


Nope.
I'm having a hard enough time trying to explain something as concrete as definitions in a dictionary that actually do exist.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> The only thing that has morphed and grown is my explanation because you said you didn't understand.
> And now you have no desire to understand.
> Nice.
> 
> ...



How do you suggest that I deal with your assumptions?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> The only thing that has morphed and grown is my explanation because you said you didn't understand.
> And now you have no desire to understand.
> Nice.
> ...





hummerpoo said:


> How do you suggest that I deal with your assumptions?


My first suggestion would be to pay attention to what you say. And then ask yourself "now where would he have gotten the idea that I don't have the desire to understand"?


> I have no desire to count the number of items here which are in need of clarification, much less deal with all of them.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> I watched What the Health on Netflix last night. Some vegans got a Netflix to put it up. PLENTY of people will put FAITH in the evidence and studies talked about in the doc and stop eating meat!
> 
> I put faith that they are stupid vegans trying to brainwash people. I put faith in meat and dairy not guaranteeing me to get cancer and diabetes. I have always been a milk drinker. I frequently drink a gallon of milk a day. They showed a pretty convincing little clip about how whatever in milk attacks your pancreas. My sister is very thin and drinks very little milk. She has type 1 diabetes. I've used my own experience and observations and evidence and put faith in the studies, reports and what best fits what I want... TO EAT MEAT.



Sounds to me like one shouldn't take things on faith.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> My first suggestion would be to pay attention to what you say. And then ask yourself "now where would he have gotten the idea that I don't have the desire to understand"?



I am sorry but, just as you, as one who does not believe that anything metaphysical exists (possibly and overstatement), fail to understand what underlies what I say; I, as one who believes that things metaphysical exist, do not anticipate what you will assume underlies what I say.

An outgrowth of that divergence is demonstrated in this:



WaltL1 said:


> #2 does not apply because God is not a "person". A "person" is not Omni-everything, a "person" can not perform actual miracle etc.



Googling "God is a person" will reveal several lists of attributes of God which show that He is a person.  While I would add nuance to many of the arguments, and perhaps outright disagree with others, the one that always stands out to me is "self-awareness".  It is notable that few, if any, of the affirmative arguments can be sustained from a non-metaphysical position.  Therefore, having no desire to convince you of existence of the metaphysical, I determined to not challenge your "assumption".  Was that a correct decision?  I don't know.

I have stated what I do not desire.  The reason for that lack of desire is that I am convinced that ability lies only with God (although He has instructed His people as to their role in what is His prerogative).  What I do desire is to, somehow, contribute to a platform of understanding between those who see the metaphysical and those who do not.  Sadly, I find that I am not up to the task; although the desire remains.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I am sorry but, just as you, as one who does not believe that anything metaphysical exists (possibly and overstatement), fail to understand what underlies what I say; I, as one who believes that things metaphysical exist, do not anticipate what you will assume underlies what I say.
> 
> An outgrowth of that divergence is demonstrated in this:
> 
> ...


I don't think that it is not that you aren't up to the task. I think it probably has more to do with me/us being a jaded audience. We have heard so many variations, so many claims that are unprovable being presented as fact etc. that I/we more or less have adopted the attitude of "prove it".
HOWEVER, I admittedly am a simple guy and tend to break things down into simple terms which is not conducive to subjects like the metaphysical.
BUT, we definitely have A/As here who are far more "imaginative/far reaching" thinkers than I am that could make such a discussion far more interesting than I could.
Start a thread on the subject and lets see where it goes.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think that it is not that you aren't up to the task. I think it probably has more to do with me/us being a jaded audience. We have heard so many variations, so many claims that are unprovable being presented as fact etc. that I/we more or less have adopted the attitude of "prove it".
> HOWEVER, I admittedly am a simple guy and tend to break things down into simple terms which is not conducive to subjects like the metaphysical.
> However we definitely have A/As here who are far more "imaginative/far reaching" thinkers that I am that could make such a discussion far more interesting than I could.
> Start a thread on the subject and lets see where it goes.



Yes, we are all familiar with "You must prove the metaphysical, but don't forget that there is no metaphysical."

I will consider your recommended thread.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Sounds to me like one shouldn't take things on faith.



My point was that YOU absolutely take things on faith too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, we are all familiar with "You must prove the metaphysical, but don't forget that there is no metaphysical."
> 
> I will consider your recommended thread.


I'm not so sure you will hear us state that there is no metaphysical. What you will probably hear is that there is no preponderance of evidence that there is.
Theres a big difference there.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> My point was that YOU absolutely take things on faith too.



Nope. There is a difference between taking something on faith and reaching a wrong conclusion based on insufficient evidence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2017)

When was the last time you read an article about politics or Trump anywhere and believed it OR didn't? It necessarily has to have happened. Faith...

While there is evidence enough for both of us, we believe that the earth is round based on faith. We haven't actually seen it being round for ourselves. Those that used to believe it was flat did so based on faith and the evidence they had seen and experienced. 

And if you've ever watched the Matrix you would even be going on faith that there was a spoon in your hand.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> When was the last time you read an article about politics or Trump anywhere and believed it OR didn't? It necessarily has to have happened. Faith...



Sorry but there is no comparison between believing you're in communication with a deity because you felt a tingle up your leg and he "touched" you and believing a health related claim based on evidence that doesn't tell the entire story.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> When was the last time you read an article about politics or Trump anywhere and believed it OR didn't? It necessarily has to have happened. Faith...
> 
> While there is evidence enough for both of us, we believe that the earth is round based on faith. We haven't actually seen it being round for ourselves. Those that used to believe it was flat did so based on faith and the evidence they had seen and experienced.
> 
> And if you've ever watched the Matrix you would even be going on faith that there was a spoon in your hand.



I think you're blurring the definition of faith. Or perhaps conflating two possible but different definitions. There is reasonable expectations based on observable evidence. Then there is an assumption of the truth of a claim in the absence of evidence. You could call both faith but they are not the same thing.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I think you're blurring the definition of faith. Or perhaps conflating two possible but different definitions. There is reasonable expectations based on observable evidence. Then there is an assumption of the truth of a claim in the absence of evidence. You could call both faith but they are not the same thing.



Faith in different degrees is still faith.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I think you're blurring the definition of faith. Or perhaps conflating two possible but different definitions. There is reasonable expectations based on observable evidence. Then there is an assumption of the truth of a claim in the absence of evidence. You could call both faith but they are not the same thing.



Skepticism claims that all the time. Even what you see with your eyes is still a perception of what IS... and you use faith to trust what you saw. And faith is faith. There is no spoon


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 10, 2017)

There's good faith and bad faith.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2017)

Good or bad, smart or dumb.. Sure, I guess you could classify that way. I'm not trying to say that you and I having faith in what we hear and see about the earth being round is the same as the faith that I have in God. I'm just saying both use some kind of faith to "believe."


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Good or bad, smart or dumb.. Sure, I guess you could classify that way. I'm not trying to say that you and I having faith in what we hear and see about the earth being round is the same as the faith that I have in God. I'm just saying both use some kind of faith to "believe."



Those are very important distinctions.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Good or bad, smart or dumb.. Sure, I guess you could classify that way. I'm not trying to say that you and I having faith in what we hear and see about the earth being round is the same as the faith that I have in God. I'm just saying both use some kind of faith to "believe."



There is blind faith and evidence based faith.
Since blind faith has negative connotations, no body has that.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Skepticism claims that all the time. Even what you see with your eyes is still a perception of what IS... and you use faith to trust what you saw. And faith is faith. There is no spoon



Observation is all we have to discover that which comports with reality. If you want to distrust what your eyes tell you and step off the cliff in faith go right ahead.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Good or bad, smart or dumb.. Sure, I guess you could classify that way. I'm not trying to say that you and I having faith in what we hear and see about the earth being round is the same as the faith that I have in God. I'm just saying both use some kind of faith to "believe."



You're really reaching.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

660griz said:


> There is blind faith and evidence based faith.
> Since blind faith has negative connotations, no body has that.



It's a misnomer to call it faith.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Observation is all we have to discover that which comports with reality. If you want to distrust what your eyes tell you and step off the cliff in faith go right ahead.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Observation is all we have to discover that which comports with reality. If you want to distrust what your eyes tell you and step off the cliff in faith go right ahead.



A cliff is very clearly an extreme example. You eat meat regardless of all of the data that shows that it's bad for you. That's faith that you don't believe it to be true. You have enough evidence that you accept to believe it. Others disagree and they see enough evidence to believe. I disagree with a vegan on that topic like you disagree with the faith topic here.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> It's a misnomer to call it faith.



You guys (and myself) like the example of everyone thinking the world used to be flat.. and EVERYONE was wrong. They used whatever scientific and other evidence they had for that FACT. I didn't live back then but from what I understand, everyone took that for FACT. Was it FACT? NO. There was enough evidence, whatever it took for people to put faith in the idea and consider it fact. The same thing goes for the earth being the center of the universe and solar system. I think most of us believe that the earth orbits the sun and so on. We all agree on that. We believe it based on faith. We can observe some things that help us believe that but we still take it on faith.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> A cliff is very clearly an extreme example. You eat meat regardless of all of the data that shows that it's bad for you. That's faith that you don't believe it to be true. You have enough evidence that you accept to believe it. Others disagree and they see enough evidence to believe. I disagree with a vegan on that topic like you disagree with the faith topic here.



I don't eat unhealthy foods because I have faith that they are good for me. I eat them because I enjoy them and accept the associated health risks. That's really not a very good example.

I once heard it put this way. You take your bible with you off the cliff, I'll take a parachute and see you at the bottom. You're trying to put the guy with the parachute on the same faith footing as the guy with the bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> You guys (and myself) like the example of everyone thinking the world used to be flat.. and EVERYONE was wrong. They used whatever scientific and other evidence they had for that FACT. I didn't live back then but from what I understand, everyone took that for FACT. Was it FACT? NO. There was enough evidence, whatever it took for people to put faith in the idea and consider it fact. The same thing goes for the earth being the center of the universe and solar system. I think most of us believe that the earth orbits the sun and so on. We all agree on that. We believe it based on faith. We can observe some things that help us believe that but we still take it on faith.



I think a better example would be geocentrism. There was a time when the best evidence we had available to us supported the hypothesis that the sun revolved around the earth. Later new evidence came to light that falsified that hypothesis and a better hypothesis took its place. That's not faith. That's looking at the evidence and looking for ways to test if our thinking comports with reality. Faith, at least in the religious sense, assumes it has the answers and goes out of its way to construct its claims in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> A cliff is very clearly an extreme example. You eat meat regardless of all of the data that shows that it's bad for you. That's faith that you don't believe it to be true. You have enough evidence that you accept to believe it. Others disagree and they see enough evidence to believe. I disagree with a vegan on that topic like you disagree with the faith topic here.


I'm a smoker.
I promise you I have 0 faith that the data claiming cigarettes can cause cancer is not true.


----------



## red neck richie (Aug 10, 2017)

To the clueless.


----------



## red neck richie (Aug 10, 2017)

And no I do not want to talk about santa claus or uni corns or star treck. But if you people want to get real lets talk.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> To the clueless.


Well I see who you posted this for but I watched it anyway.

If that is what it took for him to get straight I'm all for it.
But lets be honest. 
I know for a fact that there are people who have kicked drugs/alcohol/both without believing or crediting a god for it.
And surely a few here and there who found the strength by turning to a different god.

From a completely psychological point of view, it is interesting to me that in reality, he traded one addiction for another. But this one for him is a positive addiction.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> To the clueless.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


>



Man if Richie and the rest are right, you are in serious trouble for that one


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> And no I do not want to talk about santa claus or uni corns or star treck. But if you people want to get real lets talk.


You run with any and every story credited to the christian god and absolutely dismiss and scoff at every similar story by just as sincere people who worship something else or nothing at all.

How can you talk about getting REAL?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Man if Richie and the rest are right, you are in serious trouble for that one



"Well I guess the hard times have flushed the chumps. Everybody's looking for answers and... where's he going?"


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You run with any and every story credited to the christian god and absolutely dismiss and scoff at every similar story by just as sincere people who worship something else or nothing at all.
> 
> How can you talk about getting REAL?



I guess he didn't get the memo that unicorns are biblical.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/unicorn/



> Numbers 23:22 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
> God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I guess he didn't get the memo that unicorns are biblical.
> 
> https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/unicorn/


I've been after a unicorn with a drop tine.
We shall see


----------



## red neck richie (Aug 10, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> "Well I guess the hard times have flushed the chumps. Everybody's looking for answers and... where's he going?"



Real Deal Bro. By you saying flushed chumps tells me all I need to know about you.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Real Deal Bro. By you saying flushed chumps tells me all I need to know about you.



Watch the movie and lighten up.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I've been after a unicorn with a drop tine.
> We shall see


Not sure there are any documented cases of those


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Faith in different degrees is still faith.



Kinda like homicide.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> When was the last time you read an article about politics or Trump anywhere and believed it OR didn't? It necessarily has to have happened. Faith...


 I rarely read  a single article about anything and believe it. I like more sources than that.



> While there is evidence enough for both of us, we believe that the earth is round based on faith.


 Evidence based faith. Ever flown in a plane? Seen the shadow of earth on the moon? Time zones? Watched live stream from space? And multitudes of other ways to gather evidence of the earth being round. 


> We haven't actually seen it being round for ourselves.


 Some have and brought back proof. 





> Those that used to believe it was flat did so based on faith and the evidence they had seen and experienced.


 Nothing wrong with that. The idea is to learn and get smarter. The folks that wrote the bible didn't know a whole lot about the world. It was flat and a local flood was considered world wide. Microorganisms were not known, moon was thought to be a light source like the sun. They believed a virgin could get pregnant from a supernatural being, a man could live in a fish for 3 days, donkeys talk, etc. It was a crazy time. Kinda like the 60s without electricity.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Real Deal Bro. By you saying flushed chumps tells me all I need to know about you.


Richie my friend, you started out by posting the video "To the clueless". Considering you are the third A in A/A/A, one can assume you are addressing us as "the clueless".
Don't get up too high on that horse.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> And no I do not want to talk about santa claus or uni corns or star treck. But if you people want to get real lets talk.


Richie I responded to you in the very next post with real life experiences, facts etc.
No mention of Santa, unicorns or Capt. Kirk.

So lets talk.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> To the clueless.



I can't tell you how many folks I have known that go from one extreme, drug addiction, to the other extreme, born again christian. 
Something about their personality that prevents moderation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2017)

> 660griz;10837939]I can't tell you how many folks I have known that go from one extreme, drug addiction, to the other extreme, born again christian.
> Something about their personality that prevents moderation.


BINGO
Its either fold or all in. Nothing in between.


----------



## hoytman308 (Aug 11, 2017)

The crazy thing to me is all of you guys believe in something and   You only believe in it because a man somewhere tells you too. For instance the guy in the boat holding the trout...  what made you believe that getting in that boat, you would be safe? That the boat would not sink?  Or walking up to a chair only assuming it would hold you but until you actually sit your butt down in the chair would you 100% know that the chair would actually hold you. The God I believe in gives you the ability to use your brain to determine what's right or wrong, good or evil.  He doesn't force you to do anything YOU as a person does not want to do. He gives you the choice to choose for yourself.  And the deal is no matter what you may or may not believe in either I'm right and you're wrong or I'm wrong and your right.  The difference here to me and what I've read thus far is I have God and you claim to not.  Me having God in my life is a better insurance to not. But again it's either you believe or you don't. When you sit in the chair you will find out.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2017)

660griz said:


> I can't tell you how many folks I have known that go from one extreme, drug addiction, to the other extreme, born again christian.
> Something about their personality that prevents moderation.



God must absolutely LOVE the rapists, murderers, imbezzlers, ceral killers, child molesters and every other deviant that was caught and thrown in prison for long periods of time too. Yesterday I saw on TV that the "Son of Sam" is now a minister.

It is amazing how these drug abusers wake up after the 1000th time on the floor in a filthy toilet stall after playing a night of arm darts and ol JC is right there with them. I am going to have to research if there are any non christians in prison or that use drugs that are found and saved by another god.

Allah have some searching to do...


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Richie my friend, you started out by posting the video "To the clueless". Considering you are the third A in A/A/A, one can assume you are addressing us as "the clueless".
> Don't get up too high on that horse.



Yeah I was going to point that out and throw Matthew 7:5 out there.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2017)

hoytman308 said:


> The crazy thing to me is all of you guys believe in something and   You only believe in it because a man somewhere tells you too. For instance the guy in the boat holding the trout...  what made you believe that getting in that boat, you would be safe? That the boat would not sink?  Or walking up to a chair only assuming it would hold you but until you actually sit your butt down in the chair would you 100% know that the chair would actually hold you. The God I believe in gives you the ability to use your brain to determine what's right or wrong, good or evil.  He doesn't force you to do anything YOU as a person does not want to do. He gives you the choice to choose for yourself.  And the deal is no matter what you may or may not believe in either I'm right and you're wrong or I'm wrong and your right.  The difference here to me and what I've read thus far is I have God and you claim to not.  Me having God in my life is a better insurance to not. But again it's either you believe or you don't. When you sit in the chair you will find out.


So your god is more of an insurance policy?

You should worship a different deity every day for the next 10,000 days if you want to have your bases covered hoytman.

Boats and chairs.
You are using faith like many believers use theory. Totally improper for the conversation at hand.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2017)

hoytman308 said:


> The crazy thing to me is all of you guys believe in something and   You only believe in it because a man somewhere tells you too. For instance the guy in the boat holding the trout...  what made you believe that getting in that boat, you would be safe? That the boat would not sink?  Or walking up to a chair only assuming it would hold you but until you actually sit your butt down in the chair would you 100% know that the chair would actually hold you. The God I believe in gives you the ability to use your brain to determine what's right or wrong, good or evil.  He doesn't force you to do anything YOU as a person does not want to do. He gives you the choice to choose for yourself.  And the deal is no matter what you may or may not believe in either I'm right and you're wrong or I'm wrong and your right.  The difference here to me and what I've read thus far is I have God and you claim to not.  Me having God in my life is a better insurance to not. But again it's either you believe or you don't. When you sit in the chair you will find out.


I'm not real sure what your point is but just a couple of comments -


> You only believe in it because a man somewhere tells you too.


Really? I don't think you have considered the irony of this statement.


> Me having God in my life is a better insurance to not.


I'm assuming there are a whole lot of gods that you don't believe in. Your insurance coverage would be a lot more inclusive if you believed in all of them too. No?

And welcome, not sure I have seen you post here before.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 11, 2017)

660griz said:


> Some have and brought back proof.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2017)

hoytman308 said:


> The crazy thing to me is all of you guys believe in something and   You only believe in it because a man somewhere tells you too. For instance the guy in the boat holding the trout...  what made you believe that getting in that boat, you would be safe? That the boat would not sink?  Or walking up to a chair only assuming it would hold you but until you actually sit your butt down in the chair would you 100% know that the chair would actually hold you.



Evidence. 





hoytman308 said:


> The God I believe in gives you the ability to use your brain to determine what's right or wrong, good or evil.  He doesn't force you to do anything YOU as a person does not want to do. He gives you the choice to choose for yourself.  And the deal is no matter what you may or may not believe in either I'm right and you're wrong or I'm wrong and your right.  The difference here to me and what I've read thus far is I have God and you claim to not.  Me having God in my life is a better insurance to not. But again it's either you believe or you don't. When you sit in the chair you will find out.



Jeremiah 19




> 4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
> 5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
> 6 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.
> 7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
> ...




If someone held a gun to you and said your wallet or your life I doubt you would call that a choice free from force. The same applies to the monstrous choice of "love me or else I'll make you eat your children".


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2017)

Here's what I think about your "insurance".

*Edited to replace the "H" word.

â€œWhat Pascal overlooked was the hair-raising possibility that God might out-Luther Luther. A special area in *lake of fire* might be reserved for those who go to mass. Or God might punish those whose faith is prompted by prudence. Perhaps God prefers the abstinent to those who *prostitute* around with some denomination he despises. _Perhaps he reserves special rewards for those who deny themselves the comfort of belief. Perhaps the intellectual ascetic will win all while those who compromised their intellectual integrity lose everything._

There are many other possibilities. There might be many gods, including one who favors people like Pascal; but the other gods might overpower or outvote him, à la Homer. Nietzsche might well have applied to Pascal his cutting remark about Kant: when he wagered on God, the great mathematician 'became an idiot.â€� 
â€• Walter Kaufmann


----------



## ky55 (Aug 11, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> BINGO
> Its either fold or all in. Nothing in between.



Yep,
the porn star Jenna Presley had a segment yesterday on Pat Robertson's CBN show. 
Same thing.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2017)

hoytman308 said:


> The crazy thing to me is all of you guys believe in something and   You only believe in it because a man somewhere tells you too. For instance the guy in the boat holding the trout...  what made you believe that getting in that boat, you would be safe?


Well, there is a guy in the boat holding a trout. 
I don't believe all boats float, only the ones I see floating. 
I know the reason they float. I also know how to swim so, if they don't, I swim to shore. 

All of these things 'you guys' bring up as faith based are all based on evidence. If I had never seen, nor heard of a boat, and the principle of displacement, physics, and bodies of water were all very new to me, and a person said, "hey, get in this thing and I am gonna shove you out into the lake." I would ask for a little more information before jumping in the boat. Perhaps even proof it would hold a person up.


----------



## red neck richie (Aug 11, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Richie I responded to you in the very next post with real life experiences, facts etc.
> No mention of Santa, unicorns or Capt. Kirk.
> 
> So lets talk.



Walt my post wasn't directed specifically toward you. In fact I find you to be one of the most logical and open minded on this site. Clueless-have no knowledge, understanding or ability. This is more of a general observation based on the debate style as well as content of several posts on this site. For example somebody brings up that archeologist have discovered artifacts that coincide with events that occur in the Bible to establish another point of credibility and one response was they mentioned earth on star treck so what.  I am paraphrasing but you get the gist. I have heard others argue that the tooth ferry and unicorns are real too then. Those are the posts I am referring to as I addressed to the clueless. I posted Brian Welch's testimony because I found it interesting and is just another example of how God works in peoples lives. If I offended you my apologies. By the way its more of a soap box than a high horse.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Walt my post wasn't directed specifically toward you. In fact I find you to be one of the most logical and open minded on this site. Clueless-have no knowledge, understanding or ability. This is more of a general observation based on the debate style as well as content of several posts on this site. For example somebody brings up that archeologist have discovered artifacts that coincide with events that occur in the Bible to establish another point of credibility and one response was they mentioned earth on star treck so what.  I am paraphrasing but you get the gist. I have heard others argue that the tooth ferry and unicorns are real too then. Those are the posts I am referring to as I addressed to the clueless. I posted Brian Welch's testimony because I found it interesting and is just another example of how God works in peoples lives. If I offended you my apologies.


Richie why is it that when a place, person or event in the bible is "found" many believers use that as the evidence of the bible being true?
"We" all know the bible contains many REAL people,  REAL places and REAL events. That has never been disputed. 
"We" are concerned why the god stuff like miracles,  talking donkeys, world floods, ascension etc etc etc...the stuff that take the real to another level is never found to be anything but embellishments to real people,places and events.

Jericho fell. The walls were broken. Totally believable and provable.
Then to say a trumpet was the cause, that is where we want proof. That is the real proof.

You cannot say that the bible says that the jews wandered the desert for 40 years and then say it is true because Look! There IS a desert!!
We know there is a desert,  there is no evidence of that many people ever leaving Egypt, spending that much time in the desert and it happening like the bible describes. 

You do not like. Star Trek reference because you think that somehow somebody is insulting your intelligence with a mixture of a real place (earth) along with inserting a fake futuristic setting of fantasty embellishments by writers. 
Well
You do the same thing when you use a real place(earth) along with inserting a fake ancient setting of fantasy imbellishments by writers.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Walt my post wasn't directed specifically toward you. In fact I find you to be one of the most logical and open minded on this site. Clueless-have no knowledge, understanding or ability. This is more of a general observation based on the debate style as well as content of several posts on this site. For example somebody brings up that archeologist have discovered artifacts that coincide with events that occur in the Bible to establish another point of credibility and one response was they mentioned earth on star treck so what.  I am paraphrasing but you get the gist. I have heard others argue that the tooth ferry and unicorns are real too then. Those are the posts I am referring to as I addressed to the clueless. I posted Brian Welch's testimony because I found it interesting and is just another example of how God works in peoples lives. If I offended you my apologies. By the way its more of a soap box than a high horse.


Richie, you are letting things get under your skin a little too much. Ive noticed it in your posts over the last few months. To us, you guys can say some crazy stuff, to you, we can say some crazy stuff. Good natured ribbing, maybe a jab or a left hook here and there is all part of it.
And I wasn't insulted at all. Just pointing out what you said and that you threw a jab and got a jab back. Next time "we" might throw the first jab. 
No harm, no foul.

Somehow you have got to accept that none of us here hate Christians, don't think you are "stupid", and all those other things that you have convinced yourself of that is causing you to be hyper sensitive.
Yes, sometimes it may sound that way but if you know and accept it for what it is, you wont get so wound up over this.

Besides, in the end, you are going to get the last laugh right? 

By the way, make sure you don't miss this in Bullet's post -


> "We" all know the bible contains many REAL people, REAL places and REAL events. That has never been disputed


.


----------



## red neck richie (Aug 11, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Richie, you are letting things get under your skin a little too much. Ive noticed it in your posts over the last few months. To us, you guys can say some crazy stuff, to you, we can say some crazy stuff. Good natured ribbing, maybe a jab or a left hook here and there is all part of it.
> And I wasn't insulted at all. Just pointing out what you said and that you threw a jab and got a jab back. Next time "we" might throw the first jab.
> No harm, no foul.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the advice. I don't get wound up over it. Its just that I  don't want the last laugh. Got to go there is a star trek marathon on tonight I wanna watch.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Thanks for the advice. I don't get wound up over it. Its just that I  don't want the last laugh. Got to go there is a star trek marathon on tonight I wanna watch.



What channel? I have The 10 Commandments TiVo 'd but I can watch that later.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets take your question and break it down. Lets start here -
> 
> If God is a being then we need to define being and then we can figure out what to expect from it. So -
> 
> ...



Sorry for delay in responding.  Crazy, busy week.  

For the sake of my post I will keep it simple.  Maybe we can agree that a being is one who is capable of thought, will, and action.


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> BINGO
> Its either fold or all in. Nothing in between.



Is there anything "in between"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry for delay in responding.  Crazy, busy week.
> 
> For the sake of my post I will keep it simple.  Maybe we can agree that a being is one who is capable of thought, will, and action.


Sure we can agree on that.
But now you have shifted the focus to "one".
One what?
And I'm not being difficult. You can't just skip over the fact that you are talking about a  god here.
A human being is capable of thought, will and action.
For that matter, a dog is capable of thought, will and action.
A god, particularly an omni-everything one, would be capable of far different thoughts, will and actions.
Cant just throw them all in a box and call it "One".


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2017)

Israel said:


> Is there anything "in between"?


Sure at least in action.
For example I would say the vast majority of Christians sit in between lets say Westboro Baptist and the Pope in action.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Thanks for the advice. I don't get wound up over it. Its just that I  don't want the last laugh. Got to go there is a star trek marathon on tonight I wanna watch.


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure at least in action.
> For example I would say the vast majority of Christians sit in between lets say Westboro Baptist and the Pope in action.



I perceived the original reference had more a inclination toward devotion (which could surely include action) than the seeming poles you mentioned.

I only know both mentioned by reputation...but in both, what do you see? One full throttle (no pun originally intended...but now seen)...the other...(whichever it might be)...different? 

I guess...is it a difference in quality or quantity?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2017)

Israel said:


> I perceived the original reference had more a inclination toward devotion (which could surely include action) than the seeming poles you mentioned.
> 
> I only know both mentioned by reputation...but in both, what do you see? One full throttle (no pun originally intended...but now seen)...the other...(whichever it might be)...different?
> 
> I guess...is it a difference in quality or quantity?


I'm using the "fold or all in" as a description of a mindset that could apply to lots and lots of things including religion.
I'll use myself as an example. I was once an "all in" drinker. There was no such thing as having a social drink or two. If I even got so much as a whiff of Jack Daniels, the odds were good the night wasn't going to end well.
So I had to fold.
Now years later, I can have a glass of champagne on New Years, or do one shot of shine with a friend and leave it at that. So I'm in between folding and all in. I now have a different mindset.
Now as that would apply to religion/belief and devotion and quantity vs quality....
Westboro Baptist scum are devoted. The Pope is devoted. The average Christian is devoted.
Different mind sets/actions across that spectrum of devotion.
As for the quantity and quality we know who, according to your beliefs, is the only one who can judge that.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2017)

israel said:


> is there anything "in between"?



moderation!


----------



## Israel (Aug 14, 2017)

as in moderately...alive?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure we can agree on that.
> But now you have shifted the focus to "one".
> One what?
> And I'm not being difficult. You can't just skip over the fact that you are talking about a  god here.
> ...



That's my point.  If evidence is your standard, it's hypocritical to hold God to a higher standard of evidence than you do any other being.  If you hear a dog bark, you believe there is a dog there based on hearing. You have probably never heard a hippo bellow, but if you heard a noise you couldn't identify and a person you had always found sensible and credible told you it was a hippo bellowing you would most reasonably believe it.  You have never met me, yet you believe me and others exists based on our communication.  There are millions upon millions of Christians who will tell you that God exists based on their ability to communicate with him and he with them, because he has acted in their lives and they can see the evidence of it.  Why? Because he is a being who is capable of thought, will, and action.  That's evidence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure at least in action.
> For example I would say the vast majority of Christians sit in between lets say Westboro Baptist and the Pope in action.



For that matter you could say "humanity sit in between....


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2017)

Israel said:


> as in moderately...alive?



Yes.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 14, 2017)

to answer the thread question of "most compelling reason" I would have to say the concept of critical thinking. examples:

1. David (or one of those old testament heroes) killed 5,000 enemy with the jaw-bone of a donkey in one battle. 
Let's get a visual on this - during the chaos word gets around that some dude is going Babe Ruth with a donkey jaw-bone. Wow, sure enough, look at that guy! There are hundreds/thousands of our guys dead from getting their heads bashed in  - and he's still not running out of steam! 
Apparently nobody has a spear, a sword, or even a pointed stick with which to kill him. Well I guess he's got our number - might as well stand in line and get ready for our bashing death - he's a tactical genius!

2. When Adam ate the "fruit of the tree of knowledge" on that very day he was supposed to die. He lived what, 700+ more years?  I need to get on that nutrition plan - Atkins or Weight Watchers has nothing on this healthy eating system! 

3. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of different species on this planet and they all fit on one boat. 
Okay, some say maybe species have "adapted slightly" over time. Yes, they did, it's called "evolution" and most of the animals "adapted" *millions of years* before we used tools to build a tiny log raft, let alone a wooden boat bigger than physics even allows.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's my point.  If evidence is your standard, it's hypocritical to hold God to a higher standard of evidence than you do any other being.  If you hear a dog bark, you believe there is a dog there based on hearing. You have probably never heard a hippo bellow, but if you heard a noise you couldn't identify and a person you had always found sensible and credible told you it was a hippo bellowing you would most reasonably believe it.  You have never met me, yet you believe me and others exists based on our communication.  There are millions upon millions of Christians who will tell you that God exists based on their ability to communicate with him and he with them, because he has acted in their lives and they can see the evidence of it.  Why? Because he is a being who is capable of thought, will, and action.  That's evidence.


Using your own standards will you admit that many other gods exist? Millions of people communicate with them and they can see evidence that those gods acted in ways that affected them. Your standards of evidence show you that many gods exist. Do you agree?


----------



## Israel (Aug 14, 2017)

oldfella1962 said:


> to answer the thread question of "most compelling reason" I would have to say the concept of critical thinking. examples:
> 
> 1. David (or one of those old testament heroes) killed 5,000 enemy with the jaw-bone of a donkey in one battle.
> Let's get a visual on this - during the chaos word gets around that some dude is going Babe Ruth with a donkey jaw-bone. Wow, sure enough, look at that guy! There are hundreds/thousands of our guys dead from getting their heads bashed in  - and he's still not running out of steam!
> ...



You've only given evidences of things with which you are at odds with the Bible. You have not said anything about _believing in God_.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 14, 2017)

Israel said:


> You've only given evidences of things with which you are at odds with the Bible. You have not said anything about _believing in God_.



Maybe because if hundreds of things in the bible just don't "add up" then it pretty much outweighs the vague, abstract concepts that can't be disproven - love, hate, faith, greed, human emotions & behavior in general that have always existed and are part of any religion and that we all recognize.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 14, 2017)

oldfella1962 said:


> to answer the thread question of "most compelling reason" I would have to say the concept of critical thinking. examples:



Without getting into specific examples, wouldn't you agree that some very smart people with excellent critical thinking skills are believers?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's my point.  If evidence is your standard, it's hypocritical to hold God to a higher standard of evidence than you do any other being.  If you hear a dog bark, you believe there is a dog there based on hearing. You have probably never heard a hippo bellow, but if you heard a noise you couldn't identify and a person you had always found sensible and credible told you it was a hippo bellowing you would most reasonably believe it.  You have never met me, yet you believe me and others exists based on our communication.  There are millions upon millions of Christians who will tell you that God exists based on their ability to communicate with him and he with them, because he has acted in their lives and they can see the evidence of it.  Why? Because he is a being who is capable of thought, will, and action.  That's evidence.


Lets not forget the question you asked -


> So ,what evidence is reasonable for us to expect a spirit being to exhibit and does he meet that evidential criteria? I think that's a fair question.


Are you sure this is the argument you want to make? -


> If evidence is your standard, it's hypocritical to hold God to a higher standard of evidence than you do any other being.


Maybe give that some thought ^


> Why? Because he is a being who is capable of thought, will, and action.  That's evidence.


So are you. So am I. So is a dog. A possum? Yep. 
A murderer? Uh huh. A Muslim? Yes sir.
A (*gasp*) Atheist? 'fraid so.
All capable of thought, will and action.


> That's evidence


Of what?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 14, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There are millions upon millions of Christians who will tell you that God exists based on their ability to communicate with him and he with them, because he has acted in their lives and they can see the evidence of it.  Why? Because he is a being who is capable of thought, will, and action.  That's evidence.



That's not evidence. It's just an unverifiable assertion repeated millions and millions of times.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> Without getting into specific examples, wouldn't you agree that some very smart people with excellent critical thinking skills are believers?


----------



## Israel (Aug 15, 2017)

> as in moderately...alive?







> Yes.




There's a word for one who is _moderately_ interested, or only _moderately_ devoted to the truth. 

Just because I know this, and write this, does not at all indicate my own devotion is true. That devotion is not mine to judge, but I must see according to the measure given me.

I am troubled when I find myself _in a lie_. I cannot explain away how the expediencies of that practice are so outstripped by the troubling when revealed. I don't know that even now, at this moment, where I will be found relative to the things I express to you. 

But nevertheless, we might both be able to agree that there is an impetus, a motive, moving us to communicate with each other. 

Each of us may say "this is why I am here, this is why I am speaking to you" thinking even, that the reason given, or what we discern as our motive is the truth, the motive reduced to its essence. We do that, don't we? 

Now, a liar would have no concern at all with that, I'm quite convinced _he would be convinced_ he absolutely knew all the reasons for everything he does. He really hasn't been able to touch in any sense, the mystery of it all.

In fact, I would say because he believes himself to know so well his own motives, he'd easily believe he could be the discerner of all motives.

He believes himself _the discerner_.

But this I know by what I have seen, no man can reduce _himself_ to the truth. But he can be reduced by it.

Even so far as that the truth of who, and what he is, can be totally trusted into the hands of Another. And this man I have seen. Whether I know Him, only He can say.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2017)

Israel said:


> There's a word for one who is _moderately_ interested, or only _moderately_ devoted to the truth.



I think you get the point and context. 
Not real sure what all this is about.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2017)

Israel said:


> You have not said anything about _believing in God_.



Title of this thread: " Your most compelling reason for NOT believing in God"
"


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2017)

> Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg
> There are millions upon millions of Christians who will tell you that God exists based on their ability to communicate with him and he with them, because he has acted in their lives and they can see the evidence of it. Why? Because he is a being who is capable of thought, will, and action. That's evidence





atlashunter said:


> That's not evidence. It's just an unverifiable assertion repeated millions and millions of times.


This is a good example of what we see over and over again.
In the argument that SFD makes, replace Christian with the religion of your choice, and God with the name of the god that goes with it.
It absolutely will not sink in that he just made a case for alllll those other gods he doesn't believe in.
And it hits on Centerpin's question -


> Originally Posted by centerpin fan
> Without getting into specific examples, wouldn't you agree that some very smart people with excellent critical thinking skills are believers?


Now obviously the answer to the question as worded would be absolutely.
BUT
If one of those specific examples we aren't getting into just happens to be one's religious beliefs then very often the critical thinking gets put on the back burner and faith, fear, indoctrination and all those other emotions take over.
Its why SFD doesn't see this -


> It absolutely will not sink in that he just made a case for alllll those other gods he doesn't believe in.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> Without getting into specific examples, wouldn't you agree that some very smart people with excellent critical thinking skills are believers?



Yes.
How has the extra smarts and skills allowed them to prove their beliefs are anything more than beliefs?
Are you talking about smart people with excellent critical thinking skills that make up all religions or just smart and skilled Christians?


----------

