gordon
You don't even know where my buttons are . I do believe in spirited debate, one where people get what they give.
Funny how someone convinced they have a truth for us poor unenlightend ones evades answering simple questions.
As you have already been using Christian terminology in describing your beliefs, the fact (as pointed out) you are assembling a religion-u-like on a smorgasboard basis doesn't mean that you have a god I haven't heard of yet. All the 'god' you are peddling is is a composite assembled in your head.
Likewise, I ask you to show you have some knowledge of evolution; I don't care where it is from as if you know something, you know something, whether you learnt under your own steam or in HE. All you do is avoid answering. Funny how you rail about atheists acting as they they know it all when you reject science out-of-hand as though you knew it all and could tell us poor unenlighteded ones where it is wrong.
If you are an atheist... what is your hope?
Look, I know it is inconvenient that we are not the tame and easy to answer internal interlocutors you probably reherse these 'probing' questions on in your head. But it is a fact. Your question presupposes there IS a hope for life after death. You are begging the question; look it up, it's fallacious logic.
And you have been answered, you just ignore the answers as they don't fit into the little pre-conceived slots that would allow you to come up with more trite questions. I mean this is a nice way, by the way. Look back over the answers people have given for you; how on Earth do you think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and the idea of a legacy as a hope got mentioned if it wasn't in answer to this question?
A perfectly satisfactory answer implies an arrogance on the part of a proponent of a particular viewpoint...
No it implies sticking to such tools as the scientific method and if neccesary things like Occam's Razor. You are adding a layer of complexity that modern scientific theories don't require, and have no evidence to support the addition other than your say so. That is arrogant in its own way.
Are you saying that there is no debate between persons with far more knowledge than us on these "Facts"?
The facts I mentioned were;
- if there is a god why is there no evidence for god exisitng, and
- why is there always a perfectly satisfacoty (or at least as satisfactory) naturalistic explanation for all the things some people claim god did
Please show me a debate between any persons you would class as having "far more knowledge than us" that desputes the fact
- there is no evidence (I've given definitions of evidence in my first response to you)
- things people claim god did (and can actually prove happened I should add) always have a perfectly satisfacoty (or at least as satisfactory) naturalistic explanation
Please don't just trot out tired old ID hacks or some such; their arguments have been widely rebutted even if they still keep on using them.
I broke the egg to open it.... All I can show you is what was inside... If you really want to see, c'mon over.
Admit your little analogy fails miserably. You have no egg. You can't even show me what was inside as you have no evidence, just claimed experience. What you say is just a big yolk.
Wow.. those people have some pissed off eggs! Glad I didn't get one of those! .... Oh wait, I do remember getting one of those eggs, lot's of people did, but I threw mine back.
Could you actually answer me this; why should we believe you when other people make similar but incompatable claims about 'eggs' they have found? What differentiates your claims from some Imam, Shaman or Sadduh?
I don't think I'm gonna try and use any more analogies here.
Something we can agree on, although it is fun flying through the holes; it makes a nice wooshing noise...
The point was not about testing God by scientific methods that are developed by our "Amazingly Vast Intellect" It was a statement about the openmindedness of people have haven't been handed the results of years of research.... Again: Do YOU beleive in life on other planets? (NOTE to READER--- This Question is NOT about life on other planets.. It's about YOU!!!)
Belief is a really inappropriate term. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow as given the evidence there is no reason to suppose otherwise; belief is too weedy a word. I know that the theory of evolution fits the available evidence around us and the addition of another layer 'above' this with no rational explanation of origin is scientifically unsound. I know that it is extremely likely given what we know that life has arrisen elsewhere in the Universe and would not be surprised if this is proven in my lifetime.
And please don't over-play the open minded stichk. Maybe I am as or am far more open minded than you but have higher standards of evidnece and reject more things after examination than you. Maybe I am as open minded as you but you are more credulous...
Smarter than you... who know's? More open-minded than you... who knows? More gullible than you... who knows? Maybe we'll get some answers if we keep looking.
Wishy-washy. What, no response to the fact you are acting as if you know it all because of something you claim happened in your head? Respond to THIS question and to the above question about differentiation between you and similar claimants and then we can maybe have an interesting discussion as your argument will have some meat on its bones.
You've implied that you are more knowledgable about theories of evolution.... you're probably right, it is not really a subject that fascinates me.
If I have implied that I know more about God than you.... maybe that is a fair statement too?
I can prove I know more about evolutionary theory than you. There is an external corpus of knowledge to compare what I say with. All we have is your say-so that you know more about god than me or my cat. There is no external corpus against which to verify your claims.
This is technically termed a 'big difference'.
Why are you so sure you are not mentally ill? Hell, I've lost count of the number of god-whispers and Jesus we get through here. Some Islamic terrorists would describe a personal religious experience not unlike yours that lead them to kill people. There is NOTHING to differentiate the validity of your claims from theirs.I'm not ruling anything out... I'm just looking at the results of this current "condition"... fortunately, there have been no signs of destructive behaviour.
So believing the 'voices' in your head ISN'T destrutive behaviour? What if it leads you to complacancy and inaction in this life 'cause you belong to god's heaven club... and there is no heaven club? Micturating away your sole go at being is pretty destructive bahviour amigo. What if you commit the same folly many insnared in organsied religion commit, even though you are trying to avoid it?
Please, don't assume we haven't thought about this topic at great length and discussed it eventually. It's very arrogant to assume you are claiming ANYTHING new that someone hasn't claimed before, and that by the use of hacknied and unoriginal arguments we're suddenly going to say "gosh, there must be a god after all".Perhaps... Just perhaps... This isn't about you! The first line of this thread was directed elswhere.. the statements that I've made since have been in response to someone else's questions. I hope i haven't ignored any of yours.
I am using the plural. There's a whole load of smart people here and your sloppy assumptions and re-hashed 'arguments' are as old to them as they are to me.
If none of the non-evidental arguments for god haven't worked in the past they won't work now just because it is YOU typing them.You're probably right.....
I know that.
Why is it so difficult to realize that THEY LIED ABOUT GOD TOO!!!
Why is it so difficult to realise that as you agree people are used to being lied to (deliberately or by the misled), it is natural to suppose you are same old same old, even if you are sincere in your beliefs?
It is highly speculative, highly irrational, but just as viable as anyone else's opinion...
Yes... and the key word is OPINION. You have no external facts on which for us to base our opinion. You have internal facts, but they are your-say-so.
Thus it shouldn't come as a surprise, as you agree you have no facts for us and are saying what sounds like lots of other people have said, and that the overall experience of many with religion and claimants to special contact with god is that of deceit, that your claims are not considered credible.
Doesn't mean you're not a nice guy though.