Page 3 of 69 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 684

Thread: If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

  1. Top | #21
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    950
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,870
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    People can be wrong. Being wrong doesn't make someone a fool. Religion is a powerful presence/meme. Its not something that can just be dropped.
    People like labels. Labels give them control. I think "god" is a label that works like that for lots of people. They apply it to their experiences so that they can claim to understand what doesn't make any sense otherwise. They don't know what's really in the bottle but if they put "god" on the bottle maybe it makes them feel like whatever is inside is something they understand.

    Most of the people who use this label in my experience don't really care about proof because the proof is in how they feel, not what they know. It's all about being in communion with the great woo, and there will never be any proof for the woo because the woo is beyond proof.
    Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

    Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

    Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

    I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,828
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    People can be wrong. Being wrong doesn't make someone a fool. Religion is a powerful presence/meme. Its not something that can just be dropped.
    People like labels. Labels give them control. I think "god" is a label that works like that for lots of people. They apply it to their experiences so that they can claim to understand what doesn't make any sense otherwise. They don't know what's really in the bottle but if they put "god" on the bottle maybe it makes them feel like whatever is inside is something they understand.

    Most of the people who use this label in my experience don't really care about proof because the proof is in how they feel, not what they know. It's all about being in communion with the great woo, and there will never be any proof for the woo because the woo is beyond proof.
    Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

    Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

    Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

    I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.
    Obviously. However you fail to realize I consider you to be arguing over unicorns and flying dragons. There is mothing for you to win in argument over a god.

    You might just as well be arguing the Lord Of The Rings or the Wizard Of Oz are real.

  3. Top | #23
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    950
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,870
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post

    Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

    Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

    Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

    I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.
    Obviously. However you fail to realize I consider you to be arguing over unicorns and flying dragons. There is mothing for you to win in argument over a god.

    You might just as well be arguing the Lord Of The Rings or the Wizard Of Oz are real.
    This has nothing to do with your new disconnected response above.

    Earlier I was trying to playfully goad you into a self-defeating gotcha.
    I took my playfulness too far by calling you a fool.
    I do apologize for that.

  4. Top | #24
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,828
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post

    Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

    Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

    Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

    I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.
    Obviously. However you fail to realize I consider you to be arguing over unicorns and flying dragons. There is mothing for you to win in argument over a god.

    You might just as well be arguing the Lord Of The Rings or the Wizard Of Oz are real.
    This has nothing to do with your new disconnected response above.

    Earlier I was trying to playfully goad you into a self-defeating gotcha.
    I took my playfulness too far by calling you a fool.
    I do apologize for that.
    Are we having fun yet?

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,512
    Rep Power
    24
    Truth's a dog must to kennel...

  6. Top | #26
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,521
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,427
    Rep Power
    80
    Faith is not necessarily a matter of truth. More a matter epistemic luck or probability. Some faith based beliefs being highly unlikely to be true.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Some faith based beliefs being highly unlikely to be true.
    More than unlikely. Pure logic dictates that most are definitely false since different faiths are mutually exclusive so if one were true then the others must be false. The question is if any one of the many faiths is true... this is unlikely.

  8. Top | #28
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,585
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,625
    Rep Power
    96
    Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

  9. Top | #29
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,512
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.
    Exactly. It's like making an observation in cultural anthropology. I'm certainly curious about people's reasons. Generally I find that they aren't scientifically curious or aren't good at seeing contradictions in their reasoning, or both.

  10. Top | #30
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    950
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,870
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.
    How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do
    and
    at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

    Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you. The “how” has been provided to you. And you rejected it.
    So
    The issue becomes this….were your reasons for rejection as good as the reason provided.

    I can’t reason whether you were reasonable or not because I don’t know what evidence and reason you rejected and if your reasons were any good.

    All I call reason is that your certainty that God does not exist is not true just because you reason it is. How do I know you are being reasonable?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •