People who believe in god are broken

[John Cuthber]

Zapatos,

How do you decide what's acceptable?

Also, our hypothetical "leprechaun" believer presumably finds that the evidence for his belief is acceptable.

But he's still clearly "broken" so that's not a valid distinction.

Edited April 29, 2012 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

The difference is that there is no evidence of leprechauns I find acceptable but there is evidence of God I find acceptable.

What specific evidence do you have for god? How is it evidence for one god, and not some other? Perhaps had someone shared this earlier in the thread we could have saved some time. Please do keep in mind the comments about the evidence scaling with the claim that were shared above. This should be some pretty magnificent evidence we're about to see...

 

Also, just to preempt something here... Evidence of the universe is just that... evidence of the universe, not god(s). Evidence of beautiful life on earth is evidence of beautiful life on earth, not god(s)... lather, rinse, repeat.

[zapatos]

If you make a mundane claim, then relatively mundane evidence will generally suffice, and sometimes even no evidence at all will be required in some instances (if I say my dog just walked into the other room, you probably wouldn't ask me to prove it and would generally accept my word that it happened as sufficient). However, if I said my dog just turned into a 90 foot purple dragon with dvds as scales and native american arrowheads as teeth... and started spraying the Schrodinger equation all over my walls using a combination of macaroni and cheese and liquified coal sludge, that claim is a bit more extraordinary and you'd likely ask for more extraordinary evidence.

 

So, if you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence to support it. The evidence must scale with the claim.

 

I'm of the camp that the claim of gods existence is a rather extraordinary one, and that a fictional book filled with internal contradictions from two thousand years ago or personal faith and wish thinking alone hardly satisfies the extraordinary burden of proof that accompanies such a claim.

Ok, that is a very good point and well put. I've heard it before but was not thinking of it as I've been responding here. I'll have to get back to you.

[Kranis]

 

No that is not how i look at it, and that video is pretty irrational to the thoughts of atheists and believers.

[zapatos]

Zapatos,

How do you decide what's acceptable?

I don't know. I guess just like everyone else does it. Based on my background, experiences, education, opinions others have and my opinion of them, etc., I look at the evidence and decide whether or not it is plausible. If I conclude it is plausible, then it goes into my accept column. Although it is not really 'accept' and 'reject', it is more of a sliding scale from 'almost without doubt' to 'I'll believe it when a monkey flies out of my ass'.

 

Also, our hypothetical "leprechaun" believer presumably finds that the evidence for his belief is acceptable.

But he's still clearly "broken" so that's not a valid distinction.

Well, likely enough to be broken that I'll run my life assuming he is. But on my sliding scale the evidence for leprechauns from my perspective is to the right of God, which is to the right of the Big Bang. So I believe that leprechaun believers are almost certainly broken, while God believers are not broken unless they believe it without doubt, and Big Bang believers are almost certainly not broken.

[Kranis]

No. Believing in possibilities is open minded. Believing as s 'fact' that there is something after death is not only close minded but it also indicates a flaw in one's ability to reason rationally. Open minded people do not draw unsupported conclusions.

 

If it was "fact" then you would not have to believe in it

[zapatos]

What specific evidence do you have for god?

Well, it ranges all over the place, but:

My mother told me so, all the miracles researched and described by the church, the existence of the universe, the personal connection I've made by letting Jesus into my heart, the bible, historical evidence of Jesus, Fatima, spontaneous remission of disease, blah, blah, blah.

 

How is it evidence for one god, and not some other?

Does it matter? The OP just said believers in God, not a specific God.

 

Perhaps had someone shared this earlier in the thread we could have saved some time.

I've been talking of evidence since my first post in this thread.

 

Also, just to preempt something here... Evidence of the universe is just that... evidence of the universe, not god(s). Evidence of beautiful life on earth is evidence of beautiful life on earth, not god(s)... lather, rinse, repeat.

Well, yeah. If you preemptively throw out all the evidence I want to use then of course there is no evidence.

 

But once again:

I also believe it is not possible to draw an absolute line that says 'this level of evidence is sufficient for belief, while this level is not'. Therefore I also believe that it is right and reasonable for each individual to look at the available data, decide if that data rises to the level of evidence, and then decide if the evidence is sufficient to support their position.

I agree with you that the Bible as evidence of God does not in any way compare to the level of evidence we have for the Big Bang. But it is evidence.

 

There is also evidence that the earth is the center of the universe. It in no way compares to the evidence that the earth is not at the center of the universe, but it is evidence. At one time it was even enough evidence.

[tar]

Inow,

 

The reason that science is the "best" way to determine truth, that we have come up with, is that we have faith in what other people tell us they have witnessed. Sometimes it is with "blind faith" that we accept the findings of others. If we have faith in the witness's integrity, and have faith in their methods, we might not even bother to check it for ourselves, especially if it "fits" nicely into our model of the world, causes no incompatable conclusions, and explains some other things we had questions about. But mostly scientific method works because we are "supposed" to take the findings with as much skeptecism as we can muster, and check if the finding is indeed "real".

 

And here, your integrity, accuracy, and consistency is not only important but absolutely required. If a believer in God, one who knows there is a God, does not fulfill these requirements, in your mind he/she is broken. But only broken, if an adherent to the scienctific method, and only a broken scientist, not nescessarily broken in any other way at all.

 

For you to take your idea of perfection, what you believe to be "true, complete, personness" and measure others against it, is somewhat similar to what people that believe in God do, and somewhat similar to what everybody does, no matter what ideals they hold.

 

You know one should not put ones own ideas in someone else's head and then tell them they are not thinking right. That would not be very scientific.

 

However, this doesn't diminish your arguments a bit, and people that believe in God are broken in the manners you suggest

 

But generally broken, as in insane, brain damaged, or "defective human being", your arguments do not attempt to prove. Unless of course you believe half to three quarters of the population of the planet "are defective human beings" because of their apparent inability to be good scientists.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 29, 2012 by tar

[John Cuthber]

Well, it ranges all over the place, but:

My mother told me so, all the miracles researched and described by the church, the existence of the universe, the personal connection I've made by letting Jesus into my heart, the bible, historical evidence of Jesus, Fatima, spontaneous remission of disease, blah, blah, blah.

 

 

Does it matter? The OP just said believers in God, not a specific God.

 

 

I've been talking of evidence since my first post in this thread.

 

 

Well, yeah. If you preemptively throw out all the evidence I want to use then of course there is no evidence.

 

But once again:

 

I agree with you that the Bible as evidence of God does not in any way compare to the level of evidence we have for the Big Bang. But it is evidence.

 

There is also evidence that the earth is the center of the universe. It in no way compares to the evidence that the earth is not at the center of the universe, but it is evidence. At one time it was even enough evidence.

 

So, no evidence then.

Seriously, how much of that could , for example, stand up in court?

I'm not saying that the court is a particularly good standard, but it's somewhere to start.

We have some hearsay, the testimony of a plainly biassed group who, at best have no first hand experience so, even if their statements are honest they are also hearsay...

None of that would be recognised as evidence by a court. It would be laughed at if you put it forward as evidence in a scientific paper.

So why is it considered "acceptable" as evidence for God?

 

It's the same problem again.

People who believe weird things are called loonies- unless their particular weird belief is religion, in which case it's acceptable.

Evidence for the existence of God that would be dismissed as laughable anywhere else is deemed acceptable if its "evidence" for God.

 

Why does religion think it has this privileged position?

[Moontanman]

I have stayed out of this discussion since It was asserted that I was off topic but I have been reading all the posts and I have come to a conclusion. God is real, he exists and is a raving psychopathic monster, a deceiver, if you believe in the Abrahamic god this is absolutely true. You can quibble over the details of how to properly worship him but if you use the evidence at hand then he is a monster. I don't understand why godflys don't understand this. As for the other gods, i am not as well versed in their supposed actions but from what I see they are at best insane as well.

 

The most probable thing is that men wrote about what they thought god was and the men at that time thought things like genocide, rape, pillage, slavery, and child molestation was ok so they wrote that god thought it was too.

 

Belief is one of those words like the word theory, there are beliefs and then there are BELIEFS.

 

If someone told me there was an alligator in my yard down by the ditch I would probably go look to make sure but it would be a reasonable assertion. Alligators are common here.

 

If someone told me a huge bird swooped down in my yard and carried off one of my dogs, the dog being missing would not be proof enough, my dogs all weight around 60 pounds. It's unlikely...

 

If someone told me he saw a fairy sitting on a mushroom fairy ring in my yard I would want to see it my self at least. The fairy ring would not be enough.

 

If someone told me that Angelina Joelie was in love with him and sending him telepathic messages of her undying love I would suggest he be looked at closely and probably medicated.

 

If some one says an angel appeared in the church sanctuary during services, around here it might be dangerous not to nod and agree. You could at best be ostracized from the neighborhood at worst get your ass severely kicked...

 

Religion does get a special pass, the religious, especially fundamentalists can claim revealed truth about anything. The earth is 6006 years old, of course. Dinosaurs were all vegetarians until the fall? Oh yes, absolutely true, the entire earth was covered by water, yes no doubt. The fountains of the deep sprayed water into space and formed all the craters on the moon and other celestial bodies as well as all the comets... yes it's reveled truth.

 

Yes anyone who believes this bullshit with no reservations has mental problems of some kind, no doubt... it doesn't have to be belief in god it just has to be belief in something that has no evidence... god just happens to be one of those things...

[zapatos]

So, no evidence then.

Ok, once again we are at the point where I've made an honest attempt to discuss my position and you dismiss it out of hand. This style of conversation is not my cup of tea. Rather than exchange a string of smart ass comments before moving on, I think I'll save some time and move on now.

 

Edit:

 

Ok, I'm going to back off of my first impression and assume you are not just dismissing my position out of hand but are making an attempt to understand my point of view. As it is getting late here I'll get back to this later. I wanted to make sure I got this edit in before I lost the ability to do the edit.

Edited April 30, 2012 by zapatos

[tar]

 

Why does religion think it has this privileged position?

John Cuthber,

 

My theory, is that religious people are doing the same kind of thing, that scientist do, but don't hold the same criteria for a fact to be a fact, as scientists do.

 

Inow,

 

I don't think it fair to throw out "the universe" and the beauty of the planet, and the wonder of life on this planet, and all sorts of uncontested real stuff, that we all automatically recognize as real, and factual. We don't have to provide evidence of these things, to call them fact, because the manner in which we percieve them as real, is the same exact manner in which all humans, with working equipment, percieve them. I am almost ready to suggest that some of our "thinking" is actually done outside our heads, since we accept the things we hear, and see, and smell and taste and touch, as automatic real facts.

 

Scientifically, we do not yet have the complete description of how this is possible...to reconstruct a tree for instance, out of chemical firings of networks of neurons. We may welll figure it out. But in the mean time, if you sense it, your model of the real world is instantly (or at least really quickly) adjusted to match. We are "in tune" with what is outside our body, in this fashion. And in this fashion, what is outside our bodies IS reality, even though our image of it, scientifically, must be held inside. So what we "believe" to be true, is both actual, and something going on inside our brains. That we can remember something is real, is even another step away from a simple clear cut picture of what is fact and what is image. That we can "imagine" something is real that is not, is yet another fold. That we can dream and fantasize, yet another.

 

So, since we have an ability to do these things, and keep track of which is real, which is fantasy, which is memory, which is dream, and which is inside and which is outside...without applying the scientific method, even if we are a six year old, that never went to school, there is a great deal of reality that is perfectly obvious and accessable with no special training required.

 

And if we are walking in the garden, and see a delicate white flower, that was not there a week before, we can feel it is not only real, but a beautiful wonderful thing, that is, like us, of the universe. If we can't imagine how such a nice thing, could accidently fall into that pattern, from random configurations of hydrogen atoms, we might speculate on some sort of organizing principles, and guess that maybe, just maybe, human beings are not the only part of the universe that knows what its doing.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or we might wonder who thought up hydrogen atoms in the first place.

[iNow]

Well, it ranges all over the place, but:

My mother told me so, all the miracles researched and described by the church, the existence of the universe, the personal connection I've made by letting Jesus into my heart, the bible, historical evidence of Jesus, Fatima, spontaneous remission of disease, blah, blah, blah.

The challenge I have with this is that it's not evidence. It's your personal reasons for accepting god as true, but none of it is evidence of the existence of god, and none of it is extraordinary enough to scale with the extraordinary nature of the god assertion.

 

Let's say I tell you I believe in Gollip Primaje... The mystical warrior who makes the stars shine at night. You ask me, "iNow, why do you believe in Gollip Primaje? What evidence makes you think that is valid?" I reply, "my mother told me so." Nope, that's not good enough. I reply, "because of all of the miracles I read about in a book I found in the library that are attributed to Gollip Primaje." Nope, that's not good enough. I reply, "because of the personal connection I've made by letting Gollip Primaje into my heart." Nope, that's not good enough either.

 

You would accept none of those reasons in reply to the challenge... you would not accept Gollip Primaje as valid based on that.

 

Why then should I accept YOUR god based on that?

Why does your god deserve a special pass from the usual standards of evidence?

Why is the fact that you merely WANT to believe this stuff supposed to be enough for the rest of us to accept that your belief has any merit whatsoever, when wishes and desires and faith alone are not enough to support essentially every other belief you and I both hold? It's not.

 

Then, you might say that you don't care and it's okay for me to believe what I want... and you'd be right... except, my beliefs would not impact others... My lone belief that this entity makes the stars shine would not drive me to change the nature of science education, would not drive me to treat homosexuals as inferior, would not drive me to withhold medicine from my children, would not drive me to try legislating against birth control, or any of the other craziness that we've already covered earlier in the thread. This belief would not cause harm to other people with whom I share this existence. Beliefs in god FAR too often do, so yes... I'm going to challenge them, and I'm going to scrutinize your replies to ensure they stand up to the extraordinary claim you're making.

 

That part of the discussion has already been covered. If the beliefs do not impact others, then they are ignorable. When the beliefs do impact others, and especially when they harm others, they need to be challenged and minimized.

 

Well, yeah. If you preemptively throw out all the evidence I want to use then of course there is no evidence.

Sorry, but claiming that the fact that there is a universe or a planet is evidence of god is ridiculous on its face. It's only evidence that there is a universe or a planet. I'm not being unfair here. It's quite straight forward. It would be like me claiming that fact we can see the stars shining at night is evidence of Gollip Primaje.

 

---

 

The reason that science is the "best" way to determine truth, that we have come up with, is that we have faith in what other people tell us they have witnessed. Sometimes it is with "blind faith" that we accept the findings of others.

Perhaps, but others can put it to the test themselves and verify what you have said. That is not equivalent to faith. That is called conditional acceptance. They can check with their own eyes the validity of your assertion should they choose to do so, so they accept it on the condition that they can repeat it themselves. This is not true with your faith in god(s).

 

I don't think it fair to throw out "the universe" and the beauty of the planet, and the wonder of life on this planet, and all sorts of uncontested real stuff, that we all automatically recognize as real, and factual.

I don't. I am merely telling you that it is not valid evidence of god(s).

[zapatos]

I tend to agree. The nature of the evidence must scale with the claim.

 

If you make a mundane claim, then relatively mundane evidence will generally suffice, and sometimes even no evidence at all will be required in some instances (if I say my dog just walked into the other room, you probably wouldn't ask me to prove it and would generally accept my word that it happened as sufficient). However, if I said my dog just turned into a 90 foot purple dragon with dvds as scales and native american arrowheads as teeth... and started spraying the Schrodinger equation all over my walls using a combination of macaroni and cheese and liquified coal sludge, that claim is a bit more extraordinary and you'd likely ask for more extraordinary evidence.

 

So, if you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence to support it. The evidence must scale with the claim.

 

I'm of the camp that the claim of gods existence is a rather extraordinary one, and that a fictional book filled with internal contradictions from two thousand years ago or personal faith and wish thinking alone hardly satisfies the extraordinary burden of proof that accompanies such a claim.

Back to this point.

 

I guess overall your point strengthens your claim and weakens mine. I now feel it is reasonable that more people belong in the 'broken' column than I would first have thought. I still do not believe, however, that all theists belong in the broken column.

 

One of the problems with calling people broken with such a broad brush as 'those who believe in God' is that there are so many things that could have led them to that position.

 

For example: Eighteen year old kid, just finished 12 years of religious school, religious services every Sunday, everybody he knows shares his religion, his parents are wonderful people who are quite devout, has had years of discussions on 'The Truth'. Hasn't really gotten out in the world. No one questions their religion. Doesn't start college until next fall.

 

We also don't know what he's seen, heard, experienced, etc.

 

To me that kid would not be considered broken. He is basing his belief on everything around him and so far it all confirms what he believes.

 

My previous belief in God was that he was not personal, not the God of any of the major religions, but simply started the universe and then backed away. I based this on the amazing complexity of the universe, that the universe even existed, that laws of physics existed. I knew I could be wrong, but it seemed more likely to me that I was right.

 

Looking back at me at that time, in no way would I say I was broken.

 

The challenge I have with this is that it's not evidence.

I think we are talking about two different things. You seem to be talking about 'acceptable' evidence while I am talking about 'any' evidence. And the reason I do not talk about 'acceptable' evidence is as I've explained; we each have to make our own decisions on what is acceptable.

 

For example, when CSI:Miami examines a crime scene, they collect all the cigarette butts, heel prints, hairs and fibers in the apartment. All of this stuff is what I think of as evidence. It may turn out to be crap, or circumstantial, or 'good but not enough', but it is still evidence. Then someone looks at all the evidence and decides if the evidence is of sufficient quantity and quality to support their belief in what happened there.

 

That is why I think of the bible, for example, as evidence. It talks about God, was written near the time of Jesus, mentions places that really exist, people that really exist, etc. Now this may turn out to be crap or 'not good enough', but it is still evidence.

 

For me it is not enough. But for someone else it may be. And as I've said I don't think any person can tell another what level of evidence should be acceptable for them.

 

Why then should I accept YOUR god based on that?

Why does your god deserve a special pass from the usual standards of evidence?

Why is the fact that you merely WANT to believe this stuff supposed to be enough for the rest of us to accept that your belief has any merit whatsoever, when wishes and desires and faith alone are not enough to support essentially every other belief you and I both hold? It's not.

You should believe whatever your mind leads you to. Don't let me tell you what you should believe. Then again, don't tell me what I should believe.

 

Then, you might say that you don't care and it's okay for me to believe what I want... and you'd be right... except, my beliefs would not impact others... My lone belief that this entity makes the stars shine would not drive me to change the nature of science education, would not drive me to treat homosexuals as inferior, would not drive me to withhold medicine from my children, would not drive me to try legislating against birth control, or any of the other craziness that we've already covered earlier in the thread. This belief would not cause harm to other people with whom I share this existence. Beliefs in god FAR too often do, so yes... I'm going to challenge them, and I'm going to scrutinize your replies to ensure they stand up to the extraordinary claim you're making.

After I have decided to believe in God, whether or not I try to push my beliefs on others has nothing to do with what made me believe in God in the first place. I believe this is moot.

 

Sorry, but claiming that the fact that there is a universe or a planet is evidence of god is ridiculous on its face. It's only evidence that there is a universe or a planet. I'm not being unfair here. It's quite straight forward. It would be like me claiming that fact we can see the stars shining at night is evidence of Gollip Primaje.

Again, here is part of the problem. It is more than simply its existence. It is based on my understanding of cause and effect, my philosophy, my lack of another explanation, my life experiences, etc. It is not evidence to you. I fully accept that. But depending on how you look at it, and in what context, and based on education and experiences, someone else may find it to be evidence.

 

The wave patterns on the detector at the LHC is evidence of high technology to me. Nothing else. To someone else it may be evidence of the Higgs Boson. But then we have different backgrounds that led us to how to view that evidence.

 

The evidence in the OJ Simpson case was air tight as far as I was concerned. But the jury, based on their experiences, education, etc., believed the evidence either did not point to OJ, or was insufficient.

Edited April 30, 2012 by zapatos

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I did not know religious people claimed all those ridiculous things. Are these fringe group ideas or mainstream, as far as religions go?

Does one have to believe these silly things, inorder to still adhere to the practices of their religion?

 

Thinking like that is certainly one of the reasons I am an atheist. Thanks for reminding me.

 

I have been addressing more subtle inconsistencies, your examples are just down right blatant "brokenness" on the part of those believers. Probably not "free passable". And in general I would say that those individuals have a problem, and do not live up to even my "loose" standards of unbroken human. The reality, imagination discerner in these individuals needs more than a calibration. It needs a complete overhaul.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 30, 2012 by tar

[rigney]

Ok, once again we are at the point where I've made an honest attempt to discuss my position and you dismiss it out of hand. This style of conversation is not my cup of tea. Rather than exchange a string of smart ass comments before moving on, I think I'll save some time and move on now.

 

No! Don't run just yet Zap!!! If "anyone" can provide proof that either of these links are not viable, I will never look to heaven again; hoping there is a GOD. Each of us are very gullible in our beliefs, regardless of our dictates. The links below is a world of reality as it exists today.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/elegant-universe-einstein.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbBWju8HPG4&feature=email

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/dark-matter.html

Edited April 30, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

I did not know religious people claimed all those ridiculous things. Are these fringe group ideas or mainstream, as far as religions go.

Does one have to believe these silly things, inorder to still adhere to the practices of their religion?

 

Thinking like that is certainly one of the reasons I am an atheist. Thanks for reminding me.

 

I have been addressing more subtle inconsistencies, your examples are just down right blatant "brokenness" on the part of those believers. Probably not "free passable". And in general I would say that those individuals have a problem, and do not live up to even my "loose" standards of unbroken human. The reality, imagination discerner in these individuals needs more than a calibration. It needs a complete overhaul.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

If a person, as many believers do, claim that the bible is true then yes. Many people of faith delicately ignore the psychopath parts, and only hold to the parts they personally agree with. But they still use parts of the really bad stuff to persecute others, gays specifically but people of other "beliefs" as well. They use parts of it to justify almost anything and when that doesn't work they make up new parts.

 

Now I do understand that there are people who simply believe in a higher power of some kind but the people who believe in the Abrahamic god either ignore the parts they don't like or the priests simply never give those parts as reading material for the week but they are there and if you use the bible as your guide to god then yes you have to believe that or lie to yourself.

 

In the USA these religions are mainstream, the fringes are far more scary...

 

 

To really believe in the Abrahamic god requires that you be broken in some way.... the other ones are no better.

[tar]

I mean believing in unfalsabiable stuff, is one thing, because you can take it as misappropriately taking ones model of reality as reality, which is in general not completely wrong, since your imagination is real stuff going on in a real head, and generally uses real components of reality in generating any thought at all. But to believe in falsifiable stuff, and have the gaul to use real components of locally accessable, checkable stuff to project your imagination out into this and expect that somehow the world is going to match your image, is completly backward (we usually get our images by allowing our model to match what is evident), and shows neither respect for the world, nor respect for your fellow inhabatants, who can plainly see you are hallucinating.

 

Say Inow,

 

This one is not even in the ballroom, but I was wondering what you thought of the movie "Mary Poppins"?

 

If you saw it, did you identify with any of the characters? Which? Who were the heroes and who were the villians?

 

Has a connection, in that Mr. Banks was initially broken, and was "fixed" by Burt and Marry Poppins with their jumping into chalk pavements, laughing with Uncle Albert on the ceiling, dancing on the rooftops, and his son's wanting to feed the birds. He wound up "fixing" and flying a kite with his family. (and got a promotion)

 

I bring it up, because although I would not like people who think water splashed up to make the craters on the moon to be in charge of everything (or anything that affected me.) Neither would I like a world that would tell me I am not even ALLOWED to pretend to believe in magic, or wonder if there is "real" stuff around that we have not noticed, or have ignored that explains some currently considered "supernatural" things, like ghosts or telepathy.

 

After all, science thought we had things basically figured out and covered, down to the total number of atoms in the universe, till dark matter showed up. How did we miss THAT?

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

Say Inow,

 

This one is not even in the ballroom, but I was wondering what you thought of the movie "Mary Poppins"?

You're right. It's NOT even in the ballroom. It has been so long since I saw it that I honestly cannot say. Please let's seek to stay back on the topic now.

[Iggy]

God is real, he exists and is a raving psychopathic monster, a deceiver, if you believe in the Abrahamic god this is absolutely true.

part of south park's easter/passover special the other night...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxSGPEDX2lQ

[questionposter]

I mean believing in unfalsabiable stuff, is one thing, because you can take it as misappropriately taking ones model of reality as reality, which is in general not completely wrong, since your imagination is real stuff going on in a real head, and generally uses real components of reality in generating any thought at all. But to believe in falsifiable stuff, and have the gaul to use real components of locally accessable, checkable stuff to project your imagination out into this and expect that somehow the world is going to match your image, is completly backward (we usually get our images by allowing our model to match what is evident), and shows neither respect for the world, nor respect for your fellow inhabatants, who can plainly see you are hallucinating.

 

Say Inow,

 

This one is not even in the ballroom, but I was wondering what you thought of the movie "Mary Poppins"?

 

If you saw it, did you identify with any of the characters? Which? Who were the heroes and who were the villians?

 

Has a connection, in that Mr. Banks was initially broken, and was "fixed" by Burt and Marry Poppins with their jumping into chalk pavements, laughing with Uncle Albert on the ceiling, dancing on the rooftops, and his son's wanting to feed the birds. He wound up "fixing" and flying a kite with his family. (and got a promotion)

 

I bring it up, because although I would not like people who think water splashed up to make the craters on the moon to be in charge of everything (or anything that affected me.) Neither would I like a world that would tell me I am not even ALLOWED to pretend to believe in magic, or wonder if there is "real" stuff around that we have not noticed, or have ignored that explains some currently considered "supernatural" things, like ghosts or telepathy.

 

After all, science thought we had things basically figured out and covered, down to the total number of atoms in the universe, till dark matter showed up. How did we miss THAT?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I think that's sort of a poor argument for religious people not being broken to say that "oh, well, I can PRETEND all that stuff is real and use it as an excuse to go kill hundreds of people (crusades).".

Care to clean it up?

Your imagination isn't really reality, and neither is your perception, your perception is just what your brain maps out the photons to be, and by the time the photons are transmitted into information readable by your brain, the atoms themselves are already in different locations or in different states anyway.

Edited April 30, 2012 by questionposter

[John Cuthber]

Ok, once again we are at the point where I've made an honest attempt to discuss my position and you dismiss it out of hand. This style of conversation is not my cup of tea. Rather than exchange a string of smart ass comments before moving on, I think I'll save some time and move on now.

 

Edit:

 

Ok, I'm going to back off of my first impression and assume you are not just dismissing my position out of hand but are making an attempt to understand my point of view. As it is getting late here I'll get back to this later. I wanted to make sure I got this edit in before I lost the ability to do the edit.

Feel free to take your time, I have been waiting 40 years for someone to offer any real evidence.

Have a look here first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

so at least we are talking about the same thing

[Villain]

Feel free to take your time, I have been waiting 40 years for someone to offer any real evidence.

Have a look here first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

so at least we are talking about the same thing

 

No evidence can ever be produced to those that believe that a god doesn't exist, so surely you jest.

 

Edited for spelling

Edited April 30, 2012 by Villain

[rigney]

In post #241, I inserted 3 links hoping someone would comment on them or why they were even there, but evidently no one saw anything to question. But to look at such a dichotomy without wondering about it, amazes me. Yes, we are discussing people who sit around waiting for the ressurection and consider them broken because of their belief. Then we also have a place like CERN where the LHC is supposed to open up a whole new world for us, we think?? Now that is an expensive belief. What if after those billions of dollars being spent on such a venture, it doesn't pay off? Will they just smile, nod and wink at each other like a Jimmy Baker or Jim Swaggart and move on to the next cash cow? I wonder at times if Science shouldn't also be seen as a religion? I can see that old Mullah with the anthrax gleam in his eye hopes that will soon happpen.

Edited April 30, 2012 by rigney

[questionposter]

In post #241, I inserted 3 links hoping someone would comment on them or why they were even there, but evidently no one saw anything to question. But to look at such a dichotomy without wondering about it, amazes me. Yes, we are discussing people who sit around waiting for the ressurection and consider them broken because of their belief. Then we also have a place like CERN where the LHC is supposed to open up a whole new world for us, we think?? Now that is an expensive belief. What if after those billions of dollars being spent on such a venture, it doesn't pay off? Will they just smile, nod and wink at each other like a Jimmy Baker or Jim Swaggart and move on to the next cash cow? I wonder at times if Science shouldn't also be seen as a religion? I can see that old Mullah with the anthrax gleam in his eye hopes that will soon happpen.

 

Science isn't really a religion, in fact science in religion are separate, that's why it's a mistake to think they interfere with each other. CERN has been making progress, they recently confirmed the existence of another particle and are close to confirming a Higg's boson.