What is faith? Really?

[JimC]

Stop persecuting Christians, Jonno!

I would have to find some first, there are a rare species here as least the ones they are open about it.

christianity is just a death cult that is basically dying

Unfortunately Islam is a more virulent and robust death cult that seems to be growing...

[Seth]

The problem is that one person can say "I saw a tree fall in the forest and it made no sound"

Not a problem as no one would care if such a person said that unless they wanted to sack someone from work because they person did think trees do make a sound when they fall

It's not freedom of thought that is a problem in society, you can think whatever you want its freedom to put that thought into action a very different matter

How about freedom of speech?

If you say speech can be restricted because some bureaucrat thinks it's inaccurate then I'll petition them to stick a dirty sock in your mouth and tape it over.

[Seth]

That is funny.

If godlings exists but aren't supernatural then they must be natural. If they're natural they must be something to point to their existence other than just old myths.

Maybe. Or maybe they were a transient phenomenon that no longer exist, like the dodo or the dinosaurs, except they didn't leave any fossils. In any event, nothing in physics or science precludes the existence of God(s), therefore if god(s) exist they must perforce be natural, not supernatural. After all, people thought electricity was supernatural for rather a long time. They were wrong however.

But there's only old myths and people's beliefs in them as true, and most, if not all, bellievers say that godlings are supernatural - which is a special kind of something or other (I haven't quite figured out what exactly).

And you think they are credible judges of the true nature of God why, exactly?

Now it seems that even the generous allowing of supernatural stuff, which is something that is not natural, but is above nature, beyond touch, taste and smell and all that, while discounting it as explaining anything about what godlings are, where they are, how they do their godlingy deeds, and why they want people to sing songs and the like, has to be treated just like natural stuff to be rational.

It's a topsy turvey old world out there isn't it?

Not really. All it takes is reason and logic to understand it.

[Brian Peacock]

That is funny.

If godlings exists but aren't supernatural then they must be natural. If they're natural they must be something to point to their existence other than just old myths.

Maybe. Or maybe they were a transient phenomenon that no longer exist, like the dodo or the dinosaurs, except they didn't leave any fossils. In any event, nothing in physics or science precludes the existence of God(s), therefore if god(s) exist they must perforce be natural, not supernatural. After all, people thought electricity was supernatural for rather a long time. They were wrong however.

The bit about dead godlings sounds like a speculative fiction to me. The bit about godlings being natural sounds like a nice story, but it's not what your regular believer says and it still adds up to speculation really. If I understand the last bit right, you're just saying that at some point what people currently call supernatural, something which is beyond scientific explanation, might one day be explained by science, which is also rather speculative. Holding out for future scientific verification, and in the meantime believing that the old myths are true and will probably be demonstrated by future science to be so, sounds a bit conflicted in my view.

But there's only old myths and people's beliefs in them as true, and most, if not all, believers say that godlings are supernatural - which is a special kind of something or other (I haven't quite figured out what exactly).

And you think they are credible judges of the true nature of God why, exactly?

I don't think I said anything about the true nature of God. And how would anyone ever know what that was? I just said that most believers say that their pet godling is a supernatural superbeing, but that I'm not sure if that really adds up to anything meaningful.

Do you think it's a meaningful thing to say?

Now it seems that even the generous allowing of supernatural stuff, which is something that is not natural, but is above nature, beyond touch, taste and smell and all that, while discounting it as explaining anything about what godlings are, where they are, how they do their godlingy deeds, and why they want people to sing songs and the like, has to be treated just like natural stuff to be rational.

It's a topsy turvey old world out there isn't it?

Not really. All it takes is reason and logic to understand it.

How does it just take logic and reason to conclude that mythical beasties are really natural things that really exits?

[Seth]

That is funny.

If godlings exists but aren't supernatural then they must be natural. If they're natural they must be something to point to their existence other than just old myths.

Maybe. Or maybe they were a transient phenomenon that no longer exist, like the dodo or the dinosaurs, except they didn't leave any fossils. In any event, nothing in physics or science precludes the existence of God(s), therefore if god(s) exist they must perforce be natural, not supernatural. After all, people thought electricity was supernatural for rather a long time. They were wrong however.

The bit about dead godlings sounds like a speculative fiction to me. The bit about godlings being natural sounds like a nice story, but it's not what your regular believer says and it still adds up to speculation really. If I understand the last bit right, you're just saying that at some point what people currently call supernatural, something which is beyond scientific explanation, might one day be explained by science, which is also rather speculative. Holding out for future scientific verification, and in the meantime believing that the old myths are true and will probably be demonstrated by future science to be so, sounds a bit conflicted in my view.

It may be so, but then again they may be privy to information that you are not and that they, and God, do not wish to share with you because you're an Atheist skeptic. But even if it is conflicted, that has nothing whatever to do with my claim.

But there's only old myths and people's beliefs in them as true, and most, if not all, believers say that godlings are supernatural - which is a special kind of something or other (I haven't quite figured out what exactly).

And you think they are credible judges of the true nature of God why, exactly?

I don't think I said anything about the true nature of God. And how would anyone ever know what that was? I just said that most believers say that their pet godling is a supernatural superbeing, but that I'm not sure if that really adds up to anything meaningful.

Neither am I. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know," and in the absence of data positively disproving the existence of God, I'm satisfied to leave it at that and, for reasons of social comity and mutual respect I'm just as satisfied not to derogate, demean, insult, vilify, attack and otherwise malign those who hold different beliefs from me so long as their actions with respect to their beliefs remain peaceable.

Do you think it's a meaningful thing to say?

Sure it is. It's more than meaningful, it's important because how you react to the claims demonstrates the breadth and depth of YOUR intelligence, and that says a lot about you and nothing at all about the claimants. I actually prefer it when religious bigots, just like political bigots, reveal themselves for what they are. It's the covert bigots who are dangerous.

Now it seems that even the generous allowing of supernatural stuff, which is something that is not natural, but is above nature, beyond touch, taste and smell and all that, while discounting it as explaining anything about what godlings are, where they are, how they do their godlingy deeds, and why they want people to sing songs and the like, has to be treated just like natural stuff to be rational.

It's a topsy turvey old world out there isn't it?

Not really. All it takes is reason and logic to understand it.

How does it just take logic and reason to conclude that mythical beasties are really natural things that really exits?

If you understood reason and logic you'd see the fundamental flaw in your question. Until you do, I can't really help you much at all.

[JimC]

Re the mythical beasts thing. A small number of mythological beasts were based on distorted travellers tales from distant lands, but were at least simply inaccurate versions of real organisms. However, the majority (like the winged horses) were purely inventions of the imagination. One can imagine (and draw) all sorts of fantasy creatures, typically by combining body parts from extant organisms. All good, clean imaginative fun, and a great way to while away a boring evening in ancient Greece.

However, their relevance to a rational argument about the nature of faith is precisely zilch...

[pErvinalia]

Stop persecuting Christians, Jonno!

I would have to find some first, there are a rare species here as least the ones they are open about it.

It's because you and your Atheist cult keep killing them!

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that one person can say "I saw a tree fall in the forest and it made no sound"

Not a problem as no one would care if such a person said that unless they wanted to sack someone from work because they person did think trees do make a sound when they fall

It's not freedom of thought that is a problem in society, you can think whatever you want its freedom to put that thought into action a very different matter

How about freedom of speech?

I love how "speech" has morphed into "action" in some quarters of the US (including the conservative portions of the Supreme Court).

[Seth]

The problem is that one person can say "I saw a tree fall in the forest and it made no sound"

Not a problem as no one would care if such a person said that unless they wanted to sack someone from work because they person did think trees do make a sound when they fall

It's not freedom of thought that is a problem in society, you can think whatever you want its freedom to put that thought into action a very different matter

How about freedom of speech?

I love how "speech" has morphed into "action" in some quarters of the US (including the conservative portions of the Supreme Court).

Er, that's what speech is for, to move people to action. Otherwise what's the point of speaking?

[pErvinalia]

That is funny.

If godlings exists but aren't supernatural then they must be natural. If they're natural they must be something to point to their existence other than just old myths.

Maybe. Or maybe they were a transient phenomenon that no longer exist, like the dodo or the dinosaurs, except they didn't leave any fossils. In any event, nothing in physics or science precludes the existence of God(s), therefore if god(s) exist they must perforce be natural, not supernatural. After all, people thought electricity was supernatural for rather a long time. They were wrong however.

The bit about dead godlings sounds like a speculative fiction to me. The bit about godlings being natural sounds like a nice story, but it's not what your regular believer says and it still adds up to speculation really. If I understand the last bit right, you're just saying that at some point what people currently call supernatural, something which is beyond scientific explanation, might one day be explained by science, which is also rather speculative. Holding out for future scientific verification, and in the meantime believing that the old myths are true and will probably be demonstrated by future science to be so, sounds a bit conflicted in my view.

It may be so, but then again they may be privy to information that you are not and that they, and God, do not wish to share with you because you're an Atheist skeptic. But even if it is conflicted, that has nothing whatever to do with my claim.

Nice story, bro. Got any other children's fiction you are selling?

God is claimed in his autobiography to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-something else I've forgotten. THAT's supernatural, not natural.

[Seth]

God is claimed in his autobiography to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-something else I've forgotten. THAT's supernatural, not natural.

Is it God's autobiography or man's interpretation of what they want God to be like?

Does the fact that theists claim the Bible is the true and inerrent word of God make it so?

Does the fact that theists might be making shit up provide any rational evidence whatsoever for the absence of God?

Do I really have to say it again...The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that one person can say "I saw a tree fall in the forest and it made no sound"

Not a problem as no one would care if such a person said that unless they wanted to sack someone from work because they person did think trees do make a sound when they fall

It's not freedom of thought that is a problem in society, you can think whatever you want its freedom to put that thought into action a very different matter

How about freedom of speech?

I love how "speech" has morphed into "action" in some quarters of the US (including the conservative portions of the Supreme Court).

Er, that's what speech is for, to move people to action. Otherwise what's the point of speaking?

You misunderstand. What I am saying is that, literally, speaking is not the only definition of speech by some conservatives in the US. Doing things other than literally speaking is considered speaking. Like donating money to political parties is equated with speech. Refusing service to someone because of their beliefs is equated with speech. And even in some cases (although, possibly technically illegal) firing people because of their beliefs (and it is defended as an expression of free speech by some morans). It's literally nothing of the sort, as it doesn't involve only the mouth (or the hand) and sounds (or written words) coming out of it. Free speech is just literally speech (and the equivalent in written form). Any actions arising from that speech are not speech, they are separate actions. You are essentially claiming that if I get up and use my free speech to incite a crowd to storm parliament and kill the speaker of the house (which in Australia would do us all a huge fucking favour ), that the action of storming the house and killing the speaker was an act of speech and should be protected. That's not how it works.

[pErvinalia]

God is claimed in his autobiography to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-something else I've forgotten. THAT's supernatural, not natural.

Is it God's autobiography or man's interpretation of what they want God to be like?

You Atheist!!1! IT's the bloody word of bejesus himself!!! If we weren't Christians, we would burn you at the stake! (oh wait....)

Does the fact that theists claim the Bible is the true and inerrent word of God make it so?

Well since they are the only who claim god exists, then I presume they are doing it out of some secret knowledge that the rest of us don't know. If they claim that the bible is the inerrent word of God, who are you or I to say they are wrong? They are the experts on God, not you or I.

Does the fact that theists might be making shit up provide any rational evidence whatsoever for the absence of God?

Not really no. The rational evidence is that there is no need for a God figure to explain the natural world. Science explains it perfectly well, and explains it even better as time goes on.

Do I really have to say it again...The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You can say what you want. You are a moran. You assert that atheists (including most of us here) claim that God doesn't exist. This is an outright lie and has been explained to you many times before. You've had ample chance to show quotes of where anyone has said that, and you haven't. That's because you can't, as the quotes don't exist. You're just arguing this point to annoy us. Essentially trolling. Which is what you mostly do here (as evidenced by your own admission).

[Seth]

God is claimed in his autobiography to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-something else I've forgotten. THAT's supernatural, not natural.

Is it God's autobiography or man's interpretation of what they want God to be like?

You Atheist!!1! IT's the bloody word of bejesus himself!!! If we weren't Christians, we would burn you at the stake! (oh wait....)

Does the fact that theists claim the Bible is the true and inerrent word of God make it so?

Well since they are the only who claim god exists, then I presume they are doing it out of some secret knowledge that the rest of us don't know. If they claim that the bible is the inerrent word of God, who are you or I to say they are wrong? They are the experts on God, not you or I.

Are they? I don't know.

Does the fact that theists might be making shit up provide any rational evidence whatsoever for the absence of God?

Not really no. The rational evidence is that there is no need for a God figure to explain the natural world. Science explains it perfectly well, and explains it even better as time goes on.

What's all this "need" shit about? We don't "need" internet kiddie porn, and yet it exists. All you show by asserting no "need" for God and a "naturalistic" explanation for everything is that God is, or could be entirely natural and everything he/she/it does is merely sufficiently advanced technology with respect to our understanding of nature.

Do I really have to say it again...The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You can say what you want. You are a moran. You assert that atheists (including most of us here) claim that God doesn't exist. This is an outright lie and has been explained to you many times before.[/quote]

No it's not. You do it all the time. So does most everybody else, right up until I call them on it then they shift horses in mid-stream and fall back on the classic "I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I just haven't seen the evidence" evasion. It's absolutely obvious from your arguments that you firmly and positively disbelieve that God exists and you are willing to hurl the vilest of insults at anyone who disagrees with you, however rationally or logically.

For you to resort to this dodge is predictable and laughable.

You've had ample evidence to show quotes of where anyone has said that, and you haven't. That's because you can't, as the quotes don't exist. You're just arguing this point to annoy us. Essentially trolling. Which is what you mostly do here (as evidenced by your own admission).

I recall quoting your own words back to you somewhat earlier in this thread.

And yes, I enjoy annoying Atheists. They need to be annoyed regularly because they are universally pretentious, arrogant, disrespectful, cruel, mean social retards who aren't welcome in polite company.

You don't like it, then fuck off somewhere else.

[pErvinalia]

God is claimed in his autobiography to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-something else I've forgotten. THAT's supernatural, not natural.

Is it God's autobiography or man's interpretation of what they want God to be like?

You Atheist!!1! IT's the bloody word of bejesus himself!!! If we weren't Christians, we would burn you at the stake! (oh wait....)

Does the fact that theists claim the Bible is the true and inerrent word of God make it so?

Well since they are the only who claim god exists, then I presume they are doing it out of some secret knowledge that the rest of us don't know. If they claim that the bible is the inerrent word of God, who are you or I to say they are wrong? They are the experts on God, not you or I.

Are they? I don't know.

Well you answer your own question then. If you don't know, then you don't know what god is. Who is the only type of person qualified in assessments of God? The people who claim he is real, of course.

Does the fact that theists might be making shit up provide any rational evidence whatsoever for the absence of God?

Not really no. The rational evidence is that there is no need for a God figure to explain the natural world. Science explains it perfectly well, and explains it even better as time goes on.

What's all this "need" shit about? We don't "need" internet kiddie porn, and yet it exists. All you show by asserting no "need" for God and a "naturalistic" explanation for everything is that God is, or could be entirely natural and everything he/she/it does is merely sufficiently advanced technology with respect to our understanding of nature.

For the nth time, no one denies this. It's about practicality. If you want to speculate that God did all that, then you need to account for the flying tea pot doing it, and the flying spagghetti monster doing it, and zeus doing it, and He Man doing it, etc etc... I.e. it serves no useful purpose to invent entities that add nothing to what we know about the world already.

Do I really have to say it again...The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You can say what you want. You are a moran. You assert that atheists (including most of us here) claim that God doesn't exist. This is an outright lie and has been explained to you many times before.

No it's not. You do it all the time.

Lie. I've asked you for evidence for this about 48 times now (including in the post you are quoting). Where's the evidence, liar?

So does most everybody else, right up until I call them on it then they shift horses in mid-stream and fall back on the classic "I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I just haven't seen the evidence" evasion.

Lie. Quote the quotes, liar.

It's absolutely obvious from your arguments that you firmly and positively disbelieve that God exists and you are willing to hurl the vilest of insults at anyone who disagrees with you, however rationally or logically.

It's obvious that you are a troll and no one takes you seriously. Present evidence, or go and play with your troll peeny.

For you to resort to this dodge is predictable and laughable.

What dodge?? I'm asking for evidence of your assertion. The fact that you never show any evidence, and can't, is a dodge by you. YOU claim something, YOU show evidence for it. If you don't show evidence, then you can be safely dismissed as the troll you agree that you are.

You've had ample evidence to show quotes of where anyone has said that, and you haven't. That's because you can't, as the quotes don't exist. You're just arguing this point to annoy us. Essentially trolling. Which is what you mostly do here (as evidenced by your own admission).

I recall quoting your own words back to you somewhat earlier in this thread.

And I replied to show you that I didn't say that God doesn't exist, because, as I've said a million times over the years, I have no way of knowing whether God exists or not.

And yes, I enjoy annoying Atheists. They need to be annoyed regularly because they are universally pretentious, arrogant, disrespectful, cruel, mean social retards who aren't welcome in polite company.

Sounds like libertarians to me...