Christianity - A respectful dialogue

[thedistillers]

You will have to point to where the difference between these two come in.

The difference is that I have never met a person who seriously believe the FSM exists, so there is no need for me to pay attention to this God.

This is true for other religions as well. So if your view was right you would be risking A LOT by not accepting Muhammed as the true prophet.

Life is a risk. It's very dangerous out there.

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.

That's a non sequitur; that you personally don't see any evidence for God, it does not follow that God does not exist.

[JimC]

You will have to point to where the difference between these two come in.

The difference is that I have never met a person who seriously believe the FSM exists, so there is no need for me to pay attention to this God.

This is true for other religions as well. So if your view was right you would be risking A LOT by not accepting Muhammed as the true prophet.

Life is a risk. It's very dangerous out there.

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.

That's a non sequitur; that you personally don't see any evidence for God, it does not follow that God does not exist.

Pretty sneaky, given your central claim that evidence is irelevant, all you need is faith...

(also known as a personal delusion...)

[thedistillers]

You will have to point to where the difference between these two come in.

The difference is that I have never met a person who seriously believe the FSM exists, so there is no need for me to pay attention to this God.

This is true for other religions as well. So if your view was right you would be risking A LOT by not accepting Muhammed as the true prophet.

Life is a risk. It's very dangerous out there.

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.

That's a non sequitur; that you personally don't see any evidence for God, it does not follow that God does not exist.

Pretty sneaky, given your central claim that evidence is irelevant, all you need is faith...

(also known as a personal delusion...)

Is it a personal delusion to believe the universe is real and not an illusion?

[JimC]

You will have to point to where the difference between these two come in.

The difference is that I have never met a person who seriously believe the FSM exists, so there is no need for me to pay attention to this God.

This is true for other religions as well. So if your view was right you would be risking A LOT by not accepting Muhammed as the true prophet.

Life is a risk. It's very dangerous out there.

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.

That's a non sequitur; that you personally don't see any evidence for God, it does not follow that God does not exist.

Pretty sneaky, given your central claim that evidence is irelevant, all you need is faith...

(also known as a personal delusion...)

Is it a personal delusion to believe the universe is real and not an illusion?

Certainly not, although it is not unquestioned by some philosophers...

All humans can gain reasonable evidence for an external reality that behaves in a consistent manner...

Religions posit a vast array of potential supernatural beings, with only emotive feelings as their guide. Every religion has its own story, and all of them involve arrogant, hatefilled dismissal of the other religions as heretics...

A pox on all your houses...

[normal]

You will have to point to where the difference between these two come in.

The difference is that I have never met a person who seriously believe the FSM exists, so there is no need for me to pay attention to this God.

This is true for other religions as well. So if your view was right you would be risking A LOT by not accepting Muhammed as the true prophet.

Life is a risk. It's very dangerous out there.

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.

That's a non sequitur; that you personally don't see any evidence for God, it does not follow that God does not exist.

Well. How do you find out if something is true then? Just wanting it to be true and "feeling it in your heart" isn't going to make it true. You're going to have to ask for evidence at one point. I have at times seriously believed from the bottom of my heart that there were monsters in my closet, that I have seen ghosts, that I had magical abilities, that I could affect objects and other people's thoughts by the power of my own mind, etc. I admit I was a child at the time, but I truly believed. I can see how none of these things are true, and are merely wishful thinking brought upon by fairy tales and the world/people around me. All made up concepts. If I were going to state that any of these preposterous claims were true I'd HAVE to resort to finding evidence.

So no, that there is no evidence does not necessarily mean that there is no god, but it gives a DAMN good indication that this is the case. Do you not find it a bit strange that during the last hundred years of scientific enlightenment and asking for evidence to there being a god we have found NONE? What we have is a wish for a god in some people, we have a feeling, we have established religions actively trying to convince people to believe in it. But we have nothing, absolutely nothing, in the real world that indicates a supreme being interfering with our lives.

And due to this lack of any evidence it is almost 100% certain that there can be no such thing. Sure, we can leave the possibility open, but how does that help us. If we have a 0,000000000000000000001 probability per god the chances are still pretty weak. So why insist on this based only on wishful thinking and a "feeling in the heart"?

[Feck]

I don't see any evidence for lots of things that don't exist yes you got me there . Maybe I need to polish my 3rd eye or exercise my gullibility muscles ?

But you started the OP by calling Everyone wicked that doesn't believe as you do despite there being no evidence at all of Your particular type of god .
I would point out that leads onto another valid point about this .

I do not believe in your god because in my experience the fools who do,go around calling the vast majority of people on this planet wicked because we don't share the same illusion . You fail .

And I think from your personal history that a belief in your god doesn't do much for a persons honesty does it .


Most people get Deja-vu that must prove we lived past lives and if you don't agree you are EVIL .

[Chinaski]

This whole conversation is just

[Hermit]

Hello, Thedistillers

Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed.

How can you determine the validity of that proposition?

Care to reply?

[Thinking Aloud]

Hello, Thedistillers

Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed.

How can you determine the validity of that proposition?

Care to reply?

Here's another proposition.

Humans don't have a sensus divinitatis, but some believe that the proposition "God exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

I'm almost certain we could find evidence for this one, or at least a lack of evidence of the existence of the sensus divinitatis gizmo.

[Loki_999]

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.

Burn the heretic!!!!

Bobby Henderson was the FSMs prophet and first believer after the FSM revealed himself (or herself depending on which branch of FSMism you follow) in all his noodley glory!

You will die and burn in a large lake of hot spicy ragu for eternity unless you repent and accept the FSM as your personal savior!


See... religion... its all really a little bit too silly to believe in.

[Feck]

Thinking about it a little more I'm sorry I replied to the OP


A statement like -"- Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed. Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness."

Should have been given the respect it deserves ie

[CookieJon]

When people think God, they think about the immaterial creator of the universe. The rest is just theological details, like the color of a desk.

Right, so if the details are immaterial, by what reasoning do you call yourself a Christian? You might as well be a Muslim. I suspect you were brought up a Christian, and you've got it backwards; probably you've come to believe there is a God because of Christian upbringing, realised the "details" of Christianity don't hold water in year 2010, and so have discarded the "details" which were the only reason for you to believe anything about God in the first place!

You've got it all back to front, unless of course your comment about the "theological details" being irrelevant was completely disingenuous??

Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed. Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

Well you've shot yourself in the foot right there, because that's simply not true. I don't have a sensus divinatus (nor an appendix for that matter), so your assumption about "Humans" based on your personal feeling that everyone is just like you is a faulty premise, which gives you an incorrect conclusion.

(And what a nasty conclusion, by the way. Wickedness indeed!)

It is a harsh assessment that nonbelievers are wicked, but according to Christian theology, us humans are broken, which is why Christ died on the cross, to atone our sins.

Well we all know Christians think they're born sinners, but I really wish you'd keep that attitude within your own club, and stop passing judgments on the rest of us based on your own in-house little book of rules!

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever.

Fail. If there is something wrong with the nonbeliever which makes him unable to believe, and it is god's plan than one should believe to be saved, then either...

1. There's "something wrong" with God's own creation (your own words!) in which case God has made a right royal cock-up of the highest order, or

2. God has created people deliberately who will be unable to believe, thus punishing them to eternal terror in Hell. Not very nice, I'd say. And you worship THAT?? Blech!

[Loki_999]

- and even stopped masturbating for a while!

[the PC apeman]

Is it a personal delusion to believe the universe is real and not an illusion?

It is a personal delusion to believe one can do metaphysics. cf. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=9196

[Surendra Darathy]

Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed. Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

I would put it this way:

Humans have the capacity to make utterances sin verguenza, which allows them to feel good just because they expressed themselves by speaking, writing, singing (and sometimes dancing about madly at the same time, to work off excess nervous energy). This all falls under the rubric of ceremonial incantation.

"God exists" is an incantation. Bend a spoon with it, or grant me my willingness to remain unimpressed. I don't know what kind of jollies you get by developing a conviction about other people's wickedness, but as long as you don't develop a concomitant desire to burn them for it, you're welcome to be my object of derision for the afternoon.

If "incantation" is too weak a term for you, then "opinion" will do just fine. "God exists" and "you're an arsehole" occupy similar spaces in human discourse, the space in which we know something is true without accompanying evidence.

No one need a priori feel shame for not being in possession of facts, but the business of situating one's discourse in a space where facts are prohibited indicates something about a person's relationship to the matters of fact.