Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in terms of god claims ... the something more is coming into focus. When it becomes clearer we will probably say "Oh, thats what they thought "it" [godfaith/anti-godfaith] was.
Its already looking like deny/avoid everything we don't like isn't the best option. In terms of actual observation anyway.
Never really too sure whether we are on the same page even when my comment gets a yapperz from you, because while I recognize you are not a blind faith sort of person, it always seems to me you lean in that direction of promoting speculation as if it's anything other than speculation. Which of course is that thin line between having the patience and reserve to accept what we can know for certain vs promoting anything else as truth that cannot really be verified as necessary to establish the truth of the matter.
Evidence to some people is not evidence to others. Obviously, or there would not be so many people believing in Jesus and the Resurrection. Some people, for example, see evidence of God all around them. No doubt there is a bit of confirmation bias involved, to say the least, but everyone who believes whatever they do will not agree they don't consider the evidence. The difference or challenge or problem goes a little further than that I think.
Something like how there can be a hung jury despite all jurors looking at the same evidence...
What to do about that? I really don't know other than to observe how things play out one generation after the next, and also as I suggest by way of my Ten Truths, we should try not to suggest speculation is anything other than speculation. We should have the patience to accept what I call the slow "maturing of Man."
I'll have to think about that, but off the top of my head, I'd have to say that we (laybods..generally) are in a better position than a jury in that a court has to go with what evidence is presented. We can say 'I am not convinced on this evidence' (which in a court would have to be not finding for the case - not on the present evidence) but here, we have the option to dig further for more evidence, which the Jury can't do in a court.
I'll have to think about that, but off the top of my head, I'd have to say that we (laybods..generally) are in a better position than a jury in that a court has to go with what evidence is presented. We can say 'I am not convinced on this evidence' (which in a court would have to be not finding for the case - not on the present evidence) but here, we have the option to dig further for more evidence, which the Jury can't do in a court.
what? dig for more evidence? you are joking right?
evidence points to starting all conversation with "yes, there is something more".
and you cut any evidence off that shows that.
You are truly a fundy think type.
I guess, lucky for you, there is a sucker born every second.
Never really too sure whether we are on the same page even when my comment gets a yapperz from you, because while I recognize you are not a blind faith sort of person, it always seems to me you lean in that direction of promoting speculation as if it's anything other than speculation. Which of course is that thin line between having the patience and reserve to accept what we can know for certain vs promoting anything else as truth that cannot really be verified as necessary to establish the truth of the matter.
Like when I was little I said "I bet they will make phones that can put in your pocket someday." and my friends said "thats pure speculation." By definition they are right. And, by any rational thinking, they are wrong too.
1) god claims, What is the person saying about their god. Thats it, can it be linked back to what we know and how much so.
2)religion: yeah, religion, like anything else can be hurtful. That has absolutely no bearing on a person's claim that "I feel I am part of something bigger." and if it does, that person can't be honest and open about god and is totally unreliable in stating what is and what is not evidence for god.
3)personality traits: "they are telling me is true". well, ok, people can be jerks. That has absolutely no bearing on what they are saying god is. Then being a jerk and religion being used as a weapon has no bearing on the validity of the a claim like "I think we are past of something bigger and more complex and call it god."
Of those three learme ... what do you "ten Truths" seem to be really addressing?
While rejecting Faith (without or in spite of, decent evidence) as a good reason to believe anything is nothing worth arguing about (apart from semantic fiddling with 'belief' and 'faith' which are not the same ideas), Evidence is what it comes down to in the end. It's about what is valid evidence. Anecdotes are or aren't really where 'extraordinary claims' are involved. 'My wife got ua pet dog' and 'My brother in law lost a leg, we all prayed to Jesus and it grew back' is.
Because one is familiar and a common event, and there is no reason to doubt it, especially as no agenda is being served and it makes no difference to the rational worldview. Miracle claims, let alone interpreted as evidence for this religion or that, is a different matter.
This oughtn't to be hard to understand. I have used the analogy of the council for defence asking that the murder case be dismissed because 'nobody observed it' (yep, we heard that before) and the evidence of the bullet etc. be dismissed because God could have put it there.
"God?"
"Well, the devil, if you prefer." (1)
No court would entertain that because such things do not happen. And that is a valid thing to say. Thus miracle anecdotes cannot be accepted, even if we suppose that the person telling them really believes what they are saying.
Even when miraculous escapes are recorded, They are 'unexplained' rather than a validated miracle. I won't go into the endless string of remarkable coincidences trotted out as some kind of proof of Christianity (the saving of a christian couple from sea by a bot with a vaguely religious name was the last one I recall), but I'll repeat the compilation video of amazing snooker -shots that ar a lucky (or unlucky) accident, but just as remarkable as some of those lucky escapes. And note the permanent tendency for the believer to ascribe anything to the workings of Jesus.
(1) I have in mind the Excuse of Creationism for fossils in ancient rocks that God put them these to mislead people. Or if that's doesn't put God in a good light, Satan.
While rejecting Faith (without or in spite of, decent evidence) as a good reason to believe anything is nothing worth arguing about (apart from semantic fiddling with 'belief' and 'faith' which are not the same ideas), Evidence is what it comes down to in the end. It's about what is valid evidence. Anecdotes are or aren't really where 'extraordinary claims' are involved. 'My wife got ua pet dog' and 'My brother in law lost a leg, we all prayed to Jesus and it grew back' is.
nipped for space ...
here it is trans ...right here. remember, I am using your words here. I am not changing them or running away so you can't tell me where I am wrong. I invite you to tell me where I am wrong.
godfaith vs scientific method. How I wish we had another name.
lets just look at the first point:
rejecting blind faith; Yeah, thats fine.
now the second point: "Valid evidence":
what determines valid evidence?
lets use an example that isnt a deity to show what I mean:
The claim that some people think we are in a more complex system and call it god.
Trans, the evidence points to just that, so just how are we saying it is not evidence?
I'll have to think about that, but off the top of my head, I'd have to say that we (laybods..generally) are in a better position than a jury in that a court has to go with what evidence is presented. We can say 'I am not convinced on this evidence' (which in a court would have to be not finding for the case - not on the present evidence) but here, we have the option to dig further for more evidence, which the Jury can't do in a court.
One way to look at it, but on the other hand in a court of law you have both defense and prosecuting attorneys working very hard to present all the evidence the jury should consider to render a verdict, thereby more likely to provide more evidence than any one juror would bother to discover on their own. Either way, however, TRANS, my point is that whether it's members of a jury or us individuals looking to conclude whatever we will, in both cases we all tend to view the evidence a little differently. No one will admit to a conclusion without considering the evidence in any case.
I'm simply pointing at the dynamic that takes a bit more into account than suggesting people of faith are simply dismissing the evidence we have to consider. Though it seems there has to be some truth to that claim, there is a bit more involved that continues to have so many people believing in their god and all manner of other things still so prevalently today.
Like when I was little I said "I bet they will make phones that can put in your pocket someday." and my friends said "thats pure speculation." By definition they are right. And, by any rational thinking, they are wrong too.
Your example of speculation is a little different from what I've been referring to...
We all speculate all the time about all manner of things. Which film will win best picture? Which team will win the World Series? Will a stock go up or down? You could have done well if instead of just speculating, you had invested in Apple stock in the early days of smart phones. Soon after the old bulky cordless phones came out, I had a friend sometime back that not only speculated about everyone wanting a phone cradle where they could put their phone in their car, he invested in having one made and patented. Even borrowed money to see his product through the prototype phase before taking it to market. No sooner had he cleared all those hurdles at significant expense, the size of the phones changed dramatically, rendering his phone bucket utterly obsolete. "Win some, lose some!"
Speculating about "something more" or "something else" or a god is something else altogether, and again...
Well just refer back to my Ten Truths, starting with #5.
1) god claims, What is the person saying about their god. Thats it, can it be linked back to what we know and how much so.
2)religion: yeah, religion, like anything else can be hurtful. That has absolutely no bearing on a person's claim that "I feel I am part of something bigger." and if it does, that person can't be honest and open about god and is totally unreliable in stating what is and what is not evidence for god.
3)personality traits: "they are telling me is true". well, ok, people can be jerks. That has absolutely no bearing on what they are saying god is. Then being a jerk and religion being used as a weapon has no bearing on the validity of the a claim like "I think we are past of something bigger and more complex and call it god."
Of those three learme ... what do you "ten Truths" seem to be really addressing?
Not sure why you want to corral my Ten Truths into one of your three things "going on here," but why can we not all simply take my Ten Truths for what they claim to address verbatim?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
