If you've been following the God topic in Gen Polls, you may have notcied this post from UC...
I'm wondering how many actually bothered to read it.
I did - I like UC's posts - but I can see a lot of people skipping it because it's too long or they're not interested.
I imagine that those directly involved in the discussion (Joey for example) did read it, but I'm still convinced it's too long.
I'd also like to congratulate UC on that record breaking post.
Joey, the very manner in which you're responding to these topics (getting heated, getting frustrated, when faced with nothing but simple conversation) is proof to what I was saying.
I'm not offended by anything you say at all - I'm merely attempting to explain it to you in ways you'd understand, because the bottom line is that Phil is right - you don't believe in God, and therefore, you don't really understand.
I see religion as something I believe in. You see it as something to disprove.
I realise they have an explanation and ask to hear it. Rarely get it, but when I do I almost always conclude that's such explanations are better explained by psychology because they are related to "personal experiances" that any skeptic would pass off as everyday brain farting.
I'm willing to bet you get more explanations than you think you do. However, you cast most of them off as nothing. Even in dealing with you in this topic, I can tell that you're pretty much looking for a certain answer, and you don't accept it unless you get that answer.
As for the skeptic comment? You're right. Skeptics would pass it off. But you're on the side of the skeptics - if you're asking questions, you need to understand that the answers you're going to get are from the OPPOSITE viewpoint. If you aren't willing to accept answers without comparing them to what skeptics say, then why bother asking at all? You're not going to hear anything that will make sense to you.
Key part of that sentence: to YOU.
I think a religious individual communicating with God is just interpretating every day happenings differently to me. It doesn't make me right, but the point is that I'm going for the option with the most explinations.
That sentence by itself is contradictory.
Explanations? Who? What makes your explanation of an every day happening any more "right" than my explanation of it?
You are going with the option which has no explinations, at all.
Could I not say the same thing about you?
Could I not say that thinking that things happen without a purpose or without the attention of God is just as ridiculous?
The problem is you are incapable of explaining to me why God does exist. The burden of proof lies with you, not me. If you can't see the fallacy there, then you need to wonder why.
I don't have to explain to you why God exists. I believe in God, and whether or not you do is irrelevent.
However, if you're going to ask me WHY I believe in God, or WHY I believe he exists, you need to be prepared to accept the answers I give as my explanations. If they don't make sense to you, well, then you have one more reason as to why YOU don't believe in God - but just because you see my explanation as a fallacy doesn't mean I do.
I could spend pages upon pages explaining my belief - but I don't, because I realize that as MY belief, most people won't follow it or believe it. This is why it's MY belief - not yours.
After all, perhaps I think that certain beliefs people have about themselves...perhaps regarding who they think really are...are just as ridiculous? But I'm willing to bet that for those people...it makes sense to them despite the fact it may not make sense to others...?
I'm at a loss as to what this has to do with anything? I never said anyone resulted to bashing. And we ARE arguing now, so what?
Well, now we are, since you chose to take my post offensively rather than the discussion it was meant to be...
UC, you'r an agressive arguer... And yet at the face of religion you back down?
I'm aggressive when it comes to things that are factual.
Religion, however, is not. It's based more off of faith/belief than it is facts. I recognize that, and I've said it numerous times in this topic alone.
There is really no way to prove your side or my side wrong - I can explain everything you say from my side's point of view, and you can explain everything from your side's point of view - yet when it comes down to it, neither of us have really explained anything.
That's why it's called faith, and not fact. It requires faith to believe it, and those that don't have faith in it, don't believe it.
Such is the nature of something that cannot be proven/disproven.
I don't want to offend you, really I don't, but It makes me angry that it is perceived as offence. It just makes me a little ticked off that I cannot ask questions like "how do you know when you're talking to God you're not just mentally insane?" Because that's a serious question.
You see, that's interesting, because I'm almost positive that there are certain questions I could ask about you regarding mental health that I'm SURE you'd take offense to if I worded them in any manner less than perfect.
But why? Because they get frustrated at the lack of reasoning, explination and so forth ont he other side of the argument. Wrong? Maybe, but that's how it is. I've never EVER, seen an Atheist get in somones fact about it, say int he street, how religious individuals do... Or knock on people's doors.
1. The issue is that YOU perceive it as lack of explanation. The explanation probably makes perfect sense to the person giving it. Just because it isn't what you want to hear doesn't mean you didn't get an explanation.
2. If that's "just the way it is," then you must accept the reactions you're going to get.
3. I'm aware there are plenty of people who try to force their religion on others - but I've tried to speak from no viewpoint but my own (might want to re-read the sentence you quoted...it refers only to me) - I personally don't get in peoples' faces about it, and I'm sure I get just as annoyed at people who do as you do.
I personally think religion is a personal belief that people should decide for on their own. I've made my decision regarding it, and I'm confident in it. I see no reason to bring it up with others unless they ask me my beliefs or it's an open discussion that I have an interest in.
Because, for the most part, my "beliefs" add up because I have none. Your fails at the first hurdle.
Mine fails at the first hurdle for you - not for me. They make sense to me.
I could just as easily say that the belief that there is no God or creator is just as ridiculous in its own right.
Do you take the Bible literally? Even metaphorically?
I think I've stated this in this topic before...no matter however, I'll answer again.
I believe the Bible is a collection of stories meant to tell a message, to provide a basis of morality or guidance. Whether or not you personally believe it or decide to follow it, that's your own decision.
So, if it's just metaphorical, why literally believe that Jesus was the son of God or that he died, and then rose?
Just because I believe the Bible is a collection of stories doesn't mean there can't be truth to them...I mean, many people in the Bible DID actually exist. A lot of it is based off fact, it's just the specifics that are often called in to question.
What can "God hates that", reffering to Homosexuality, be metaphorical for, other than, God hates homosexual acts?
Can I have the passage for this please?
I'm not sure I've ever actually seen it (and the Bible is VERY often taken out of context. I'm not justifying the passage, as I've not seen it - but I'd like to see it).
I think it needs to be understood the time period in which the Bible was written. Homosexuality is really only becoming "accepted" (and I use that term very loosely) in the first world recently. It's really not a whole lot different than our first government documents placing restrictions on, say, electoral colleges when it came to slavery.
The issue is that the Bible is a religious document, and thus is not subject to the updating that may make it more applicable to modern times.
And if you don't follow the Bible - WHY believe in God, or more importantly Jesus, in the first place?
The Bible was written after God's existence...the existence of the Bible really has no effect on God...and who's to say that the Bible wasn't meant by God to serve the same purpose I claim I believe it's for?
These are the questions I'd start with, and if you really think you have some genius educated explination without flaws then please go for it.
I don't, Joey, but just because I don't doesn't mean my viewpoint is wrong. YOU'RE the one that seems to require "perfect" explanations - I have faith in my beliefs, and part of that faith is accepting the fact that you can't explain everything.
Of course, it doesn't really matter - no matter how good I feel my explanations are, they're not going to be good enough for someone who doesn't have faith in God - and thus, the point I'm trying to make is demonstrated yet again.
Nothing you say will convince me, and nothing I say will convince you...
I don't think I have a genius explination either mind you, the difference is I don't demand one from myself.
No, you're demanding one from me, when I don't demand one from myself.
Can you perceive anything illogical about NOT believing? I can't... So, please enlighten me.
Of course. I don't think there's any other explanation for the fact that all of creation took place (what happened before the Big Bang?). I can't really think of any other explanation for certain experiences I've had in my lifetime.
But...you see, it doesn't matter what I say, Joey. These are LOGICAL (read - LOGICAL) explanations to me, but they aren't to you - just as your explanations are logical to you, but not to me.
You need to understand the viewpoint difference here.
I'm not demanding explanations from you - but you're demanding one from me. The problem is that you've already made up your mind on the issue - so my explanations are meaningless to you, yet you still demand them.
So why would you go for the option with logical fallacies, when you can have one without? That's MY perspective on the believe or not issue.
I believe your viewpoint leaves open far more holes than mine does.
The guys over at AnswersInGenesis.org terrify me, but their explinations are at least well thought out and interesting. Casual believers never provide solid, interesting arguments, probably because they don't care enough, but maybe because they cannot. It's the same as when atheists use arguments like "well why is their pain and suffering?" as if that is so obviously denouncing God. These sprt of arguments are pathetic, and no more than 10 seconds of thought will conclude about ten arguments against it regardless of what side of stand on.
Agreed.
I'm not as arrogant about my views as you think UC. You're just offended by them because, like you said, religion is sensitive. But I'm just as intitled to say what I think as anyone else is and you're just as intitled to tell me why I'm wrong.
I'm not offended by anything you say at all - in fact, you seemed to have taken far more offense to my post than I ever took to yours...but of course, you're going to blame it on me, the "religious guy," because it's easy and convenient to do so under the guise that I "was offended by the way you denounced my religion."
The bottom line, Joey, is that I don't take offense to the things you say because - well - I don't care what you say. I'm confident in my beliefs, and it would take far more than a person on a coaster forum to make me think differently.
YOU are the one asking questions - I'M the one answering them. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean they aren't explanations, and just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I've taken offense.
In fact, I love discussing religion...I find the subject fascinating, as well as endless.
It is about asking religion to prove God, because that's where it all goes back to. It's all very interesting, some of it positive, some negative, some artistically amazing, some philosophically amazing... But it all goes back to WHY believe in the first place? Anything will make sense if you put a giant umbrella of omnipotence over it.
Can everything not make sense by applying real-world situations to it too?
It all comes down to the angle you believe. I believe my way, and you believe yours...the problem is that you're questioning mine without understanding that you have to believe it to understand it.
I can't explain why I chose the path I did - it's just what makes sense to me - just as your path is what makes sense to you.
I could argue it from their perspective, but I'd get caught in a circle of unavoidable paradoxes. Religious individuals then argue that they simply seem paradoxical because our human minds cannot understand. Like I said, it's all saved by the umbrella of omnipotence, which is obviously fallacious. I can't deal with that. No amount of submerging myself in their belief system will force me to believe in God, or even put on the God-glasses to just see what it's like, because it doesn't logically add up. To conceptualise the existence of something outside of our understanding is plain stupid, because if it's outside of our understanding eternally (I've never come across any theist who believes God is provable in the future by science...?) it might as well not exist. I'm not ignorant, nor arrogant, enough to think that the way I feel today about any subject is how I will feel forever. But if God is there to find from a personal experience perspective, I will find Him. I'm enthusiastic about trying on the God-glasses, but it requires a huge shift in logic which is currently just not possible. Submerging myself in a religion wouldn't solve this "problem" because to submerge myself I need to rectify that problem in the first place.
Again...Joey...what you perceive as a fallacy is perceived by others to be the more logical explanation.
You sit back and say "Well, you just live under the cover of omnipotence, so you can just explain away everything." Well, okay, and I sit here and think "Joey just lives under the cover of 'well you can't prove it, so it doesn't make sense'" - which is an argument I find completely illogical (despite how you'd argue otherwise).
Again, what seems logical to you is just that - to YOU. It's not necessarily what others believe, and since you've already made up your mind on the situation - you're not going to listen to what the rest of us feel are logical explanations anyway.
So why bother asking? It seems you ask for the sole purpose of pointing out the flaws...have you ever honestly come across an explanation that was good enough for you?
Perhaps you should approach it more open-minded, instead of just tossing off the explanations you get as "under the omnipotence umbrella"?
After all, casting off all religious explanations as that is just as much the "cheap way out" as you claim the explanation is for those people in the first place...
This isn't the case. If they felt there was no need, they wouldn't use that ridiculous fallacy UC used of trying to place the burden on atheists. They'd simply go "I have faith and that's all the proof I need."
Wait, what? When did I pin everything on atheists?
Oh wait - I forgot. When Joey talks of his (apparently ridiculous) experiences with people HE'S talked religion with, they're acceptable experiences with which to use in a religious discussion.
But when UC talks of HIS experiences regarding atheists, it's a "fallacy" he's using to "hide the fact he can't explain God."
Seriously, get a grip - your arguments have as many holes in them as you claim mine do.
Oh, and for the record:
UC's first post in the topic said:Yes, I believe in God.
UC said:That's where faith plays in - it's not being able to adequately explain to others WHY you believe - it's just believing, and having faith in your beliefs.
UC said:This means that while I may not agree with your interpretation, I can accept the fact that you see things differently with regards to the Bible than I do.
UC said:I believe in God, and I have various reasons for doing so - some I wouldn't mind discussing, some I'd rather keep private...but I'm not about to go preaching my message to the masses about it.
UC said:As I said before, I believe in God - I have reasons for doing so. But what I cannot help, however, is whether or not you see those reasons in the same light as I do.
To myself, I have proof that God exists. But what is proof to me may not be proof to someone else.
UC said:We all have our personal beliefs, and the fact that we do allows us - to OURSELVES - determine what WE, OURSELVES believe - it is then with that belief that we make judgements on other beliefs and faiths.
I think all of these, combined with what I said above, makes it more than clear that I'm confident in my beliefs.
I will also point out that in all the posts I've made in this topic, only a few have actually contained my beliefs (and it's really only when I'm asked what they are). The majority have simply been defending the possibility that God exists, and pointing out that many of the arguments go both ways (I've addressed both believers and non-believers regarding that).
The problem with religious discussions is that it often involves people who have one mindset and aren't going to change it for anything - thus, it basically becomes a bunch of bickering for nothing. I simply think the best discussion comes from open-minded people recognizing that others may have different beliefs.
The problem is that people care about what other people believe...A lot of people care about what other people believe and feel some obligatory desire to try and challenge it.
I sure hope you're not making that statement about me - I've not challenged your views any more than simply pointing out that many of the "fallacies" you claim I believe in can be applied to you as well...that, putting it simply, the "logic" argument goes both ways, and you need to get your mind off of the "Joey is right for sure because this makes the most sense to Joey" track if you're going to discuss religion.
Honestly, I think you've attempted to do far more in the "challenge religion" department here than I have...
See above paragraph. It matters. I don't know why, but it does. I think it's because I perceive it as a threat of clashing morals. It's as hard for me to to accept someone who believes that another individual is evil because of their sexuality, as to accept someone who thinks it's okay to molest children. It's deeply troublesome. Of course, this doesn't explain my angry rant at a girl in my class who made some anti-abortion artwork, which was both fueled with ignorance of science and was simply bad art. I just don't like people disagreeing with me? That sounds horrible. What I can honestly report is that it is troublesome.
Well, I think the line about people not agreeing with you says a lot here, and honestly...I think you should've put that first. Would've saved me a lot of time.
If you're not going to approach these conversations with an open mind and the understanding that you're probably not...well...going to understand some of the explanations you're given, then you might as well not ask the questions at all.
It's very obvious here that you have your beliefs (or lack of) and you're going to compare everything that's said to you against those - what you don't seem to understand is that not all of us share your beliefs, and as such, our explanations aren't going to be acceptable to you - even if they are to us.
What you need to understand is that your beliefs apply only to you - not to the rest of us. While you may feel an explanation I give is illogical, I don't. You claim I believe in fallacies, and I claim you believe in fallacies. If you're right, then I'm right. Who's to prove me wrong? You? How...with more of your fallacies?
See my point?
but it's a demonstration that if free speech is to be maintained, it has to be even.
EXACTLY. And honestly, Joey, I find this statement by you to be incredibly ironic given the way you've essentially casted off many of the things I've said as "fallacies" and being "illogical."
I have no problem discussion religion with anyone - what I have an issue with is the hypocrisy of some of the things you say - whether it's pointing out what you feel are fallacies in my logic while not recognizing that they aren't fallacies to me (and subsequently not recognizing that your logic could appear to have just as many fallacies to me), or whether it's asking for answers and explanations from religion and simply casting them aside.
It's honestly like you're not just an atheist, but an atheist extremist...and I'm not taking offense to it, but I am pointing it out.
I mean, you are INCREDIBLY religious about your atheism.
I'm wondering how many actually bothered to read it.
I did - I like UC's posts - but I can see a lot of people skipping it because it's too long or they're not interested.
I imagine that those directly involved in the discussion (Joey for example) did read it, but I'm still convinced it's too long.
I'd also like to congratulate UC on that record breaking post.
