zapatos

Yes, it came from God himself.

Just to be fair... Being an animal is not a 'fact', unless you are saying that it is a 'fact' that certain humans created a category and put themselves in it in an attempt to bring order to their understanding of the world. Why can't other humans have a different opinion on how to categorize life?

I think that 'science' has answered that question to its own satisfaction (see post #4). If others don't like that answer then they are free to come up with their own answers. To me, my wedding band is jewelry. To my wife it is a symbol. To a jeweler it is piece of merchandise. It is possible for a single thing to have multiple valid descriptions which vary according to a person's perspective.

Damn. If empathy is all I was able to convey in that post then I am going to give up debate. Without a doubt.

The rules of logic must be applied to something. In your case, physics, chemistry, biology, the scientific method, and all the others I mentioned. In the case of the goat herder, he gets to apply logic to none of those things. He cares for his goats, he feeds his family, he doesn't spit into the wind, and he don't mess around with the Taliban. I feel confident that the goat herder is not thought of as broken by his fellow goat herders. Unknown and therefore irrelevant to the goat herder. Religion doesn't think. People do. Would you mind addressing the goat herder specifically and tell me why he is broken? And since so many people keep bringing up evidence (or lack thereof) as a key component to the conclusion that people who believe in God are broken, I really would like to see what empirical evidence you have that simply having 'a belief in God', without controlling for other factors, has allowed you to conclude that a person who believes in God is 'broken'.

You hit the nail on the head when you said "evidence is whatever they say it is". That is my point. You are complaining they are not following the rules and they don't even know there is a rule book. Very nice; both your comment and that old post. It is annoying to me that I've talked about these three little words probably 20 times and I still confuse the subtleties. The problem as I see it is that you are failing to recognize the reality of how a great many theists think. You are looking at the world in terms of the rules that you understand, but are failing to recognize that they are not working under those same rules. It doesn't matter if you show me that there is not really any evidence of God. You have to show it to the theist who believes that the sudden tingle on the back of his neck, that caused him to pause and not step out into the street thus avoiding being hit by a car, was not really the hand of God reaching out and keeping him safe. Until someone explains that to him, then determines whether or not he has adjusted his thinking, you cannot conclude that he is broken. You have no more evidence to conclude that they are broken based on that statement than they have that God exists. It is like concluding that someone has failed at being a mechanic when you don't know if they have ever seen a wrench or tried to work on an engine. I think where the three of you are going wrong is that you are judging others based on your standards. You are educated, critical thinkers who have debated the existence of God in terms of clear rules of logic, historical records, philosophy, empirical evidence, an understanding of the significance of the scientific method, a background in the natural sciences, an understanding of physics/biology/chemistry, a working knowledge of evolution, etc. And you are concluding that some illiterate goat herder in the mountains of Afghanistan is 'broken' because while dodging the Taliban and trying to find enough food to feed his family tonight, his musings on the universe have not made it obvious to him that belief in God is illogical. Reaching the point where you can conclude that what you've been taught all your life is wrong, takes some level of intelligence, education, skill and effort. I would be interested in seeing what empirical evidence you have that simply having 'a belief in God', without controlling for other factors, has allowed you to conclude that a person who believes in God is 'broken'.

Again, that is what it means to you, and to men of science. That is what it takes for you to believe it. That view of evidence is not universal. A quick conversation with theists will quickly convince you that they do not necessarily view evidence in the same way that you do. That sounds contradictory. How does one know something for a 'fact', and at the same time feel you 'can never know the absolute truth'? If it is a fact, isn't it by definition also true? At least in the mind of the person who knows that fact? Regardless, my point was that some people believe in God but recognize that they could be mistaken. Right. Empirical evidence is what is required for you and something you will never get from theists. Empirical evidence is not required for everyone. I'd wager that half the theists in the world couldn't tell you what empirical evidence was if their lives depended on it.

Well I stand corrected. There is someone here who believes in unicorns. I didn't say you should treat the lack of evidence for unicorns and deities differently. I said no one here is advocating belief in unicorns. I have no desire to debate unicorns. Just for the record, when you say "without any evidence" you mean "without any evidence" that you will accept. Is that what happens? All theists claim his existence is a fact? There are no agnostic theists? So you won't be happy until there is 'scientific' evidence that the supernatural exists? Don't hold your breath. If you are talking of evidence that is acceptable to the average theist I think you will find plenty.

Since it is so obvious I am unsure why you are mentioning it. I don't. I think that it is quite common for an Israeli (Palestinian) to point out the flaws in the reasoning of a Palestinian (Israeli) who accepts an extraordinary claim as valid and true in the absence of (and often in direct contradiction to) available evidence. I see debates on this very site where both sides seem incredulous that the other side can be such a complete dolt. Yeah, pretty much. I am unsure why you need to point out that democrats and the others exist. Well, there is zero 'scientific' evidence to support as fact the existence of deities. But surely that is no surprise to you as deities are supernatural and science does not address the supernatural. As far as unicorns and the like I am unsure why you bring them up. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are real. Yes, you've already pointed out that it is not possible for an adult to conclude that a God exists.

Who did that? You said people are theists only because they were taught to be theists. You left no room for an adult to conclude on his own that there is a God. Since these people don't seem to have the capability to choose for themselves and are simply burdened with what they were taught as children, I was wondering if you were similarly afflicted.Since you aren't a theist I instead asked about your ability to choose morals for yourself. Since you don't seem to be similarly afflicted, I now wonder what it is that allows you to choose morals for yourself, but does not allow any theist you've ever met to choose God by himself. Actually, I guess what I am saying is that it is ridiculous to suggest that theists only believe in God because they were taught that belief as children. We are all taught things as children and we later confirm, deny, or modify those beliefs. You and your morals are an example of that. I really don't find this belief in God to be all that different than believing that the party running this country into the ground is the Democrats. Unless of course you were raised in a Republican family. You have millions of people who think the Israelis are the problem, while millions of others think it is the Palestinians. People help you form your beliefs when you are young. Probably the majority of people keep that general view while a minority changes completely. We are subject to confirmation bias. We mull things over, some a lot, some not so much, and come to a conclusion. Doesn't matter if it is religion, politics, or body art. I just don't see any reason to single out theists as being so screwed up when we all do similar things all the time. To me it seems quite natural and normal.

This is the same problem I have with what doG said. If I recall correctly, you were brought up a theist. Then, at some point down the road as you matured and understood more, you came to the conclusion that you were not a theist. It seems rather bold to suggest that you were capable of coming to a conclusion on your own (atheism) but that they were not capable of coming to a conclusion on their own (theism). That you believe what you believe because of maturity and logic, but they only believe what they do because they were taught it as children. Not to sound rude, but why are you special? Why can't they have been taught something as children then drawn their own conclusions as adults, just like you have?

I don't see how asking a person about their position could possibly be construed as a strawman. And since doG feels that everyone he's ever met that was a theist believed in God only because that's what they were taught; ...it seemed reasonable that he only believed in things because he was taught that way. Unless of course he thinks he is capable of deciding things for himself as an adult, whereas the theists cannot.

If you are going to claim 'Strawman!!!' you really should learn what the definition is.

Since your grandpa has type 2 he likely has the ability to test your blood sugar. At least then you will have some actual data.

Remember that you are only moving slower relative to a specific reference point, such as the earth if that is where you began your high speed journey. But relative to something else you may have no apparent change at all, for example from a spacecraft that is traveling along side you. If hibernation becomes possible when traveling near light speed, you can test it out right now, because you are right now traveling near light speed relative to something. As it turns out, you are at the point of origin right now. The Big Bang began everywhere at once. Therefore where you are now, and everywhere else that exists, is at the point of origin.

I think that we should seriously consider making that illegal.

What does that mean? Here is a pretty good explanation: http://www.digipro.com/Trials/moon.html Making it impossible to harness for electricity. And that gets to my original point. Energy has to come from somewhere if you want to harvest it. Energy is not coming from gravity itself. Gravity is allowing you to harvest rotational energy in the case of tides, and gravity is allowing you to harvest solar energy in the case of electrical dams. But once those energy sources run out (the sun going cold or the rotation of the earth ceasing), gravity has nothing left to harvest.

The moon is tidally locked to the earth, not the sun. We always see the same side of the moon. The moon does not have a side that is in permanent darkness. It rotates once for each revolution around the earth. Eventually the earth will be tidally locked to the moon, always showing the moon the same face, and at that time there will no longer be tides.

Sorry but I am not clear on your position regarding the following questions: Are you saying that tidal locking between the earth and moon will not occur? Are you suggesting that in the absence of the sun it will keep raining on earth and rivers will keep flowing? Are you suggesting that stars will 'burn' indefinitely? And a new question: Are you suggesting that the earth will never cool due to its own gravity?

But the earth and moon will eventually experience tidal lock. Every time we have a tide, some of the rotation energy is transferred to the tides from which you propose to generate energy. Unless you add energy, eventually you will no longer have tides an you will not be able to harness them. Unless you are saying that tidal locking does not occur... I don't understand your point. Different environments respond differently to sunlight. Why is that significant? Are you suggesting that in the absence of the sun it will keep raining on earth and rivers will keep flowing? Are you suggesting that stars will 'burn' indefinitely? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But to be pedantic, orbiting stars are orbiting the system's center of mass. The stars in the Milky Way are orbiting the center of mass of the galaxy and the sub-system they are a part of.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but how do you utilize gravity for generating energy without adding energy to the system? For example, it takes energy to raise water, a rock, whatever, so that thing can then be pulled down by gravity. Without ever adding energy to raise something, how do you get to utilize gravity to harness energy? It sounds like you are not reducing the force of gravity, but gravity cannot be used to generate energy (say, via a dam), unless the energy from the sun is put into the system. Cut off the sun and water will quickly stop running downhill. This really sounds no different than my Honda generator. It can generate electricity, but only if a source of energy (fuel) enters the system (gas tank). I wouldn't say my generator is a source of new energy. It is just the tool used to convert energy from one form to another.

I assume you were taught that stealing is wrong. Is it safe to assume then that you only believe stealing is wrong because someone else told you that was so?

Right, but you pointed out the type of evidence you required. I was just indicating that type of evidence was not possible for a supernatural being. Of course. Same thing for the NSA satellites. Although I admit God talking to us seems equally absurd.

Well sure, but that is science. You cannot expect to get scientific evidence when the question is about God. Similarly I will not get scientific evidence to my belief that vanilla is the finest of the flavors. Either he made it clear, or I found out by speaking to the holy men who know those things. For all you know it is not an aneurism. The CIA could be surreptitiously messing with your medical records.

But we also believe things that we have come up with on our own. The best ice cream flavor. Human rights. Murder is wrong. There is someone out there for everybody. If I believe God has spoken to me, it is not really that difficult to independently verify that God does speak to people. All I have to do is ask around. And if I'm just your run of the mill believer and not a priest, I would have to rely on theologians to know their stuff. And if I choose I can ask another, and another, and another. If they all start telling me the same thing, I find that lends credence to the claim. Faith of course is not the only reason to believe. Being 'touched' by God, experiencing a miracle, etc., don't require faith. I agree completely.