Villain

This is little more than special pleading, though.

 

Extremely simplified, your basic point (and one inherent in the position of several others here) is that... "Yeah, those OTHER gods are silly nonsense with no merit, but MY version of god is different so your criticisms don't apply."

 

No... Your version really is not any different and yes, the same criticisms apply for the same reason. It's that reason why many of us treat them all the same. They are equally made up personal preferences and wishes, even though the assigned attributes and characteristics may from person to person.

Do you even bother reading people's posts before you start with your atheistic preaching (I apologise to all the other atheist but that is the only term that can be used to describe this guy)?

To Appolinaria

I would suggest that you consider reading some Existential philosophy works. I think Nausea by Sartre might be something that you could relate to. It's a fictional book based around a character trying to make sense of life and what it is to be living. This might also serve as a good, albeit intensive, introduction:

Existentialism is a Humanism

WARNING:I wouldn't consider either as a light read. They might also confront you with more problems than answers , but if you are really looking for answers then that is a risk you will have to take. I think 'ignorance is bliss' is perhaps a luxury that not all are afforded .

Usually ones where there is ice cream involved. Often, my motorcycle and twisty country road. Other times, sex. Still others, when I test my blood sugar and it says 100. When I finish something intensely hard at work, and know I did it right. When I help someone else and realize that's the best thing that happened to them today. When I make a good argument, or articulate a point more clearly than I ever have in the past. When I wake up and realize I have a home and a job. When I go to bed and realize I have comfortable bed and a full belly.

 

So.....dopamine then.

It's a shame that I can't freely discuss my uneasiness about existence, the meaning of the universe and question the purpose of life with others. I think these are normal feelings that no one should be afraid to discuss. If I were to ignore them, instead of facing them and coming up with a realistic solution, I would probably rely on religion.

 

I think you will find that the religious are more than willing to talk about the reality of life and I'm not talking about the American idea of reality but the real world reality. Perhaps you are capable of understanding what Christ was talking about in Mark 2:17. I wouldn't bother with the nonsense that the majority on this forum have to say about religion, it is quite obvious that they have little understanding of it.

There's a definite flaw in the logic here.

The sun exists. There is plenty of evidence for it. It has characteristics (such as a surface temperature).

There is, on the other hand, no evidence that God exists (evidence that would stand up in court or be published in a peer reviewed science journal).

If I was to say that I believe that God exists because He spoke to me and told me to kill lots of people then that would make me "broken" rather than the messiah. This would be true even if I though it was a valid reason.

The brokenness would not then be my belief in God, but my belief that "hearing voices" is actually evidence.

 

Until there is actually some evidence for God, belief in Him isn't rational.

Saying "I believe He is real because I remembered to put my trousers on the right way round this morning" isn't evidence.

All the other so called "evidence" that I have seen is comparable to that.

 

 

You say "My opinion is that there is evidence of God"

OK, present that evidence so we can all judge it.

But I have a prediction here. It will be shown to be inadequate in some way or another.

Inadequate to who and by what criteria will you be judging the evidence?

 

Nobody is asking you to make a judgment on why people do or do not believe. The point is that you DO believe, and you've been asked to give an answer as to why... Something more substantial than, "Because I want to, so there... nanner nanner boo boo... it's called faith."

 

You cannot. You've said you already did in this thread, but everyone responded that they never saw it, and when you were presented with the reasonable request for a reminder as to where specifically you feel you provided your "adequate evidence" you refused... You evaded... you waffled and did little more than a bunch of hand waving.

 

Hand waving is not a strong argument. Evading simple and reasonable requests from others is not supportive of your position. Saying you don't care what others think makes you look both cowardly and foolish. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just telling you how it is. You've been asked more than once by more than one person to share your evidence. I suspect you are both unwilling AND unable, with an emphasis on the latter. Please... Prove me wrong. I would like nothing more.

 

The topic clearly reads 'People who believe in god are broken' and I have disagreed with it. I don't know why someone would ask me to give reasons why I believe in God as that would most certainly be off topic.

Perhaps you are referring to post #930 quoted below:

I have given more than enough reason as to why people who believe in god are not broken. I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god, hence why someone who is not interested in truth will never find truth, but merely find what they want. By naming the thread the they you did, you have demonstrated that you are not interested in finding the truth of the matter but only your truth or perhaps I should call it, we truth, as even though numerous people have made many valid points against your original premise, you still maintain it's rather lacking validity.

What about all of those people who DO look for evidence and who DON'T find it substantial enough? I know your opinion is "seek and ye shall find," but many have sought and via a deep show of personal integrity and courage decided the search was a childish waste of time.

 

I'm not sure whether or not there is relevant evidence. I'm merely saying that you and thousands of years of theists like you have consistently failed to produce any. I remain open to correction, but the inadequacy of your attempts is profound.

I cannot prove God to you, belief is not something that can actively be attached to someone else, it is a choice, that is my understanding of 'ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened.' This also ties up into the original sin or perhaps all and every sin from a biblical stand point. I don't want to break the forums rules about preaching and therefore will not elaborate further. I can't make judgement on why people do or don't believe, I have found reason to and so have others but there are many who have not. Ultimately I am not responsible for others choices and no one other than myself is responsible for mine. I don't think that I have used broken reasoning to come to my position, I can say that I have not used the scientific method as it would not be of much use in this regard.

Unicorns could exist, and there could be evidence of unicorns. Following your own logic, people who believe in unicorns are not broken, either.

In what way would I be able to conclude that they were broken people?

 

That's fine. It's sort of asshole-ish, but fine. My point was that you were arguing from an obvious misunderstanding, and I merely sought to clarify it for you. If you'd wish to remain ignorant and continue being wrong, that's your prerogative.

My point is that YOUR position or MY position or anyone else's position is irrelevant. I think you understood what I meant but Tar's post that follows made me feel like I should clarify.

At least this is a valid issue.

Iff there were a God and someone had evidence of His existence then that individual would not be broken.

But the others who to believe in spite of the lack of support and the contradictions would still be so.

At best this modifies the assertion in the title to "At least very nearly all people who believe in God are broken and, as far as we can tell, all of them are."

Hardly a difference worth pointing out.

Yes and since we are dealing with an entity that is either non-existent or pre-existent (let's say in relation to humans to avoid a further debate and since my point is going to centre on this), there are complications with evidence. No matter what sort of evidence is produced it still needs to be interpreted to be evidence of said god. If the sun for example was already the sun before we called it such then we would still have to make the choice that the characteristics described were describing the sun. The individual will therefore have to decide if the sun is the sun or if the sun is something other than the sun. My opinion is that there is evidence of God and that someone who were to look for God would find that it is substantial enough to believe in God. As I have pointed out a little earlier that my opinion is of little relevance to anyone else's in regards to evidence and if you or anyone else thinks that there is no relevant evidence then so be it. But considering that a god could exist and that there could be evidence of a god, it stands to reason that people who believe in god are not broken. You might have a case if people believed in something which absolutely could not exist.

Where specifically, though? Multiple people here have openly shared with you that they did not see this, or do not recall where. Will you please at least attempt to put forth a helpful response to clarify these confusions, or will you continue to evade, misrepresent people, and obfuscate? Just share your reasons once more, please. It's not hard, nor is it an unreasonable request... so quit acting so unreasonably.

I'm not interested in being crowned the champion, those that are interested in the claim that I have made may go and review the thread and decide for themselves, I see no point in repeating myself. I would not ask someone to repeat what they have already written and I don't expect to treated any differently.

As I've mentioned previously, you really do seem to love the strawman argument. Iggy has already amply replied to your completely fallacious arguments and claims, but just to reinforce it... Nobody here is refusing that a god "could" exist. Nor is anybody here claiming that they "could never see evidence of an existing god." If you are struggling to clearly understand what we write, then ask questions and request we clarify our stance... Don't continue to make such wrong-headed assumptions and argue against total misrepresentations. It doesn't bode well for your position.

 

...It actually reinforces the threads central proposition.

Ok, so to recap a god could exist and evidence of a god could exist, but yet people who believe they have found evidence and believe that a god does exist are broken because you don't know of such evidence. Am I mistaken?

This is a misunderstanding. For most atheists, it's not an "active refusal that god exists," just the lack of an affirmative belief in god or gods. It may seem subtle, but it's a tremendously important semantic difference.

 

One does not have to actively refuse that god(s) exist to be atheist as you've suggested here. An atheist is literally just someone who is a-theist, or not-theist. It means they lack an affirmative belief in god or gods, and that's all. What you're referring to is one of the less common forms of atheism known as "strong atheism" or "hard atheism," wherein the person actively believes there is NO god. They don't just not believe in god(s), they actually believe there are none.

 

Most of the atheist population, however, simply find no compelling reason to accept as true or valid the proposition that one does. They don't actively believe or refuse to believe there are existent gods, just see no reason to believe that one does. Most of this population would gladly review and accept adequate evidence to the contrary if any were provided. The point, however, is none has been provided despite thousands of years of attempts by believers such as yourself.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm glad to admit it... But you have to first show that. I don't refuse to accept evidence. I don't refuse that a god "could" exist. I just find it highly unlikely given the arguments theists put forth, the incredible lack of adequate evidence to scale with the extraordinary nature of the claim, and hence the idea is just not very compelling... and most certainly not compelling enough to live life as if it were true and valid.

 

Does this help you to better understand my position, and the position of people like me?

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but I can't be bothered about your position, you really are not of any importance to me. I have not been tailoring my responses to you, I do not feel the need to convince you of anything. The individual is responsible for himself and if you are interested in finding the truth I suggest that you look in every possible place, truth is a very rare quality and is not likely to come looking for you. You might not wake up every day and say god cannot exist but that does not mean that you are open to discovering a god that does exist and from that perspective the two are one and the same.

Brilliant. The evidence hides from the skeptics. If you believe really hard then you'll see the evidence. But if you doubt... it will be gone forever.

 

It's like a secret club. I'm a skeptic, but I'd still really like to see the evidence, please. Sorry, Sir, if you don't believe you simply can't see it. The evidence is objective, but you have to have the holy spirit sponsored decoder ring to see it. There's simply nothing we can do about that.

 

I'm not buying it. It sounds like an intricately constructed self reinforcing delusion.

If that is what you understood from what I wrote, then who am I to judge you if you wish to deceive yourself? But let it be know that you deceive yourself. We are in the end all responsible to ourselves for our own opinions.

The answer to the riddle is that god doesn't exist if he doesn't exist. Fun word game

Exactly, to the individual who decides that god doesn't exist, there cannot be evidence even if he does objectively exist because evidence will never be of his existence, only of something that is not him.

Rather than giving me a post or quote you changed your claim from "refuse that a god could exist" to "refusal that god exists". I assume this means you misspoke earlier and your new claim would be:

And how might god exist if god doesn't exist?

Could you point out in the thread where someone "refused that god could exist". I've kept up with the thread throughout, but I don't recall that. Without a specific post or quote I'm afraid your last posting will appear entirely misleading.

Atheism is an active refusal that god exists, it is a choice from the concious mind.

Nothing can be discovered that is not already there and nothing new can be made by man. There is no true intelligence in man, a simple truth that is beyond man's conscious mind and is enough proof that One higher than man exists. The evidence is not a physical evidence but an evidence of knowledge. An evidence so simple but yet so illuminating, accessible to all who are wise enough is listen.

If you have put forth adequate evidence of the existence of your personally preferred version of deity, then I certainly missed it. Perhaps you would be so kind as to repeat yourself just this once, or at least tell me which post number I should go read again to correct my oversight?

 

If you do not bother to offer a reasonable response to this reasonable question, I am left only to conclude that you are either unwilling, unable, or some combination of both ... to support your affirmative belief position. I would be left to conclude only that you'd prefer to evade the direct challenge put to you and you have chosen instead to implicitly request special deference or immunity of your personal beliefs from criticism. I'm sure that's not the case, however, and that you'll be sure to put forth a response that allows our collective criticisms to be summarily dismissed.

I have given more than enough reason as to why people who believe in god are not broken. I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god, hence why someone who is not interested in truth will never find truth, but merely find what they want. By naming the thread the they you did, you have demonstrated that you are not interested in finding the truth of the matter but only your truth or perhaps I should call it, we truth, as even though numerous people have made many valid points against your original premise, you still maintain it's rather lacking validity.

I truly cannot express the magnitude of my shock and surprise that you would respond to this request:

 

 

By saying this:

 

 

And that I was correct when I suggested:

 

 

 

It really seems scripted, but I promise you dear readers, it was not. This is simply how every argument tends always to play out when someone is asked to support their affirmative belief in god(s). We wouldn't accept this as valid support that the tooth fairy is real, or that santa exists. Why do we sell ourselves so short by accepting this as "sure, good enough for us!" when it comes to the extraordinary claim of god(s)?

Do you think your audience are children? They are more than welcome to read what I have already written and explained in this thread. I see no need to repeat myself. Your cheap psychological tricks are not needed here, why don't you remove your condescending tone and act like an adult.

Would you like to bother now addressing the criticisms of your affirmative belief position in a way that does not rely on fallacious logic, inadequate evidence, or broken reasoning?

 

I suspect you are unable, unwilling, or a combination of both. I would enjoy seeing you prove me wrong.

No one can prove the all knowing wrong, that is why I stopped contributing to this thread.

 

I put forth a proposition and asked whether people agree or disagree, and to discuss why. You continue to argue against misrepresentations of what actually happened here... i.e. you continue to argue against strawmen.

 

Perhaps even funnier is how you've decided to try to play some ludicrous game of "gotcha" instead of addressing any of the direct criticisms of your position... aka evading and obfuscating.

 

Finally, if I did argue that people who believe in god are broken, I have evidence and logic to support the position. It is not based on faith.

If you were interested in coming to a clear consensus on whether religious people were broken or not you wouldn't have named the topic as you did. There is no "gotcha" being used, it is quite clear to anyone that 'we' are biased in this discussion and that the truth of the matter is of little importance, but what is important is driving the thread in the direction that 'we' wants it to go.

Anyone who is not part of the Dog squad can clearly see what I have stated.

It what way have I relied on "faith" for anything here? You really do like those strawmen, don't you?

You have relied on faith for your very title of the topic 'people who believe in god are broken'. You start the thread by asserting something without giving reason as to why you can make such an assertion which means it is a faith based claim.

Are they using broken reasoning? Yes, I think we've established that.

Are they using broken logic? Yes, I think we've established the flaws in their unfounded premises.

Are they breaking the consistency with which they approach the world? Yes, they are applying double standards and being hypocritical.

 

 

Am I claiming that people who do not believe in god are not broken? No.

Am I claiming that believers are broken entirely... everywhere... and in everything they do? No, and nobody else has claimed that, either.

 

However, in this context, it's really not a big stretch nor is it an "incredible jump in logic" to summarize the position as "people who believe in god are broken," especially since we've allowed the term broken to mean different things to different readers.

Claiming that people who believe in god are broken when broken has no meaning is a rather useless.

You can disagree, and you can think that "people who believe in god" are not broken. That's cool, but I'd like you to explain why. The point is that this is a discussion forum, and this has IMO been an engaging and interesting discussion, and impressively cordial and civil given the topic.

The title of this thread is the only witness needed as ascertain the propaganda that was to follow. Seems 'we' have now gotten to the stage where burden of proof is on non-believers of said propaganda to prove why the starting point 'people who believe in god are broken' is not a given. It seems rather hypocritical to condemn faith but then rely on it to prove your point.

Perhaps you are taking the title too literally

Here is where we part company.

 

You just read a story where someone killed and burned the body of their daughter because God granted them a victory in a field of battle. Any morally normal person reading such a story has to be sickened by it. It is amoral garbage and basic human decency demands that anyone discussing it denounces it as amoral garbage.

 

But you read it and immediately start making excuses for it. Maybe it doesn't say what it says. Maybe God didn't ask for her to be sacrificed. Maybe God wanted a turtle dove to be slaughtered and burned that day for his pleasure, but by some freak accident poor Jephthah's daughter ended up on the slab instead.

 

It is inexcusable. Today, you can bet, there is a Muslim father murdering his Muslim daughter in the name of honor. Where he lives there is no difference between secular law and religious law. It's all the same thing -- and there is no law against what he is doing. It is happening today, believe me, the life is being strangled out of her body -- she is being sent to Allah -- while you sit on the other side of the globe and make excuses for his immoral justification.

 

I don't understand it at all. I don't understand how you can read that story, and not just be ok with it, but think that just maybe the creator of the universe also created that book special for our species. It is foreign to me that any intellectually and morally normal person can think that.

You seem to think that we are born with moral values or that there are definite moral rights and wrongs. On what basis do you have the right to decide what is moral for the human species?

I have also stated that the passage is open to interpretation because of the ancient language and culture of the time. We do not know the exact meaning of words in those days. Think of the difference between Shakespearian English and our English today. It is still the same language but many words have totally different meanings. I'm not going to flood this site with biblical explanations so do a search if you want a further explanation.

Then read 1 Cr 7:22. If you're trying to prove to me that the bible has contradictions you can stop. I need no convincing.

Thank you. a very beautiful analogy.

That's a pretty big difference in translation there. So basically this girl is like Schrödinger's Cat. Neither dead nor alive until you decide which iteration of the Bible you believe.

 

And yet people still wonder why there are those of us who are wary of organized religion.

If you're interested, read the text and read some opposing views and come to your own conclusion. If not, just carry on with making a noise, it's much easier than doing something constructive.

1. I think providing references is a very good idea. It will force you to read the book you think is divine. By asking for references you do make absolutely clear that you have no clue where these things are in the bible. You've given divine warrant for a book you clearly haven't taken the trouble to read. Unimaginable in my mind.

 

The daughter sacrificed by her father, a leader of Israel, to God is in Jud. 11:29-40. Paul introduces himself as a slave of Jesus in the first sentence in Romans. 2. The comparison Jesus make between his followers and dutiful slaves is in Luke 12:35-48. Notice, also, the passage following that where peaceful Jesus promises to divide the word of people against each other in struggle -- the part where he says he doesn't come to the earth in the name of peace.

 

Almost everything christians believe about christianity can be contradicted in the bible. God is clearly having a terrible time getting his message out, as Greg just pointed out. I bet there are one or two of the chosen people that are in publishing. I think we should get him in touch.

 

 

3. Fantastic. Why are you granting me this apparent concession of my age?

1. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask.

Firstly as you have originally pointed out, the sacrifice was not asked for by God, so I don't see how it correlates to my original statement: "Also considering that God has sacrificed Himself for man but does not ask the same of man...".

Secondly there are different translations/interpretations of the passage that you have quoted, one being that he killed her as a sacrifice, the other being that she was given to the service of the Lord and remained a virgin.

2. Yes He uses the parable of the servant/slave. Now go and read John 15:15. Yes I notice the second half and the division of households is quite apparent today. Religion is no longer a cultural system and many families are split on religious views as per His word.

3. This is in relation to your father-daughter reference earlier. Your daughter might be child, but you are not. There is a big difference between a father-daughter(child) relationship and a father-daughter(adult) relationship.

Yes, this is a classic example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, since all of the sects and or denominations I have described from the recent ones to the Baptists burning Catholics are indeed based on the teachings of Christ as read in the scripture of the Holy Bible the fact that you think they were based on incomplete or inaccurate interpretations of that scripture and only people who correctly interpret scripture as you see fit are Christians is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy.

I have already referred to a verse by Christ earlier that denotes that kind of behaviour. Why don't you show where Christ said what you are asserting and then you might have something valid. Matthew 7:6 comes to my mind at this stage in time.

I didn't use the word abandon.

 

 

Slave must be the incorrect term because a slave has to act like a slave... otherwise they'll be whipped and beaten, and in Christianity you're just tortured eternally if you don't do it. It's entirely different.

 

Jesus used the word slave so you are disagreeing with him. If you do his bidding then you are like a good slave who is rewarded, and if you don't follow his will then you are like a bad slave who is beaten for insolence -- Jesus makes that comparison in multiple gospels. Paul was also fond of the analogy -- he actually started his epistles, "Paul, a slave of Jesus..." I'm not sure you are familiar with the book you're supporting, or maybe you don't know the terminology. Slave is the right term for the greek "doulos" found all over the new testament.

 

 

Brilliant argument. My child also wouldn't need to be saved from the torture I'm going to inflict on her if she hadn't rejected me. She said that I was a bad father so I'm going to torture her... unless she asks me to save her. Brilliant!

 

I can excuse an illiterate person for making that kind of thing up 2,000 years ago in a tribal society where people were treated like property, but hearing someone repeat it today is just confusing.

 

 

Again, I get the feeling you just haven't read the book. A child was sacrificed to God by a leader of the Israelites and God didn't stop it. Are you familiar with the story?

Why don't you provide a reference and then we can discuss your grievances.

I will say that you are not a child.