Okay ATHEISTS <rolls sleaves>

the original concept for god (according to Freud) is that he is based on our fathers and our desires for a father figure to control/save us. hes not exactly an original idea....

i guess the "reference point" if you insist on such terms is the subconscious mind of individuals attemptiing to explain the woprld around them before the advent of science. they took what they knew and used it to create the notion of "God" thereby creating a more comforting world in which to live.

just a theory (not mine, BTW)

peacelove, mate

 

i don't think he will ever get it... but that's alright i suppose, it's another lost soul, but it's a dying kind. silly people who think they KNOW something!

 

Strange, seems to me there's more of them every day.

 

That "someone" is a jury, and "right", in a legal sense, is whatever six to twelve people picked off the street are persuaded it is. But are they right?

 

I never called you stupid...I said THIS was stupid.
I dont know you so I dont know if your stupid.
And talking down to me wont get your point across any better it just makes you look arrogant.

Gotta run along...Ive got acid to do.

 

Well, at least you knew I was talking to you. BTW You said my argument was stupid. So, did you not talk down to me first? So, it's not arrogant when you jump on a thread and deem it stupid. Yet, it's arrogant when I retaliate? There's a lot of ways to say you disagree with someone without saying its stupid.

 

BTW Autophobe had completely forgotten about The Freudian Model. Excellent point! Thanks for that post. It got me thinking. Also, I'd suppose you could interject the talk of archetypes or more specifically Jungian archetypes. I wish this post would've been in the beginning and not the end of this thread. LOL It got ugly in between.

 

I knew you were talking about me because in a later post you commented on the fact that I didn’t say anything back. No it wasn’t arrogant...It was the truth. The language you used in your original post "Go Godies Go Godies" was stupid, and immature, and thats what I was refering to. Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you say things like that? You are a grown man (I suppose) shouldn’t your language reflect on your intelligence level?

 

arn't personal attacks a bit wide of the mark anyway? no matter who launches them?

what i DISbelieve, as a nonchristian, nonmuslim, nonbuddhist, nonadhierent to any single system of organized belief, (although i do think the faith of baha'u'llah is pretty cool and mostly harmless), is not the existence, or at least potential existence, of one or more somethings, close enough for government work, to what someone might reasonably call a god; but rather, that it/their existence, somehow, guarantees, that we will always be able to get away with, the kind of irrational, irresponsible, and self deceptive ways of life, fanatacism of every stripe, advocates.

=^^=
.../\...

 

This is commonly referred to by lawyers as a "battle of the experts." Actually, in practice today that someone is more often a judge, not a jury. The reason for this is the so-called Daubert trilogy of U.S. Supreme Court cases which effectively made trial judges gatekeepers to keep out junk science and ensure that only good scientific evidence is allowed to be presented in court.

It is true that plaintiffs who can survive Daubert motions and have their expert testimony heard at trial will be met with a mostly similarly qualified expert witness in the same field retained by the defendants. Whenever that is the case, juries are free to decide which testimony and other evidence is more credible, and which fits most closely with the respective theories of the case put forth by the attorneys on both sides.

Sure, just because a jury goes with the testimony of one of the experts over the other, it doesn't mean the non-prevailing party's retained expert is wrong scientifically. Presumably, the jury is not going to be composed of fellow experts in that discipline. Therefore, they are not qualified peers capable of reviewing and critiquing the expert scientific testimony. Of course, rarely are judges who act as gatekeepers the scientific peers of the experts either. This is still a problem with expert testimony, as you have non-professional scientists deciding whether or not proferred scientific evidence is "good science" or not, but it is handled now much better than it was pre-Daubert.

 

I was joking. You're pretty uptight for a 20 yr old hippy! The only "intelligent" thing you've added to this is name calling. I'm actually not really impressed with that either. By the way tell Zilla I was talking to you. She's the other uptight hippy chick who jumped on me because she thought I was talking to you. Good luck with having fun in life. I'll pray for you.

 

haha.

i love you portalguy.

 

you think you can share some of that there acid????

 

1) if you will look at my posts, you will see that i wasn't unaware that you were addressing her, i just assumed you were addressing me, too, since you mentioned acid and so did i.

2) are you really praying for all of us? gosh that's sweet of you. can you write your prayers down and post them in this thread?

 

exactly!! but do we want blind comfort? or do we want to move forward? the masses will choose comfort while the most progressive minds will realize there is "something more," that God is not a man but a comfort zone as well as a driving force.

Edit: i believe the collective unconscious has room to grow, too.

 

Guzzfrabba people... enough bickering let's get back to the topic @ hand ... i'd actually like to philosophical again

 

Please do pray for me, and I will pray for you.
Thanks!

 

You're welcome thank you too.

 

Yes lets get back to the topic of insanity, i mean religion.

 

Zilla, this is the prayer I'll pray for everyone...

Lord God please let Auto,Self,Imagine,Zilla,Suny, and anyone else who was on this thread have good fortune and prosperity in life. Please guide them in everything they do guard them when are in peril.

I ask this in my Savior's name amen.