Does God Exist?

Hooked on phonics worked for me, you know. What I call people: peep holes

It's funny.

Then there's black holes. And we sort of ARE black holes. The pupils of the eyes are the gateway to inside. Pupil also means student or one who studies. Then there are those cross examiners, ha. And the interviewers.

And the spies. And the observers. And gawkers. And starers. And oglers. And whatever else. I just wanted to say spies. lol

 

I never claimed you weren't a dreamer.

What would keep coming and when have you ever known yourself absent?

I think it the same, why discriminate, why incriminate, let your answer be yes or no.
If you will let me speak for myself therapist we may at some point agree to terms.

That is cast the first stone in building the edifice of harmlessness.

It means they can change their mind. If guilt were real then believing in it would make it so.

You denigrate the power of mind. We feel the verdict not guilt. First remove the log from your own eye then you can see to help.

You are breaking up in apologizing for your words.

Nobody between us.

You said something about being my speech therapist and it didn't seem to phase you!

You suggested meat will inherit the earth and the only way I see that possible is if you lay it on the ground or bury it.

 

My goodness, if there is a god, wow, all the fighting about it must must make him happy....LOL

 

I actually agree with a lot of the following, but it's too overgeneralized:

The writer's perception is accurate. The turning point came in the late 70s and the 80s, when Rev.Jerry Falwell formed the Moral Majority and made the fateful decision to enter national politics in a big way. Until then, it looked like the forces of secularization were winning. A Democrat President (Jimmie Carter), a Democrat Congress and a liberal Supreme Court pushed through liberal policies on abortion, prayer,separation of church and state, and other issues sensitive to conservative Christians. But this led to a right wing Christian backlash. Previously, conservative Christians remained aloof from the national political scene. Falwell brought them in, and the "culture war"' became a staple of American politics. Next, enter Ronald Reagan, a divorced non-churchgoer who cast himself as the champion of the Evangelicals. Evolution, he assured us, was "only a theory". Putting the icing on the cake, G.W. Bush cultivated Evangelical Christians as the Republican "base", and made it clear he considered atheists to be less than true Americans. In my state and many others, "Republican" and "Evangelical Christian" are practically synonymous. And it's quite true: Restrictions on abortion and gays, efforts to restrict the teaching of evolution, displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, and other causes dear to the religious right are high on the priority list of the Republican legislature and our Tea Party Republican governor. Not to be overlooked are the Discovery Institute's efforts to promote Intelligent Design as a "scientific" alternative to evolution. Founded by a "born again" law professor, Philip Johnson, the institute has been highly effective in promoting pseudo-science and trying to discredit the secular scientific establishment.

Note, however, that it isn't "religion" that is the culprit here, but certain forms of Christianity--particularly conservative Evangelicals. By getting in bed with one political party, these folks are taking a big chance--staking their future on the political fortunes of Republicans. Demography isn't in their favor. Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, younger urban voters and women are a faster growing demographic than the white Southern males who predominate in the Republican Party. Hispanics and African Americans are Christians, but not those kinds of Christians. So we'll see. My guess is that the religious right and the Republicans will overplay their hand. Rev.Rick Warren has had limited success in turning Evangelicals in a more socially conscious direction. But it's not safe to be complacent. BTW, I'm a Christian.

 

thedope:

lol Undream its reality, and we will be one, your immensity! :-D

Being. Mine is not all.

lol When have I ever stopped you? My power of suggestion truly is of suggestion.

:-D Blah! Do something useful and build a house of healing! Love's the only structure we want all up!

If? lol The only way we make guilt 'seem' real is by believing in it.

Bullshit. Your verdict that I denigrate the minds power is a denigration of your own. What is guilt if not a verdict? There is no log for my vision. Don't necessarily try and remove the mote from your own on your own. There is help.

No apology there. The part can't help but define the whole not being apart of it. Unless you think the whole is not self-defining, this is where you recant your lie. lol

Between us, there's us. How could you forget! Is there a gap in your understanding?

Your speech therapist yes, but not your own magnificent mouthpiece my liege! :-D

You judge well, almighty one! We the people must have our little jokes! As though we'd ever let a good cheeseburger go to waste! :-D

 

In regard to this from AiryFox, which Okiefreak has quoted,

Maybe GOD has the world (at least, Americans) by the labia. Oh, you thought it was by the balls hahahaha that's funny.

 

Seems you call for extraordinary hoola hooping being that I am dreaming also.

You didn't consider all the syllables in your response so I don't know what you are responding to.

In the process of self denial.

Healing is of wounds. Love is what we are. Where is my accuser now?

Yes and if you believe without doubt you could be seen bearing witness to preposterous things like a mountain throwing itself into the sea.

What is guilt if the verdict is not guilty?

There is dialogue.

Wouldn't think of it. Tear ducts provide lubrication.

if only in part is the apology.

We share our thoughts without our bodies ever touching. So much for discretion.

You always make me upchuckle!

 

What fighting? :mickey:

 

No worries it is clear that you're simply trying to incite others (perhaps even to demonstrate it can be done indeed) :sunny:

 

This is faulty reasoning. If evidence is the burden of proof then lack of evidence is not proof.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

LOL, indeed, I am also laughing at the absurdity of that statement.

Like most atheists, certainly not all, I was born and raised into religion. Indoctrination is a main part of growing up for most children, especially in America, and I was not an exception. I know what it is to have faith and a personal relationship with god, but then I removed the rose-colored glasses and stopped lying to myself about that which I had been conned into believing. Doubt is the first step toward recovery from the religious delusion.

Yet having faith is not a deterrent to bad behavior, because religion allows people to imagine their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral. Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence. Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. (Harris, Hitchens)

Of course not, because god is not real. We can blame those people who think god is real, however, because without them thinking that god is real and conducting themselves immorally we would undoubtedly have less problems to worry about in this world.

There is no such thing as the soul, just as there is no such thing as god.

That is because you are under the misconception that religion, faith in god, has all the answers. Claiming to have all the answers by way of faith, religion, is to make the erroneous assumption that one already has all the answers. Those answers are merely fallacious ways for theists to fill in the gaps of knowledge.

The opposite is true with science. If science does not have the answer, it does not unreasonably fill in the gaps of knowledge with it's god. Rather, science is intellectually honest by stating that it does not know the answer. Science would rather seek the answer honestly than lie to the world that it has an unreasonable answer such as god.

 

Exactly! And that's the best we can do for most decisions in life. Even "objective science" rests on reasonable assumptions about what is evidence, how to test an hypothesis, etc. Even in making administrative decisions affecting hundreds of human lives, the government proceeds on the basis of "substantial evidence"--enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that a decision is appropriate, even though other reasonable people might think otherwise. We use this standard in politics. When I vote, I'm convinced that the person or party I'm voting for is the best--but I also realize that I could be wrong, and certainly don't think that everyone who disagrees with me must be wrong or a fool. I reject the notion that we should do life the way we do science. Science is only concerned with protecting us from Type 1 statistical errors (false positives) and, if available, may not give results in my lifetime. In the real world, decision makers must rely on the best available evidence and use judgment, subjective as it is, in evaluating it. Substantial evidence, probable cause, and even reasonable suspicion are the tools of the trade. A corollary of this is that two people taking opposite positions can be "right"--even though one, in fact, is wrong--if their positions are supported by the best available substantial evidence (that leaves out unicorns) and are not irrational. Nobody knows ultimate truth; the best we have is evidence-based good judgment.

Two important points: What is "evidence" and what is "proof"? To me, both have to do with what I think is reasonable to bet on. Scientific evidence in peer reviewed journals is best when it's available: of course eyewitnesses if they seem to be reliable; documents of course, if they seem to be authentic, etc. But also things that wouldn't be admissible in court:my own personal experiences, judgement and intuitions about whom and what to trust or take a chance on, and books by experts whom i find persuasive. I use these in buying a car, casting my vote, choosing a girlfriend, etc. And yes, they're subjective. That's what I am--the "subject" who must make my way through life without the aid of scientific "proof" to guide my decisions. "Proof" is the other term that needs clarification. It's bandied about quite freely in these discussions, but not by me. Different levels of proof are used in different circumstances: there's scientific proof (beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of expert peers, proof in criminal trials (beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of lay jurors), proof in civil trials (preponderance of the evidence)--and then the rougher and readier standards of law enforcement and administrative law probable cause, substantial evidence, and reasonable suspicion. It's these latter levels of proof that I tend to use in placing my bets. Could I ever be wrong? I'm sure of it--maybe most of the time, maybe always. Life is a gamble, but I think it's worth taking the risk. However, I make educated bets. I never believe in anything that's contrary to logic and scientific consensus, and I always insist on substantial evidence. That's why I don't believe in unicorns. (I'm talking abut one horned hoss, not the mutant goats that technically meet the definitions) That's why I also don't take scripture literally, don't believe in most of the doctrines in Christian creeds, or believe in an afterlife, even though there might be one.

If that was your point, it is well taken, and I would hope not controversial.

My purpose in mentioning them was not to endorse them, but only to show that scientists with good reputations have produced arguments and evidence to back up belief in God, which is more than you can say about unicorns. I happen to think there is no proof for God--but there's obviously evidence which others much smarter than I find convincing.

I don't think Airy Fox has made any arguments. He's made assertions, and therefore has the burden of making arguments and producing facts to support them.

 

Not so fast johnny ringo,
I'm yo huckleberry.

 

You are relying upon the fallacious argument of semantics. There is a difference between secular faith and religious faith.

Secular faith, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, is based on the fact that we daily observe the sun rising around the same time.

Religious faith, I have faith that God will allow the sun to rise tomorrow, is based on opinion that cannot be proven because no god has ever been proven to be real or in control of when the sun rises.

 

This is a nonsense statement. Semantics is the study of meaning. Your characterizations are not reliable at all.

Now you set out to define terms.

This is faith's singular quality, the willingness to suspend judgment until we are able to discern what is so.

That is a qualified statement that doesn't define faith.
I have faith that I am secure knowing reality is my source.

 

So Airy does like to acknowledge the difference between secular and religious faith. Now I hope you also acknowledge the difference between faith and blind faith Or do you still insist all religious faith is blind faith? if so... why is secular faith not blind faith, yet all religious faith must be?

 

We need to learn to ask what a thing is for to understand it's functionality.
Faith is essential to forming perception, to make things visible. Obviously blindness and vision are not the same thing.

 

Well I do think discussing semantics can be very useful, but it seems you are saying there is no blind faith at all (correct me if I misinterpretate you)? Then I would disagree, the concept 'blind faith' doesn't exist for nothing. It just doesn't apply to religious/spiritual faith as a whole.