Criteria for evidence of a God.

Post Reply New Topic

Your statements are slanted as well. Yes I am a bit harsh in places but only to emphasize certain points I harbor no animosity.

Can you tell me the difference between a cult and a religion other than size? The degrees that you relinquish control may be different but trying to differentiate the two like that is like saying torture is good because its not as bad as being tortured to death.

I think the cartoon analogy is quite apt actually because only theists are unable (due to cognitive bias) to realize their beliefs really do look that ridiculous to everyone else.

As for the person not willing to have faith (in God... lets be specific here no one could live a life where they had to independently verify every single detail) it's simply a matter of degrees. A simple example is that an atheist may be willing to take that their tuna sandwich isn't poisoned on faith but draws the line at omnipotent omnipresent invisible people that love us unconditionally and defy the laws of physics but can't be proven to exist.



In my opinion choosing not to use the critical thinking ability that separates us from those apes makes a theist closer than an atheist.



That's what makes delusions so insidious. They protect themselves by elaborate means of disconnection from reality. They are believed without evidence and cripple your ability to accept that they are not true.

faith is like personal taste but with actions and consequences beyond purchase choices.

The unexamined faith is not worth believing.

Last edited by Fnord on 11 Dec 2008, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When it does or at least has the potential to negatively effect large numbers of people it's no longer just a personal thing and it does require justification.

For a lot of us, when we look at reality on the basis of what does and doesn't work when it comes to animal nature, when it comes to our own nature, the case builds itself for reasons that could start almost entirely secular. Some people follow the facts one way, some another.

I don't understand what your trying to say.. that it's a choice to believe that evolutionary psychology, despite all the studies and tests proving it's efficacy, is completely wrong in every way?

same with animal rights.

Good point but I haven't seen any activists claim that expanding animal rights doesn't need justification.

Thanks for bringing that up though I think I have some discrepancies between my stance on animal rights and religious freedom. I'll have to think about it more.

[edit]I think in both cases though I'm compelled to choose the lesser of two evils. In the case of animals its sacrificing a bit of economic health to prevent unnecessary pain and death and in the case of religion its sacrificing the peace of mind that comes from believing that the universe is looking out for you to prevent the death and destruction of fanaticism.

they never explicitly explain it but their reliance on emotional response and shock value over facts normally ends in the same results. it's taking a superiority stance an issue that is someone's personal moral stance but not necessarily something that negatively effects society on the whole or even potentially negative effect on the whole (increasing cost without an equal level of benefit to the health/well-being of society).

you've never lived off of $14k/yr. just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it won't effect others and you're not in a position to dictate your morals on someone else's wallet (no one is).

I have and yes it will effect others but it won't get them locked in a cage where they can't move in constant pain and fear it would just be an inconvenience.

No I can't dictate my morals on someones wallet but you also can't expect my sympathy for exchanging morality for money.

Is the qualifying or disqualifying of evolution what you think it all pivots around? I hate to break this to you but you need to get out a bit more. Even if I accept evolution as a working model for the movement of plant species, animal species, even our origin - even if we were to find out that its the whole scientific story and find a working theory of how the first cell came into being or that evolution across species flows just fine - it still doesn't have much sway with determining whether or not there's any sort of deity or spiritual reality existing in or outside of our universe. Its something like a half-step of faith either way.

humans have a responsibility to humans first. that includes food.

screw the other animals. they'd eat us if they had the chance.

Why? Says who?



We eat them so it seems like a fair arrangement to me that that they can eat any human they can catch and kill.

I'd object to them torturing it for years first of course but they typically don't do that.

that is just about the most selfish response i've heard from someone.

weren't you the cynical one going on and on yesterday about how everyone is self-serving and moaning about that?

like i said: quit projecting and fix your own damned problems.

I don't eat meat because what I have seen of the meat industry disturbs and disgusts me. All the animals I have contact with behave in the way they have evolved and some eat meat as part of their evolutionary physiology. The universe is not designed to be considerate and nice. That's something I have to work out for myself. A comparison in human social mechanisms to the meat industry would be a Nazi culture that raised Jews in order to have a good supply to enjoy killing them. I cannot feel good about that.