I'm a Muslim!

Post Reply New Topic

"I could say I met this guy at a bar and he could make the beer in my glass float, he also claimed to be God. Is this evidence for him being God? For all you know I made up this story, which I did. Subjective Evidence counts for crap in my book, it's just words."

The only value subjective evidence has is for the person who experiences it. I agree that it isn't valid as an argument for someone else to believe. However, it is still evidence and MY subjective evidence is valid to me. I have no doubt that there are plenty of areas in your life where you accept subjective evidence based on your own experiences. That subjective evidence probably has nothing to do with religion, but it still seems valid to you. I don't expect you to be convinced or even interested in my own subjective experiences, I only feel that you should respect the fact that they are real to me and that you have no valid grounds to devalue them.

"Jesus has the same probability of existing as that guy at the bar does, they're both based on the same type of evidence, words."

A great deal of our lives are based on words. Heck, our money system is based on a collective delusion, and that IS provable. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You don't believe in God, not the Judeo-Christian God, not Zeus, not any God -- fine. I'm not trying to argue religion with you. I'm just pointing out that your stance of "I know it!" is no more valid than any deist's stance. You and I both go by what we think we know and neither of us have "objective" evidence.

"And every religion out there uses Subjective Evidence, and they all claim that they're telling the truth and the others are feeding you lies. So which one do you trust? The one you like the best? Last I looked, wanting something to be true doesn't make it true either. So honestly, instead of even bothering, (which most of the stories these religions burst out are ridiculous in the first place) I don't take any of their word and instead go with Occam's Razor which is basically saying the simplest answer is probably the answer. So I don't believe in God as there's nothing supporting the existence of it."

That's an honest statement. Saying "Nothing exists and I know it." is not an honest statement. Do you see the difference? You started this whole bit being antigonistic and demeaning to people with beliefs. You expected to be berated for not believing or perhaps you thought I was going to start explaining about a vacation package to Hell. Because of your assumptions you came across, as more than a few atheists have, as arrogant and judgemental. I'm not quite sure why it's such a big deal to you. Perhaps you should wait for an attack before you defend against one.

Regarding the first part of your post, I was mainly arguing in general that Subjective Evidence is useless if you're trying to convince someone of something. Unless they trust you of course. And I wasn't arguing against words in general I was simply stating that claims per say are just claims unless backed by something.

Two quotes though I'd like to directly respond to:

"Regarding the first part of your post, I was mainly arguing in general that Subjective Evidence is useless if you're trying to convince someone of something. Unless they trust you of course. And I wasn't arguing against words in general I was simply stating that claims per say are just claims unless backed by something."

That's reasonable. I agree

"Well while that's true, it's also true that we do not know The Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the world, we just think it. We also just think that there probably aren't any birds that evolved to the point where they can survive in space and then fled the Earth. In other words, it's impossible to know things for a fact but you can make a pretty damn good assumption when things are just obvious through simple reasoning. (I actually made up the birds breathing in space part as I went along, that's pretty good right? I might write a paragraph or two about that on my blog some time.)"

All I'm saying is that just because my simple reasoning leads me to a different view on God than yours does, it doesn't make my reasoning inferior, just different.

"Well first of all, I'm being pretty honest when I say I think that all these explanations people come up with to explain the unknown involving the supernatural or fairy tales, is pure BS and I don't take their word for it."

There's a difference between not taking someone's word for something and dismissing their belief system as "BS". Most people with religious beliefs are sincere, convinced, and not "bullshitting" anyone. By all means, don't believe in it if you aren't convinced, but it's the dissmissive attitude of "BS" that I have issues with. You don't call all the "words" which prove the moon landing "BS" and yet ultimately, you take it on faith that it happened. (How can you possibly "prove" the moon landing for yourself? It is possible, highly unlikely but possible, that it was all a conspiracy. So, have you proved it for yourself or do you take it on faith?)

"By "Nothing" I'm assuming you're saying "Nothing supernatural" or "Nothing religious", which if that's the case then it really is an honest statement my friend. And I actually wasn't even expecting you to even reply to my post, as far as being prepared goes, but prepared to be berated? Well at the most I was expecting a continuation of the little argument going on, but it's rare I get someone replying to my arguments by stating how they believe I'm going to burn or perhaps freeze depending on the belief, for eternity. In fact I wasn't even convinced you were Christian considering I didn't see you state it. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you're a Deist."

I am a Christian but I am also questioning and refining those beliefs. I've come to realize that the Christian faith is much removed from what it was when Jesus died. I sincerely hope you don't feel that I've been berating you. My intention was merely to point out an attitude dichotomy between people who claim to be scientific in their thinking and then limit their thinking based on beliefs rather than knowledge.

"I don't see the difference there, if you're not taking someone's word for something last I look that's basically calling BS."

Not to a mature individual. You can disagree and even not believe without calling it "BS".

1bull·s**t
Pronunciation: \ˈbu̇l-ˌs**t also ˈbəl-\
Function: noun
Date: 1914
usually vulgar : nonsense ; especially : foolish insolent talk

As you can see from the definition, "BS" is a specifically demeaning word. By using it you go beyond disagreement to a belittlement of the person. That is the primary issue I have with atheists, a great many of them project the attitude that their disbelief is somehow superior to a person's belief. In reality, they are about the same. You don't believe because that's how you interpret the evidence or lack thereof, I DO believe because that' how I interpret the evidence I've had in my life. My belief may be incomprehensible to you, but it doesn't mean that it is senseless or stupid. I find it incomprehensible that people eat mushrooms, but I don't think any less of them for doing so.

"And they might not be intentionally lying to me, but I don't think what they're saying is the truth, and no matter how much they think it's the truth it doesn't make it anymore true."

That is a valid stance. If you don't believe, you don't believe. That's the way the world is. Some people think we're in a period of Global Warming, some don't. Both sides have pretty much the same evidence. Some people think Obama will be a good President, some don't. Both sides have pretty much the same evidence. Neither side is smarter or more logical than the other, they're simply different.

Does what I'm saying make any sense? I'm not trying to convert anyone and I'm not trying to belittle anyone, I'm just saying that an attitude of superiority because of your belief or disbelief in a deity isn't warranted by anyone.

Well, Slowmutant, now I know why the age of adolescence for males goes until 28. Zorp, Ska, I'll check back with you in a few years and see if either of you have grown up any. This is NOT, by the way, a judgement on your religious beliefs. It's a judgement on your infantile need to demean people who disagree with you.

Zorp, justify it how you want, you are clearly trying to demean religious beliefs. Since you don't believe then it's all "nonsense". Well, I don't believe mushrooms belong in the food definition, much less on anyone's plate, but I don't think people who eat them are stupid, nonsensical or full of BS. But then, I've matured to the point where I realize that people can and do believe some pretty fantastical stuff without believing they are stupid for believing them. Perhaps one day you will learn how to disagree as an adult, without trying to drag in dismissive language. Until then you really have nothing to contribute as far as I can see.