Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[lengy]

If he comes across as wanting you to shut up it's cause it's true. He is a veteran of this thread and has seen all the silly arguements and 'evidence' you theists put up in defence of your 'God' and it's rather aggravating when this thread keeps getting revived for dumb responses like, 'cause he does! lol kekekeke'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

All I've seen from your comments is you want me to shut up.

Nah I don't really want you to shut up, I'd like you to start making sense with some of your posts though or at least when I ask a question about it to explain it to me. I can't argue against rhetoric.

. It is challenging for you to think any deeper than you are willing to accept.

Perhaps it is, so maybe you should start helping me by answering my questions.

All your comebacks were how "[you] think" such and such should be.

Can you give an example and explain what you mean by this, like what exactly is wrong with what I did?

While you're quesitoning one person's knowledge, in this case, me.

I don't really care about your knowledge, as I've said in (I think) two posts now. It's not something I care for, yet you seem to continue to bring it up although if I were an 'illiterate teenage mum' you would not care about my argument's at all. If you can post the particular posts where you think I've insulted your knowledge, I'll try to explain what I meant or retract what I said if I did say something along the lines of 'you're not smart' etc.

Please understand though that this paragraph for example:

Ok but I hope you understand that I won't just take your word for it, I don't think you really do have this 'higher understanding' or whatever you believe it is, so far all you've served up is the usual rhetoric I've encountered now quite a few times even in just this thread.

Was just me saying that I won't take your word for it and that I suspect you probably don't have a good argument based off your previous posts. Try not to get upset so easily if this is the sort of post that annoyed you.

You're applying your own thoughts to judge what I've said.

Yes, I am judging the merits of your argument. Welcome to debate.

Ironically, you're sarcastically mocking my information as mere imagination.

I don't even understand what your 'information' is, you've said something about higher beings etc and how you got this from applying an 'abstract method' to a (paraphased) school of teachings, or something along those lines. Do you expect me to not point out that I don't think that's a good way to go about examining the world?

Whether your story about your childhood imagination was true or not is still doubtful to me.

lol I have no need to lie, I really don't. Why would I even make that story up? Why do you even care about the story? Do you not believe I could have some creativity ?

Right now, I just feel that you are a helpless person who is unwilling to accept that there is nothing in the world that you would rather come closer to.

I don't understand this sentence, but if you're saying i'd rather not 'find higher beings', I'm sorry but that's just not true. I do want to find these 'higher beings' you've talked of, that'd be great... does finding them imply an afterlife perhaps? How great would that be!

You've countlessly used distortion as a tool.

I don't use distortion, perhaps I don't understand what you've said before and have therefore said something odd to you, perhaps you've not listened properly to when I've explained myself and this has led to the appearance of distortion, or perhaps I've not explained myself properly either.

But I haven't been trying to trick you or anything fancy like that, I just don't do shit like that in this thread.

. One occasion to the next, you've seemingly agreed to what I'd stated just to prove that you are not what I had proclaimed you are.

Hows 'bout you quote some of these so I can give clarification? For example, I did say that I am essentially agnostic about everything, but if you read the entire post I'm sure I would have also explained how I do think we can create temporal truths using the best knowledge we have available.

In this case, to swear that I am wrong or mislead to whatever you think I'm discovering.

I don't care what you 'discover' about me, deal with my arguments please.

I don't see the need for me to justify and of the things I have said. People just shouldn't explain logic to a hungry wolf.

Well the need to justify is so that a) I can understand you and b) you can refine your argument, address any flaws. As for me being a 'hungry wolf' I probably do appear quite aggressive in this thread when it comes to dealing with theists, but I'd like to assure you that it is only your arguments that I have any argument with, not yourself or other theists as people.

 

[T-mac01]

Nah I don't really want you to shut up, I'd like you to start making sense with some of your posts though or at least when I ask a question about it to explain it to me. I can't argue against rhetoric.



Perhaps it is, so maybe you should start helping me by answering my questions.



Can you give an example and explain what you mean by this, like what exactly is wrong with what I did?



I don't really care about your knowledge, as I've said in (I think) two posts now. It's not something I care for, yet you seem to continue to bring it up although if I were an 'illiterate teenage mum' you would not care about my argument's at all. If you can post the particular posts where you think I've insulted your knowledge, I'll try to explain what I meant or retract what I said if I did say something along the lines of 'you're not smart' etc.

Please understand though that this paragraph for example:

Was just me saying that I won't take your word for it and that I suspect you probably don't have a good argument based off your previous posts. Try not to get upset so easily if this is the sort of post that annoyed you.



Yes, I am judging the merits of your argument. Welcome to debate.



I don't even understand what your 'information' is, you've said something about higher beings etc and how you got this from applying an 'abstract method' to a (paraphased) school of teachings, or something along those lines. Do you expect me to not point out that I don't think that's a good way to go about examining the world?



lol I have no need to lie, I really don't. Why would I even make that story up? Why do you even care about the story? Do you not believe I could have some creativity ?



I don't understand this sentence, but if you're saying i'd rather not 'find higher beings', I'm sorry but that's just not true. I do want to find these 'higher beings' you've talked of, that'd be great... does finding them imply an afterlife perhaps? How great would that be!



I don't use distortion, perhaps I don't understand what you've said before and have therefore said something odd to you, perhaps you've not listened properly to when I've explained myself and this has led to the appearance of distortion, or perhaps I've not explained myself properly either.

But I haven't been trying to trick you or anything fancy like that, I just don't do shit like that in this thread.



Hows 'bout you quote some of these so I can give clarification? For example, I did say that I am essentially agnostic about everything, but if you read the entire post I'm sure I would have also explained how I do think we can create temporal truths using the best knowledge we have available.



I don't care what you 'discover' about me, deal with my arguments please.



Well the need to justify is so that a) I can understand you and b) you can refine your argument, address any flaws. As for me being a 'hungry wolf' I probably do appear quite aggressive in this thread when it comes to dealing with theists, but I'd like to assure you that it is only your arguments that I have any argument with, not yourself or other theists as people.

You're just deliberately leaving out all the important points I've said. Quoting the entire paragraph will mean an entirely different thing rather than just half of it.
So what if you're a veteran in this thread. 10 thousand posts won't mean anything if most of them came faint hearted.

 

[T-mac01]

If he comes across as wanting you to shut up it's cause it's true. He is a veteran of this thread and has seen all the silly arguements and 'evidence' you theists put up in defence of your 'God' and it's rather aggravating when this thread keeps getting revived for dumb responses like, 'cause he does! lol kekekeke'.

Stop pissing yourself with junk comments. Read my previous posts.
Whether some of the arguments by me or anyone else were silly or not is not up to him to decide.
A dumb person is just as likely to think a genius is retarded as a genius think everyone else around him is stupid.
I don't even know why I bothered replying to shitheads like you.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You're just deliberately leaving out all the important points I've said.

I quoted a shitload of what you said, if you think I failed to address something can you please point it out... I'm really getting pretty frustrated by you constantly saying you have a problem with something but never actually pointing it out.

 

[T-mac01]

I quoted a shitload of what you said, if you think I failed to address something can you please point it out... I'm really getting pretty frustrated by you constantly saying you have a problem with something but never actually pointing it out.

Well, at least we have something in common right now - frustration.
Anyway, just to satisfy your doubt. You were questioning what my faith or understanding was based on. I got the feeling that you think some people with faith have no evidence to support their own belief. I agree with that. People shouldn't be blindly follow some belief without evidence. Again, I think we need to have some right to follow something that has been proved to exist just like if we are going to lend some money to an acquaintance or stranger.
I told you what kind of a believer I was just to let you know that I also want to see things with evidence to prove it. You said you don't care. But if you really did want to find out what I was on about, knowing this is quiet essential.

Lastly, it's good that you keep saying you want to believe or want to see evidence to prove what a lot of us are trying to explain to people. But if that's what you really want, you would first of all find sources to read on.
If I've given you that source, would you be commited enough to even bother start reading it? I think there are many of us here who could've been on the same boat as you are now. I was one of them. But I think countless facts would help to see the evidence and truths. Of course all those facts all have to be united. Now, for example, we've never seen objects on an atomic scale but we tend to believe it because of many facts to prove it from experiments. So, really, if we are to observe the evidence, don't expect it to be coming from the front of your visible eyes. You need to gather the facts.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I got the feeling that you think some people with faith have no evidence to support their own belief.

No I think by the very definition people of faith have no evidence to support their belief, not just 'some'.

You said you don't care.

Can you quote the post? i.e. What I said and what it was in response too?

If I've given you that source, would you be commited enough to even bother start reading it?

It would depend what it was. Most likely I'd look for a review of this work by other similarily minded people and any counter-arguments made by both sides.

Now, for example, we've never seen objects on an atomic scale but we tend to believe it because of many facts to prove it from experiments. So, really, if we are to observe the evidence, don't expect it to be coming from the front of your visible eyes. You need to gather the facts.

Where have I suggested that I need to see something infront of my eyes to believe it?

 

[T-mac01]

No I just presumed.
If that's not what you intended. How would you like things to be proven?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No I just presumed.
If that's not what you intended. How would you like things to be proven?

Via the scientific method.

 

[P_Dilemma]

Via the scientific method.

...which would have to be done right in front of your eyes anyway

... i assume

-P_D

 

[T-mac01]

Via the scientific method.

Which is why I said you need to gather the facts first. Theory only comes after.
I remember in the beginning I said our current level of science is still weak. Proving things would make it impossible because our technology just can't penetrate through things smaller than the microatomic scale and thus can't really be measured.
This scientific method you've brought up actually reminded me to mention something quiet important. It is one of the reasons why I started to understand this source of teaching I'm currently learning. It explains a lot of the science theories we'd discovered and those yet to have.
Now finally about evidence, if I say that people ended up see things after practicing this teaching. Would that be a good enough reasons for you to believe it. You can say it is mere imagination and people say when you believe something hard enough you will see it. But there is a degree of clarity when it comes to imagination and real vision.
I just think you should trust your own observation a bit more. After all, that's how you've been since the day you were born. You see this physical environment as the only real and existing one. So why don't you judge things the same way when it comes to observing things?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I remember in the beginning I said our current level of science is still weak.

I don't know what exactly that statement relates too, but it's the best knowledge we have, even if you might think that ultimately it is 'weak'.

It is one of the reasons why I started to understand this source of teaching I'm currently learning. It explains a lot of the science theories we'd discovered and those yet to have.

I don't know what this means, but it seems to contradict with:

Which is why I said you need to gather the facts first. Theory only comes after.

Please understand though that I have a hard time pinpointing what you actually mean given your vague use of language and references to things you've yet to define/explain.

Now finally about evidence, if I say that people ended up see things after practicing this teaching. Would that be a good enough reasons for you to believe it.

What do you mean 'seeing things', if you're saying that some people can be 'taught' these things then believe it and if that's enough for me to believe... then well no.

You can say it is mere imagination and people say when you believe something hard enough you will see it. But there is a degree of clarity when it comes to imagination and real vision.

There's no way for you to ascertain whether you're imagining things or not.

I just think you should trust your own observation a bit more.

That worked for us for a few thousand years, but you see.. humans can't rely on their own observations when we start dealing with the more complex matters that we now do.

You see this physical environment as the only real and existing one. So why don't you judge things the same way when it comes to observing things?

Could you restate that somehow? I don't get it.

 

[dieburndie]

It is one of the reasons why I started to understand this source of teaching I'm currently learning. It explains a lot of the science theories we'd discovered and those yet to have.
Now finally about evidence, if I say that people ended up see things after practicing this teaching. Would that be a good enough reasons for you to

So whatever "it" is explains a lot of the "science theories" we'd yet to have discovered.
I'm going to subscribe to this source of teaching, it's adherents sound that educated.

So after the lessons do you consume the sandwiches you are yet to order at the local redneck hangout, followed by going home and napping the hours which you are yet to sleep?

 

[KFunk]

There's no way for you to ascertain whether you're imagining things or not.

Careful with that one, that kind of doubting is equally damaging to science - you would at least have to throw studies involving self reporting of experiences in the same basket as that which T-mac01 describes.

 

[littlewing69]

T-mac01:

Care to tell us exactly what this school of thought you subscribe to is?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Careful with that one, that kind of doubting is equally damaging to science - you would at least have to throw studies involving self reporting of experiences in the same basket as that which T-mac01 describes.

It becomes much more of a problem when it comes to personal experiences i.e. feelings. I don't think it presents much of an issue when it comes to using witnesses or testee's (lol) as I think the possibility of any issue that may affect their ability to properly report can be eliminated, to a certain extent. Of course if you want to say 'everyone just imagined that' to basically everything then that is damaging to science, but casting doubt on such studies by saying 'what have you done to ensure it's not just hullicination' is fine imo.

Anyway I wasn't really comfortable with my post either when I wrote it, I do think it presents more problems but at the time I couldn't exactly think of what my issue was.

You can say it is mere imagination and people say when you believe something hard enough you will see it. But there is a degree of clarity when it comes to imagination and real vision.

Essentially to this, I'll just say that it's not necessarily mere imagination, but we do know that witnesses are not reliable and without any sort of controlled conditions they're almost useless. This 'degree of clarity' does not exist, there is no way for a person to know whether they're really seeing a ufo or if they just think <insert explanation> is a ufo, we can be tricked.

 

[lengy]

Evolution and Creation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHWhXmIDd6g&mode=related&search=

 

[T-mac01]

It becomes much more of a problem when it comes to personal experiences i.e. feelings. I don't think it presents much of an issue when it comes to using witnesses or testee's (lol) as I think the possibility of any issue that may affect their ability to properly report can be eliminated, to a certain extent. Of course if you want to say 'everyone just imagined that' to basically everything then that is damaging to science, but casting doubt on such studies by saying 'what have you done to ensure it's not just hullicination' is fine imo.

Anyway I wasn't really comfortable with my post either when I wrote it, I do think it presents more problems but at the time I couldn't exactly think of what my issue was.



Essentially to this, I'll just say that it's not necessarily mere imagination, but we do know that witnesses are not reliable and without any sort of controlled conditions they're almost useless. This 'degree of clarity' does not exist, there is no way for a person to know whether they're really seeing a ufo or if they just think <insert explanation> is a ufo, we can be tricked.

I would consider seeing an ufo from a far distant as illusion.
Many people see things when they don't even expect it. What's even more incredible is that the things appearing in front of them was so vivid that it was as if they're co-existing in that envronment. Yes, a lot of the time they were not sleeping. Eg. a guy was sitting in the toilet. and he just started seeing the floor on an atomic scale with all the partciles colliding and vibrating.
Yes, I know you would be saying all, it's just a black out, everyone get those.
But...
This is what I mean when you sometimes bend the things I'm explaining to you. If not everyone, most people would be intelligent enough to tell the difference between hallucination and reality. So ufo observation isn't really a good example of imagining things. Like when you just had a dream, you might feel it was real while you were in the dream, but when you wake you you would soon realise that it was a dream because the images was not as vivid as reality. So I think you would have to accept this fact. People are just not accustomed to imagining things that are more vivid than reality. Have you ever imagined something that you had even fooled yourself that it was real? I bet you haven't. Why, because we just don't believe in things that we imagine even when we try to delude ourselves. However, I would agree with exceptions for people on drugs. But those are chemical side effects and can't be compared with a normal and healthy functioning brain.

 

[T-mac01]

T-mac01:

Care to tell us exactly what this school of thought you subscribe to is?

Why do you want to know?

 

[T-mac01]

So whatever "it" is explains a lot of the "science theories" we'd yet to have discovered.
I'm going to subscribe to this source of teaching, it's adherents sound that educated.

So after the lessons do you consume the sandwiches you are yet to order at the local redneck hangout, followed by going home and napping the hours which you are yet to sleep?

Now you're just forcing yourself to pick bones from egg yolks.

People like you are pretty common these days, don't know anything and yet want to get involved. But don't have enough juice to keep it going . So what do you do, you make a sarcastic comment that can't be bagged nor praised.
You bite tight to someone that seems to be on top of the intelligent ladder thinking this would elvate your knowledge status among your peers.

I eat people like you for breakfast. Yes, you can be that easily consumed without dififculty.