putting religion in it's proper place

[Immanuel Can]

I need a real definition of "God" to go further. If you won't express one, then your belief is NOT able to be provable to anyone but those who already believe.

I don't think you "need" any such thing. The universe is something you believe in, I'm sure; but it's not boundable by the kinds of definitions you seem to want. I've certainly given you aspect-emphasizing definitions, but you seem to want something more than that, though I cannot say what it is. But "need"? No. "Want"? Maybe.

Actually, your argument with Theism seems to really break down to a couple of very simple possibilities:

1. Scott cannot believe in God because Scott hasn't seen God.

2. Scott cannot believe in God, because Scott doesn't even understand what "God" means.

I think the first more plausible than the second, but neither seems a very good way to argue.

We might add a third possibility:

3. Scott does not believe any evidence for God exists, because he keeps himself from knowing what any such evidence might be.

Again, not a great line of defence.

But I hear you when you say:

...the religious come with a whole life and background that cannot understand that atheism is NOT just some other competing religion. That is, they are normalized to believe in God that their logic shortcuts with the assumption that ALL people MUST believe in some form of belief in a God.

However, this argument has the disadvantage of being easily reversible, with no certainty of which accusation is correct. Like any mere ad hominem, it can bite back. It can say that the Atheist is "normalized" to believe that no rational person can possibly believe in the existence of God, so after that, he simply ignores all the evidence. And this is, in fact, the critique that the Bible mounts with reference to Atheism:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever." (Romans 1:18-24)

Which way is it? Is Theism just "wishful thinking," or is Atheism "wishful thinking?" I guess it depends on what one thinks of what God has said.

[Scott Mayers]

assume that the program itself doesn't HIDE a trick that assures the outcome you want.

Also. Obviously the program hides a "trick"!

A FINITE set of characters produces ALL INFINITELY-MANY DIGITS OF PI.

That's practically magic as far as I am concerned.

I know that you are trying to be helpful. But it is NOT in this circumstance because you are speaking about something that requires more than is necessary to this discussion. It WOULD be interesting to digress into between you and I on computation. These arguments here cannot help without imposing a deeper digression about something that would just be ignored or, as I put it, "intimidate" the reader by making them feel like an idiot for merely not being able to understand the language.

In fact, Immanuel is using your kind of logic here when he assumes we require investing into his particular religion in order to understand because he is assuming that "God" is more complex than a simpler argument could POSSIBLY do. So even IF he could understand your argument, he would just be able to use it to argue for precisely why the athiest is the idiot for being too simpleminded. So your efforts, while possibly well intentioned is itself disabling for constructive and effective argument and actually making it worse.

I cannot further respond because it is WAY off topic now and acts to effectively disrupt the flow of this thread's. Don't take offense though. I'm not against your intent.

[Skepdick]

I know that you are trying to be helpful. But it is NOT in this circumstance because you are speaking about something that requires more than is necessary to this discussion. It WOULD be interesting to digress into between you and I on computation. These arguments here cannot help without imposing a deeper digression about something that would just be ignored or, as I put it, "intimidate" the reader by making them feel like an idiot for merely not being able to understand the language.

Which is precisely why I am shifting the discussion away from language and technical mumbo jumbo and describing what you might call "user experience". A scientific experiment; or a demonstration if you will!

Immanuel Can asked for ALL digits of pi.

The algorithm produces precisely what Immanuel Can asked for thereby meeting his posed challenge.

If he cared to run the algorithm himself he would be convinced that all pi-digits are indeed there.

There's no deeper digression required here - only performing the experiment (which would admittedly keep Mr Can busy for an infinitely long time).

[Scott Mayers]

I need a real definition of "God" to go further. If you won't express one, then your belief is NOT able to be provable to anyone but those who already believe.

I don't think you "need" any such thing. The universe is something you believe in, I'm sure; but it's not boundable by the kinds of definitions you seem to want. I've certainly given you aspect-emphasizing definitions, but you seem to want something more than that, though I cannot say what it is. But "need"? No. "Want"? Maybe.

Actually, your argument with Theism seems to really break down to a couple of very simple possibilities:

Stop right here. I have given you the charity to argue by postulating you have a logical argument FOR religion as though I just came in on some space craft from some other world. As such, it shouldn't matter what my position is because I am pretending as though I am freshly hearing of ANY "God" so that you can help me understand your point of view fairly. You are being political again by ABANDONING this process by demanding that I prove you wrong. But I cannot prove you 'wrong' without knowing what you are even meaning. You may as well be speaking Chinese, the same issue I just spent time arguing against Skepdick for attempting to use against you.

So are you abandoning your burden to first PROVE yourself to me? If you are expecting me to UNDO your head, I can't. You are acting with a kind of mental illness that I cannot be able to use any logic with. Either define "God" or accept your own CHOICE to abandon your proof. You can presume what you want of me and I'll just have to accept you as unable to provide a proof in principle. I will then just assume you as mentally defective (my decision that I 'own') and leave you be.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your COMPLEX set of demands of me when you won't respond to my SIMPLE request for a definiton that is NECESSARY for me to bother continuing. I gave you charity and you tossed shit in my face. Thanks for just supplying MORE supporting proof that we are just the very apes of dumb evolutionary biology you were intending to defeat!

[If you are reading Skepdick, note the point about how he's expecting something more complex of something infinitely unable to draw closure. I cannot win with this attitude and why your argument would only fuel his desire for more complexity (if he could understand), not less.]

[Scott Mayers]

I know that you are trying to be helpful. But it is NOT in this circumstance because you are speaking about something that requires more than is necessary to this discussion. It WOULD be interesting to digress into between you and I on computation. These arguments here cannot help without imposing a deeper digression about something that would just be ignored or, as I put it, "intimidate" the reader by making them feel like an idiot for merely not being able to understand the language.

Which is precisely why I am shifting the discussion away from language and technical mumbo jumbo and describing what you might call "user experience". A scientific experiment; or a demonstration if you will!

Immanuel Can asked for ALL digits of pi.

The algorithm produces precisely what Immanuel Can asked for thereby meeting his posed challenge.

If he cared to run the algorithm himself he would be convinced that all pi-digits are indeed there.

There's no deeper digression required here - only performing the experiment (which would admittedly keep Mr Can busy for an infinitely long time).

Sure. Feed him back his own shit! I think I follow. Thanks for that!

I think this is hopeless and sad. Because I cannot tell if he is sincere or not, it gives me doubt about fixing world issues given most of the population BEHAVES like him. You can't determine the sincerity and have no choice but to presume a more stricter stance in politics against religion WITHOUT even bothering to attempt to appeal to them charitably. If they cannot be appropriately reasonable, they are DANGEROUS! [I left a note in my last post to him for you, btw.]

[Advocate]

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=482722 time=1606871323 user_id=11118]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=482716 time=1606869478 user_id=17350]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=482715 time=1606869264 user_id=11118]
I know that you are trying to be helpful. But it is NOT in this circumstance because you are speaking about something that requires more than is necessary to this discussion. It WOULD be interesting to digress into between you and I on computation. These arguments here cannot help without imposing a deeper digression about something that would just be ignored or, as I put it, "intimidate" the reader by making them feel like an idiot for merely not being able to understand the language.
[/quote]
Which is precisely why I am shifting the discussion away from language and technical mumbo jumbo and describing what you might call "user experience". A scientific experiment; or a demonstration if you will!

Immanuel Can asked for ALL digits of pi.

The algorithm produces precisely what Immanuel Can asked for thereby meeting his posed challenge.

If he cared to run the algorithm himself he would be convinced that all pi-digits are indeed there.

There's no deeper digression required here - only performing the experiment (which would admittedly keep Mr Can busy for an infinitely long time).
[/quote]
Sure. Feed him back his own shit! I think I follow. Thanks for that! :wink:

I think this is hopeless and sad. Because I cannot tell if he is sincere or not, it gives me doubt about fixing world issues given most of the population BEHAVES like him. You can't determine the sincerity and have no choice but to presume a more stricter stance in politics against religion WITHOUT even bothering to attempt to appeal to them charitably. If they cannot be appropriately reasonable, they are DANGEROUS! [I left a note in my last post to him for you, btw.]
[/quote]

All digits of pi... are you ready? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .

[Immanuel Can]

Stop right here. I have given you the charity to argue by postulating you have a logical argument FOR religion as though I just came in on some space craft from some other world. As such, it shouldn't matter what my position is because I am pretending as though I am freshly hearing of ANY "God" so that you can help me understand your point of view fairly.

Ah.

I wasn't asked if I wanted such a scenario, or what I was promising to do. Perhaps it would have been better if we were both in on the "postulating."

So are you abandoning your burden to first PROVE yourself to me?

"Prove myself?" I did not undertake to "prove myself" to you. "Proof" is for mathematics. It doesn't exist in empirical situations. Evidence, yes; rationality, yes. But you can't "prove," in the pure use of that term, that you will be alive tomorrow. There are no empirical matters that are ever more than a matter of probability.

I think you should probably stop constructing imaginary scenarios for me, whether they involve monsters or aliens or whatever. I'm not really interested in that approach.

You are acting with a kind of mental illness that I cannot be able to use any logic with.

Thanks for the diagnosis.

Either define "God"...

I did. You weren't happy.

[Dontaskme]

Either define "God"...

I did. You weren't happy.

Immanuel, are you willing to answer a question honestly?

Q: Does God have an image that can be physically seen (evidenced) ? yes or no?

If yes, then what does the God image look like?
If no, then why is there no image of God?

[attofishpi]

And for you, a case in point, your avatar is both a creation of a well-known atheist and friend of MY community, Seth McFarland, AND his character, Brian is also, contrary to the fact that he's on Fox, is also Seth's own 'avatar' for athiesm, and left-wing activism. So you are dressed up to appear contradictory to him. Perhaps you might ask him permission for your use of it in direct opposition to his own views?

Oooh. Hey, I am so impressed you managed to string more that one sentence together.

What community are you talking about? Are you suggesting atheism is a community!

I know full well that Brian is an atheist, apart from that he is a LOT like me - perhaps we are just creations in some parallel universe where I have gnosis (my name is Brian) and Brian (the cartoon dog) is short-sighted (like all atheists).
We have so much in common, we have both written a book, we both like casual whores, we both like drugs, we both like taking the piss out of blatant stupidity - like U thinking you have some allegiance with Seth, be careful you ***ing DUMB *** - I bite.

Sure - GO TELL "Seth McFarland" whoever the *** that is - may I suggest telling this dude:- SETH MACFARLANE that attofishpi - one that is not a dumb *** atheist that he is using Brian for his avatar.

DO IT U ***KING IMBECILE.

Seth MacFarland is the creator and owner of the copyright and trademarked images of his show, "Family Guy".

bla bla...But in the context of my comments to you about it, this was appropriate on my point about 'deceptive' behavior as a case in point for the prior posts you were insulting me above for.

So you fell right into that. I don't know if this site disapproves but they tend to block us with restrictions on images and video possibly to avoid infringement issues. I was barred from using a popular cartoon image for an avatar I used on a Facebook account years ago just for this very reason.
..... So be warned.]

Ah...*** man, wot am I to do>? I've used Brian avatar for 9 years..i guess that means I am actually ***ed.

Thank *** Seth MacFarland is not going to come after me because nobody knows who that *** is.

If Seth Macfarlane decided he gave a shit about some low life using an image of Brian from Family Guy as an avatar on an internet forum, I guess that would contradict his entire modus operandi so I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU ARE SO CONCERNED FOR ME.

..although..I think it is because you are rather stupid. - indeed, the kind of ridiculous stuff that Seth is ridiculing.

<this post has kindly been edited by sober atto>

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, are you willing to answer a question honestly?

Heh. Well, aren't you starting this message with a vote of confidence!

Q: Does God have an image that can be physically seen (evidenced) ? yes or no?
If yes, then what does the God image look like?

My answer to that is in Hebrews 1:3, and yes, that's my honest answer. I believe it absolutely.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482755 time=1606913389 user_id=9431]
[quote=Dontaskme post_id=482736 time=1606896685 user_id=12017]
Immanuel, are you willing to answer a question honestly?[/quote]
Heh. :D Well, aren't you starting this message with a vote of confidence! :lol:
[quote]Q: Does God have an image that can be physically seen (evidenced) ? yes or no?
If yes, then what does the God image look like?[/quote]
My answer to that is in Hebrews 1:3, and yes, that's my honest answer. I believe it absolutely.
[/quote]

"Radiance" can neither be confirmed as seen a single time or verified by repeated viewings.

[Immanuel Can]

"Radiance" can neither be confirmed as seen a single time or verified by repeated viewings.

Start reading at verse 1, and you'll understand.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482761 time=1606924000 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482759 time=1606919513 user_id=15238]
"Radiance" can neither be confirmed as seen a single time or verified by repeated viewings.
[/quote]
Start reading at verse 1, and you'll understand.
[/quote]

I happen to know the material expression of faith is "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen", all of which is certified nonsense.

[Sculptor]

I happen to know the material expression of faith is "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen", all of which is certified nonsense.

“Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”

― Mark Twain

[Immanuel Can]

I happen to know the material expression of faith is "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen", all of which is certified nonsense.

You didn't read.