No problem with you “believing it.” Just you have no proof and no evidence. So if that makes a person bonkers, then that’s you.
But I don’t think that that makes a person insane. It’s just what you believe and I can respect that. But from what you’re saying, you don’t feel the same way.
I have no problem being considered bonkers by a member of the godsquad – in fact, I embrace it as a badge of honour.
In fact, I’m so bonkers that I don’t even understand why we who don’t believe a thing exists should have to even countenance the idea of “proving” or providing evidence of the non-existent thing. That’s not how it normally works, is it?
It’s like:
Believer: So there’s this … thing, see?
non-believer: Where? I don’t see anything.
Believer: Well, it’s kind of all around. You just can’t see it, but I have.
Non-believer: Come on! You’re having a laugh. (aside) He’s having a laugh, isn’t he? Invisible things, eh? All around, right? OK, prove it.
Believer: No, you have to prove that it doesn’t exist, otherwise you’re bonkers for not believing it. And plus, you can’t accuse ME of being bonkers because I can’t prove it does exist. That’s logic, see?
Non-believer: Jesus H. Christ, what a nutter! I’m off down the pub.
RDO can answer in any way he likes, because the thing he calls “God” is a figment of his imagination.
Why don’t you all (especially RDO) stop fiddling around with logic, and start from scratch: The concept “god” is an idea on which you can throw any and all mystic experiences. If you (RDO) want to say that these experiences are themselves ‘scientific proof’, then you are a fool and a crackpot. God remains a concept, an object of devotion only defined by grandiose terms. Please see my previous post.
There is no proof for or against it, because it is imagined. Yes, what you imagine is subjectively real. No, it does not ‘exist’, as such.
Even if you provide the perfect logical proof, you started it just from the assumption that god exists. By that I mean that there does not have to be any reason that the world is the way it is. (As you would object that there needs to be a God that created it).
RDO = bonko.
Bob we also cannot say if there was God prior to the big bang or even after it.
I have been deceased ( I know some of you think it either wasnt long enough or should have been permanent lol ) and have not experienced anything to assist me in believing that God ( as RDO prefers ) exists.
I spent numerous years being educated at private Catholic schools yet never saw anything that would be considered a miracle, nor did I experience God talking to me the many times I was at the altar at mass.
I’ve never felt anything that would help me assume that there might be a God.
If God exists, then it is in our own concienceness that God resides. We are in fact God.
[quote]delusion is based on faulty inference from external reality[/quote] Sure we can agree on that part as it confirms that those who believe in God are deluded 
[quote]How do you know that it isn’t real communication with God? You don’t. You are making an assumption. [/quote]
How would anybody know that they have had a real communication with God without assuming that whatever experience they had at the time was real? They don’t!
I’m sure many of us have had visions of things. We can be day dreaming and have quite real dreams that cannot be proven.
I tranced out at an Altar during a long mass once. Started out from just being a bit bored which then went to me thinking about something which led me into never never land… numbskull I was… nothing around me… the whole world just dissapeared. Must have been the incence me thinks.
The mind can play pretty good tricks on itself. Being catatonic now and then isn’t such a bad thing. Death is another realm that’s nothing to be afraid of.
It’s just the dying process we most fear. Most people die painful deaths. Very few have the luxury of just dying in their sleep.
Of course you don’t. Because you don’t know how to think logically and try to make up for it with sarcasm and childishness when confronted with a rational argument.
But that’s not what’s happening.
It’s more like this:
Non-believer: I don’t believe there’s this thing.
Believer: Alright, but I do.
Non-believer: You’re insane!
Believer: Why would you say that? I just think it’s real.
Non-believer: Well prove it’s real, nutcase!
Believer: Hey, I’ve had things happen in my life that make me think the thing is real.
Non-believer: You’re bonko! That can’t be right. It’s all in your head. That thing isn’t there.
Believer: Prove it isn’t real.
Non-believer: I haven’t seen it. So you’re bonko!
Believer: That’s not proof.
Non-believer: You don’t have proof. That’s my proof and you’re a nutter for thinking it is!
Believer: What? That doesn’t make any sense.
Non-believer: Yes, it does. You’re just a nutcase.
Believer: You can believe there isn’t one, that’s fine, but you don’t really have any reason to think so.
Non-believer: No, you have to prove with scientific evidence that there absolutely must be such a thing or you’re a raving lunatic. And how dare you call me a nutcase?
That pretty much sums it up.
Sarcasm and childishness? No shit Sherlock! This has to be one of the most childish threads I’ve ever been involved with. I think you’re nuts for believing in ghosties or fairies or god or whatever it is, and for trying to apply logic to faith, while you think I’m nuts for refusing to accept what you believe is your “logic.”
I’m cool with that.
RDO can answer in any way he likes, because the thing he calls “God” is a figment of his imagination.
Why don’t you all (especially RDO) stop fiddling around with logic[/quote]
Well, now, there’s a bright concept. Let’s just not care about if what we say makes any sense at all. Great start. Let’s take it a step further and stop using words for the meanings that they actually have, what say you?
And if you (ectoplasm) think I’ve said anything like that, you’re a deluded moron or someone who hasn’t been paying attention to what I’ve written. Take your pick.
God remains a true being whose existence can only be outright denied by people out of touch with their own souls. Human concepts of God are often flawed, incomplete, and often outright erroneous, but nonetheless, God exists. You say it’s just a concept, I say you’re wrong.
Sure, people imagine God. But God is also real. People imagine their mothers, too.
That’s stupid. I mean, just plain stupid. If someone creates a perfectly logical proof for the existence of God it cannot have the assumption that god exists. That would make it illogical. :loco: Go read up on logic before you even attempt to start this conversation.
What a stupid assumption. That must be the way you’d argue it. That’s actually the teleological argument, which I think is an example of bad logic.
Please. Don’t project your own incompetence at reasoning onto me.
Well, that just summarizes your brilliance. Children’s insults. That’s the best you’ve got.
You can believe whatever you want. But that doesn’t excuse your apparent lack of reasoning ability.
It’s mostly childish due to your own involvement, bucko. Without your “input” the thread would have been a lot more meaningful.
Think that if you want, it just goes to expose how narrow-minded you are. I don’t believe in fairies, but I’m not fool enough to go after other people’s beliefs on the matter. Now doing that is bonko.
Pure inability to comprehend on your part.
Nuts? No, you’re not nuts. You are just lacking in intelligence when it comes to propositional logic. That would be fine if you were to just shrug and say, “well this is over my head,” but instead you try to cover your inadequacy in this field by mouthing off.
Perhaps you should have spent more time studying the Old Testament. The book of Proverbs has some excellent advice for you: Proverbs 17:18
I’ve been having to decide on which to follow- Proverbs 26:4 or Proverbs 26:5. I think the time for the latter has passed.
You haven’t seemed to be cool at all. Just intolerant, biased, and closed-minded on this issue.
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]
Nobody has pointed out a single logical fallacy in my position this whole time. Not once.[/quote]I have. And you conveniently ignored it.
sandman said pretty much the same thing in a more concise manner here. (Then there’s bob, ST, urodacus, ectoplasma, and others who have all pointed out that you are not making sense. I think this adds up to fallacies on your part. But of course, we all lack logic. As GBH pointed out, no one can go toe to toe with you in a “logical” debate about God. 
)
I don’t know, but using the word bonkos implies fallacies, I think.
[quote=“jdsmith”]AHa, so the lack of experience is the experience itself.
that is smooth.[/quote]Lack of experience is not experience, it’s objective evidence. 2000 years after Christ’s “resurrection” and not a single slice of objective evidence is de facto objective evidence against the existence of God.
[quote=“sandman”]I think you’re nuts for believing in ghosties or fairies or god or whatever it is, and for trying to apply logic to faith[/quote]That sums it up. Faith defies logic, it doesn’t apply logic.
[quote]God exists. You say it’s just a concept, I say you’re wrong.[/quote]There you go again. Why not just say “I disagree?” You have no objective proof that he is wrong, so you should at least extend the courtesy of not telling everyone that they lack logic and that they are wrong. Failure to do that, you pass as bonkos.
[quote]I don’t believe in fairies, but I’m not fool enough to go after other people’s beliefs on the matter. Now doing that is bonko.
[/quote]But you are doing that. You scream fallacies, WRONG, lack of logic and lack of reasonable cognizance to anyone whose belief differ from yours. That’s bonkos indeed.
Everyone looks to science to disprove the existence of God, when they should be looking to philosophy. I tried to argue against the existence of God here, but it didn’t get much attention.
If God exists, it follows that all of the miracles of the Bible were possible, no matter how outlandish they sound. Ditto for communication with God. In order to disprove miracles/communication with God, we have to first disprove the existence of God.
Everyone looks to science to disprove the existence of God, when they should be looking to philosophy. I tried to argue against the existence of God here, but it didn’t get much attention.[/quote]I’m not trying to prove that God does not exist. I’m an agnostic. I’m just pointing out objective evidence, or lack of thereof, which IMO, constitutes objective evidence against the existence of God.
[quote=“joshini”][quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]
Nobody has pointed out a single logical fallacy in my position this whole time. Not once.[/quote]I have. And you conveniently ignored it. [/quote]
I clicked the link. Where did you state what fallacy I was committing? You didn’t.
None of you are pointing out where there is an error. At all. You just say, “it doesn’t make sense.”
Oh, there are plenty of people who can go toe to toe with me in a logical debate about God. Just none of you. That’s because you aren’t using logic.
Not really, no. It’s a loose word used to mean nothing really precise. I’m asking to tell me what fallacy I’ve committed. I figured one of you would have done a Google search on logical fallacies and tried to apply one to something I’ve said, but you have yet to do so.
Again with this lame argument. Lack of experience is not evidence except when evidence can logically be expected.
What evidence would you expect there to be? A press conference? A video tape that God wouldn’t know about? And there is a mound of anecdotal evidence that says God has been involved in the affairs of men. That evidence is what would be expected. If after the resurrection nobody ever reported anything then you’d have something. But there’s plenty of reports. You just choose not to believe them.
Once again, this is stupid. It’s not good reasoning. It’s not a good argument. It’s worthless.
Once again, yes it does. Faith is grounded on inductive reasoning. I’ve explained it before and nobody contradicted what I said.
You don’t deduce faith. It’s a choice based on an inductive process and the continual evaluation of experiences in light of schema.
Would it still be bonko if those people started lobbying for more tax breaks or changes in educational policy? What if it was impossible to become president without being a fairy worshipper? (No jokes, please.) What if the fairy worshippers actually elected a president and the man turned out to be the biggest mistake your country has ever seen?
Questioning the fundamentals of Christianity or any faith based belief system is one of the most sane, responsible things a person could ever do. It’s like a family finally admitting that Dad has a gambling problem. Admit that and you are half way towards clearing out all manner of nonsense from people’s lives.
I’ve met too many people who are struggling through life burdened by the fact that they were asked by the well trusted authority figures to have faith in what they eventually realized was a nonsensical belief system. It is crazy making and crazy, really crazy like that, is dangerous. You don’t need to look very far in the world today to see evidence of that.
Turnaround is fair play, joshini. They can say “god is imaginary”. I can’t say “god is real”?
They have no objective proof that they are right, yet they state their opinion as fact. I’m free to do the same.
The correct counter to a bald assertion is bald assertion. If they say, “I think there is no God” I’ll just say “I think there is”. It’s a free country.
There’s nothing “bonkos” about it. You all just keep throwing around that meaningless word. I guess that makes you all bonkos.
[quote][quote]I don’t believe in fairies, but I’m not fool enough to go after other people’s beliefs on the matter. Now doing that is bonko.
[/quote]But you are doing that. You scream fallacies, WRONG, lack of logic and lack of reasonable cognizance to anyone whose belief differ from yours. That’s bonkos indeed.[/quote]
Oh, stop your bonko nonsense. Of course that’s not what I do. I argue that both their beliefs are rational and my beliefs are rational. Then they say, no, only our beliefs are rational but yours is bonko.
Then they try to give a reason, but the reason is illogical. It is full of fallacies. It’s worthless and I say so. And you are bonko to join in with them not knowing what logic really is and trying to act smart when you really aren’t.
I believe I replied to that. I didn’t take your post as an argument against the existence of God as much as an explanation of your beliefs. I think what you posted explains your reasons quite well and it’s perfectly understandable why you would believe as you do.
There are logical arguments against the existence of God that can be made through philosophy-- argument from evil, argument from design, etc. Some of these arguments can be rather strong. However, I think most of these arguments assume orthodox Christianity only and don’t actually apply to all theistic belief systems, or even all Christian belief systems.
My entire argument here has been geared toward showing that religious faith in a speaking god is based on such poor inductive reasoning as to be literally insane.
Opposing belief in fairies, or opposing the tax breaks or changes in educational policy?
Apples and oranges.
How about if an atheist wanted to make practicing religion outlawed or give tax breaks to non-believers? You do realize that some atheists try to enact legislation like this, right?
Trying to attack a person for beliefs you can’t know to be false is bonko. Trying to argue that a person’s political agenda is biased, unfair, unconstitutional, or otherwise not good for society is being patriotic.
Or to try and make it so only an atheist could be president?
What if it was an atheist? There have been a few atheistic dictators who really sucked.
Nothing wrong with questioning. But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re ridiculing. And your position is no better.
It doesn’t matter what a person’s religion is. If their political or social agenda is bad for society or infringes on the rights of others then it is right to oppose that. Atheists are guilty of the same behavior.
And I’ve met many people who had no sense of purpose in life, who were depressed, and then found God and became much happier.
Nothing is crazy or dangerous about belief in God. There are crazy, dangerous people who believe in God, but there are also crazy, dangerous people who don’t believe in God.
My entire argument here has been geared toward showing that religious faith in a speaking god is based on such poor inductive reasoning as to be literally insane.[/quote]
Yeah, but your argument fails miserably.