Can you know God without understanding or recognizing his perfect works?

[Panacea]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know what proof or truth is. Truth is not a computable property. Fact is, your materialistic view of the world is based on philosophical assumptions you can't back up/prove. How can one debate somebody who uses subjective sensory information as objective truth?

I'm not really sure religion is dying, considering the most secular countries are the ones dying out. It is places the Muslim/African and Latin worlds that are exploding, places like Europe will be overtaken by those populations soon enough. Compare the birth rates and shifting demographics

Who is telling you to burn? Nice strawman. Can't debate an atheist without wading through a huge web of logical fallacies.

You cannot argue your side either. You can't offer any proof, or admit defeat. So you just attack the other side.

I've seen GIA say a few times he isn't an atheist; just saying.

 

[Pet Sounds]

I have formal training in all three of those subjects you have listed.

Everyone does to a degree. Doesn't mean you have anything to add to the subject. ok let me rephrase that. formal training plus qualification. I have an advanced degree in the sciences. I do scientific research. The government recognizes and funds my research. When has anyone in real life ever asked your opinion on a scientific question? I bet it has been never. But it's part of my job description.

I didn't go to school for 6+ years to have somebody who read a Richard Dawkins book tell me what science is.

 

[Pet Sounds]

I've seen GIA say a few times he isn't an atheist; just saying.

Oh, so he's one of those "I'm not religious, but spiritual." types? How trite. That's even worse. I bet he is a fan of Buddhism too.

 

[Diggin Deep]

Oh, so he's one of those "I'm not religious, but spiritual." types? How trite. That's even worse. I bet he is a fan of Buddhism too.

He is a Gnostic Christian and a Religionist...I can't remember the rest.

 

[Panacea]

Everyone does to a degree. Doesn't mean you have anything to add to the subject. ok let me rephrase that. formal training plus qualification. I have an advanced degree in the sciences. I do scientific research. The government recognizes and funds my research. When has anyone in real life ever asked your opinion on a scientific question? I bet it has been never. But it's part of my job description.

I didn't go to school for 6+ years to have somebody who read a Richard Dawkins book tell me what science is.

Scientific research on the addiction centers of the brain in rodents (oh I know, not real science) was a part of my undergraduate study, and will soon be part of finishing my graduate study. I have been privy to the peer review process for publication of a study, and I can confidently say I am qualified to speak on the scientific method, peer review, and logic.

I do not claim to be an expert in any specific field, and my advanced degree would be one of social science. I openly admit to my limitations without defensiveness and with eagerness to learn, but not everyone here is as stupid as you claim.

 

[Panacea]

Oh, so he's one of those "I'm not religious, but spiritual." types? How trite. That's even worse. I bet he is a fan of Buddhism too.

Can I ask what you feel is the correct belief a person should hold? :24:

 

[HK]

It seems unfair to say someone can only hold a naive argument if they don't have a degree. I've been reading books and websites about religion, spirituality, agnosticism etc since I was a teenager, it's an enjoyable subject. I've never claimed to be an expert, and I don't tend to join in discussions if the subject isn't something I understand.

If you only want to debate with people who have degrees and can hold in-depth conversations on the matter then why are you here? I'm not trying to be flippant - this is obviously not the best place to get a discussion purely held between experts, so why complain about it?

Maybe those of us who aren't educated to degree level on the subject can't add the same level of detail or personal experience but hey, I figure debate is also sometimes about learning. I've learnt a lot about religion and science from engaging in forum debates, not just here. The more we talk, the more we discuss, hopefully the better we get.

 

[Diggin Deep]

It seems unfair to say someone can only hold a naive argument if they don't have a degree. I've been reading books and websites about religion, spirituality, agnosticism etc since I was a teenager, it's an enjoyable subject. I've never claimed to be an expert, and I don't tend to join in discussions if the subject isn't something I understand.

If you only want to debate with people who have degrees and can hold in-depth conversations on the matter then why are you here? I'm not trying to be flippant - this is obviously not the best place to get a discussion purely held between experts, so why complain about it?

Maybe those of us who aren't educated to degree level on the subject can't add the same level of detail or personal experience but hey, I figure debate is also sometimes about learning. I've learnt a lot about religion and science from engaging in forum debates, not just here. The more we talk, the more we discuss, hopefully the better we get.

Well said HK :thumbup

 

[Panacea]

I figure debate is also sometimes about learning. I've learnt a lot about religion and science from engaging in forum debates, not just here. The more we talk, the more we discuss, hopefully the better we get.

This is definitely how I feel. I have joined forums and engaged in discussions to open my mind about things and get more information from opinions and perspectives. Sure, there are a handful of assholes in every group who just want to make personal attacks or get hypersensitive about things but overall I've found the discussions on forums great.

 

[Tim]

How about arguments that aren't totally and scientifically and philosophically naive? I keep hearing atheists preach on here about the scientific method, peer review, logic, etc.. having no formal training or experience in these subjects. And it shows. You're just parroting what you heard elsewhere.

Let me say this a little slower so you can understand. My views on evolution, the creation of the universe, science or any other topic do not correlate to my views on whether there is a god or not.
Maybe if someone is simple minded enough to hear about evolution and come to the conclusion there is no god, then your argument would stand.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know what proof or truth is. Truth is not a computable property. Fact is, your materialistic view of the world is based on philosophical assumptions you can't back up/prove. How can one debate somebody who uses subjective sensory information as objective truth?

So you are the sole holder of "truth"? Is that why you feel you cannot debate anyone here?

You cannot argue your side either. You can't offer any proof, or admit defeat. So you just attack the other side.

What proof are you looking for? You're a man of science, so please explain to me how you go about proving that something doesn't exist.

Everyone does to a degree. Doesn't mean you have anything to add to the subject. ok let me rephrase that. formal training plus qualification. I have an advanced degree in the sciences. I do scientific research. The government recognizes and funds my research. When has anyone in real life ever asked your opinion on a scientific question? I bet it has been never. But it's part of my job description.

I didn't go to school for 6+ years to have somebody who read a Richard Dawkins book tell me what science is.

So to understand what science is, you need to have formal training and qualifications?

Does that mean we need to be a mechanic to talk about cars, or a politician to talk about politics?

 

[Pet Sounds]

It seems unfair to say someone can only hold a naive argument if they don't have a degree. I've been reading books and websites about religion, spirituality, agnosticism etc since I was a teenager, it's an enjoyable subject. I've never claimed to be an expert, and I don't tend to join in discussions if the subject isn't something I understand.

If you only want to debate with people who have degrees and can hold in-depth conversations on the matter then why are you here? I'm not trying to be flippant - this is obviously not the best place to get a discussion purely held between experts, so why complain about it?

Maybe those of us who aren't educated to degree level on the subject can't add the same level of detail or personal experience but hey, I figure debate is also sometimes about learning. I've learnt a lot about religion and science from engaging in forum debates, not just here. The more we talk, the more we discuss, hopefully the better we get.

The arguments are naive regardless. It's not even about having a degree. It's that these atheist arguments are weak, recycled, and poorly thought out. No degree could save them. I'm sick of vaguely getting lectured by people on subjects who show they don't know anything about them.

I haven't learned anything either. That is part of my critique. Nothing interesting or insightful is being said.

:yuk

 

[Panacea]

Nothing interesting or insightful is being said.

Enlighten or leave, I say. If you're not a part of the solution you're part of the problem.

 

[HK]

The arguments are naive regardless. It's not even about having a degree. It's that these atheist arguments are weak, recycled, and poorly thought out. No degree could save them. I'm sick of vaguely getting lectured by people on subjects who show they don't know anything about them.

I haven't learned anything either. That is part of my critique. Nothing interesting or insightful is being said.

:yuk

Well, I can't argue with that being your personal experience if that's how you feel :dunno

But my original question still stands; if you find it so distasteful to debate with people who don't have a formal education or whatever it is that you consider a substantiated argument, why are you here? There are plenty of scientific forums directed at people closer to expert level - why bother with us?

 

[Tim]

The arguments are naive regardless. It's not even about having a degree. It's that these atheist arguments are weak, recycled, and poorly thought out. No degree could save them. I'm sick of vaguely getting lectured by people on subjects who show they don't know anything about them.

I haven't learned anything either. That is part of my critique. Nothing interesting or insightful is being said.

:yuk

I have an idea, and I'm only speaking for me.

Why don't you lay out your reason for believing in god (or whatever you believe in since you haven't clearly stated you belief) and present your proof.

 

[Greatest I am]

You cannot argue your side either. You can't offer any proof, or admit defeat. So you just attack the other side.

My proof is seeing the evolving perfection around us.
If you see the cursed nature that Christianity believe in, that is your poor sight.

Let's see your proof then for your beliefs.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Oh, so he's one of those "I'm not religious, but spiritual." types? How trite. That's even worse. I bet he is a fan of Buddhism too.

Actually, no.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian with some Deist thrown in.
Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”
This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.
During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.
I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real.
The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.
I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.
I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.
I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship, it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.
My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL

 

[FreightTrain]

Oh, so he's one of those "I'm not religious, but spiritual." types? How trite. That's even worse. I bet he is a fan of Buddhism too.

I respected a lot of what you had to say until I found this one. What happened?? What exactly is wrong with being a fan of Buddhism? It IS the religion of tolerance and introspection. I hold it it high regard because it doesn't demonize or exclude which can't be said of nearly any other religion. In fact, it's so unlike any other religion, it's degrading to call it one!

 

[Pet Sounds]

My proof is seeing the evolving perfection around us.
If you see the cursed nature that Christianity believe in, that is your poor sight.

Let's see your proof then for your beliefs.

Regards
DL

What evolving perfection? You call entropy perfection? Because that is the direction the universe is taking. The universe is constantly becoming more and more disordered, unlivable, and eventually will break down/cease to exist or function. The universe is right about at its prime right now, but will degrade, end, and so will everything in it. You have this Aristotlian view of the world that all the heavens, celestial bodies, and universe are perfect. They aren't. They are slowly decaying and dying. Copernicus and Galileo (both Catholics) put and end to that notion long ago. Stars and planets will cease to be made, eventually not even atoms will be able to exist. The universe will weaken and die just like everything else. It isn't evolving towards perfection, it is evolving towards extinction.

 

[Pet Sounds]

I respected a lot of what you had to say until I found this one. What happened?? What exactly is wrong with being a fan of Buddhism? It IS the religion of tolerance and introspection. I hold it it high regard because it doesn't demonize or exclude which can't be said of nearly any other religion. In fact, it's so unlike any other religion, it's degrading to call it one!

All religions offer tolerance, introspection.

If Buddism doesn't demonize anything then why do you end up in a bad place if you misbehave, and a good place if you don't? Why are so many earthly pleasures forbidden? Why must we abstain? Sounds like the same carrot and stick notions of hellfire and heaven to me.

 

[FreightTrain]

What evolving perfection? You call entropy perfection? Because that is the direction the universe is taking... The universe will weaken and die just like everything else. It isn't evolving towards perfection, it is evolving towards extinction.

Agreed. :thumbup