M
mcteague
Guest
Part of me hate threads like this. They seem to me to be a complete waste of time. You can not prove the existence of God. However you can provide sufficient evidence to make the belief in God quite reasonable. It always seems to me that people who do this seem to be responding to the Dawkin’s argument. Which is; if you believe in God you are an idiot.
Dawkins, and some of the people here who post things like “there is no such thing as secular ethic” are simple obverse sides of the same coin. Mostly arguing against the most extreme and most ludicrous positions of their imagined adversary. Fanatical egomaniacs insisting that if they see the world in a certain way then everyone else must also.
Some of you might think it is just the atheistic, empiricist, science guys who are like that. Well that is not true. There are plenty of people here who have a rather irritating superior tone simply because they belong to “club Jesus “.
There are a number of reasons people try to tackle the proof of God problem. I think the most common is understood from psychology. Cognitive dissonance is the condition where a person is holding conflicting ideas and needs to resolve that uncomfortable feeling. In this case much of modern society suggests to the believer that belief in God is incompatible with being a modern intelligent person. So they go through all sorts complex analysis to show that they can be both.
You don’t have to to that.
Many people don’t seem to get the difference between and apple and and orange. It largely comes down to understanding what faith is. To a deeply religious person faith is almost indistinguishable from fact or knowledge. To a non religious person faith is closer a belief or an opinion. We often don’t really understand the way the other side uses the word.
If anyone read some of the first person accounts of how some early Christians faced death for their religion, as I did years ago in history class, they would understand the necessity of faith being inseparable from fact for the religious person. But those of us that do not have it sometimes have a hard time seeing it that way.
I just want to say that you can believe in God and be a rational intelligent person, and you can not believe in God and be an ethical person. But these attempts to try to prove these things some times start to make people look a bit zany.
“Ah, but the strawberries! That’s, that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist”. Captain Queeg.
You don’t have to justify considering yourself an intelligent rational person by trying to prove something like this. It really is a matter of faith.
Personally, I am a big fan of toleration and open mindedness. Sometimes discussions here get a little heated. So I just want to say that this is just my personal opinion.
However, if you don’t agree with me you are imbecile, and you are probably going to hell.
Dawkins, and some of the people here who post things like “there is no such thing as secular ethic” are simple obverse sides of the same coin. Mostly arguing against the most extreme and most ludicrous positions of their imagined adversary. Fanatical egomaniacs insisting that if they see the world in a certain way then everyone else must also.
Some of you might think it is just the atheistic, empiricist, science guys who are like that. Well that is not true. There are plenty of people here who have a rather irritating superior tone simply because they belong to “club Jesus “.
There are a number of reasons people try to tackle the proof of God problem. I think the most common is understood from psychology. Cognitive dissonance is the condition where a person is holding conflicting ideas and needs to resolve that uncomfortable feeling. In this case much of modern society suggests to the believer that belief in God is incompatible with being a modern intelligent person. So they go through all sorts complex analysis to show that they can be both.
You don’t have to to that.
Many people don’t seem to get the difference between and apple and and orange. It largely comes down to understanding what faith is. To a deeply religious person faith is almost indistinguishable from fact or knowledge. To a non religious person faith is closer a belief or an opinion. We often don’t really understand the way the other side uses the word.
If anyone read some of the first person accounts of how some early Christians faced death for their religion, as I did years ago in history class, they would understand the necessity of faith being inseparable from fact for the religious person. But those of us that do not have it sometimes have a hard time seeing it that way.
I just want to say that you can believe in God and be a rational intelligent person, and you can not believe in God and be an ethical person. But these attempts to try to prove these things some times start to make people look a bit zany.
“Ah, but the strawberries! That’s, that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist”. Captain Queeg.
You don’t have to justify considering yourself an intelligent rational person by trying to prove something like this. It really is a matter of faith.
Personally, I am a big fan of toleration and open mindedness. Sometimes discussions here get a little heated. So I just want to say that this is just my personal opinion.
However, if you don’t agree with me you are imbecile, and you are probably going to hell.