Christianity shrinking in U.S.; Mormon numbers essentially flat

[Siro]

People can't even agree on what "proof" is or would be.

What's your point?

Quit the nonsense. There is no way to prove anything doesn't exist. I think unicorns exist. I feel it in my heart. This belief has informed all of my decisions and guided me thus far. How dare you doubt the power of the unicorn?!

Asking someone to prove something that is based on nothing but your own QUALIA is nonsensical. Present something that can be meaningfully proven, then we can talk about how such a task can be accomplished.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I was interested in portions of this conversation. Then I remained interested in things adjacent to what the conversation had become. Then things got into full wishy washy. Where's your problem?

Not really a problem. I did find it fairly funny that you would post about something in order to say it was boring and you didn't want to talk about it. That's all.

 

[babe]

People can't even agree on what "proof" is or would be.

What's your point?

People can't even define a "point", so what's your beef?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I made no assumptions. If God is undefinable outside of personal experiences, then he/she/it is made up as you go along. Like LITERALLY. I don't see the controversy.

Yes, your post definitely has assumptions. The same as your jump from God being undefinable outside of personal experiences to God being made up as you go along. Quite the jump.

Name me one thing that can be defined outside of personal experience?

Everything in life goes back to a personal experience of someone at some time, somewhere.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

People can't even define a "point", so what's your beef?

People can't even define "beef".

So what's your deal?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Quit the nonsense. There is no way to prove anything doesn't exist. I think unicorns exist. I feel it in my heart. This belief has informed all of my decisions and guided me thus far. How dare you doubt the power of the unicorn?!

Asking someone to prove something that is based on nothing but your own QUALIA is nonsensical. Present something that can be meaningfully proven, then we can talk about how such a task can be accomplished.

I'm happy for you. I hope you find all the happiness your belief in unicorns can bring you. I hope you find your unicorn.

Please, on a different note tell me about your ideas of what/how things can be "meaningfully proven".
What is your definition of this.
Give me some examples.

Maybe use the existence of your mother as your example. How do you prove her existence less all of your personal experiences with her... and other people's personal experiences as well.

 

[Siro]

So the argument is "my feelings explain all of existence unless you prove my feelings wrong". Pretty much the level of discourse I expected. I guess I'll go watch some basketball.

 

[Gameface]

Yes, your post definitely has assumptions. The same as your jump from God being undefinable outside of personal experiences to God being made up as you go along. Quite the jump.

Name me one thing that can be defined outside of personal experience?

Everything in life goes back to a personal experience of someone at some time, somewhere.

In your view what is the basis for the claim that God exists?

 

[babe]

People define themselves in a significant way by what they love. Maybe we define "God" as the ultimate hope or ultimate virtue or ultimate authority, or ultimate whatever it is we love. Science can be something we love just as well, same with government, or corporations, or some world view. But whatever it is we love most sorta always becomes a sort of "god" to us. We will worship ourselves if nothing else seems to deserve our love.

I count it as theoretical gain if we can imagine something more important and more fundamentally significant than ones own self.

Don't be afraid of imagining something better than what is known. It's a healthy exercise.

 

[babe]

In your view what is the basis for the claim that God exists?

people have a variety of concepts, a prevalent one is the common "scientific" strategy of extrapolation. Since we have our parents and children of our own, it is easy to project a line of continuity with that data out into the origins of the universe and out into the unending future. Since we teach children what we know, we expect "God" will try to teach us too.

Everything Siro thinks he knows about evolution or social progress is pretty much about the same kind of process. Scientists, and religious folks, and even completely indifferent homebrewers apply similar logic to achieve a self-consistent notion of what is, of what has been, and what will be. We are not really all that different.

It's just that we each insist on our own privilege to do all this.

 

[babe]

In your view what is the basis for the claim that God exists?

This is essentially the same issue Siro is talking about, and it's understandable.

I can't really speak for anyone else, and I can't really tell you or Siro how to develop a "basis" that will satisfy your judgment.

What I would respect the most in any atheist or any believer in something different from my own, is respect for what I am, unless there are specific reasons to disrespect that. Probably if I want that, I should be willing to offer the same to others.

I have believed in God all my life, and have only ventured out theoretically trying to see how others believe what they do. My specific reasons to "disrespect" other beliefs is mostly based on outcomes or actions following from, imo, mostly not even caring to try to do the best things with our time and resources in this life. "Immorality" is essentially wasted time, wasted effort, or worse, harm to others. I have to nudge myself to respect "good times" people seek like a game night at Game's house, but there's a lot of folks who really value the chance to meet other people and enjoy some good time together playing a decently challenging game, and enjoying some very good home brew. Sometimes I just have to accept I have some priorities that might be cheating me out of some good times.

I have always recognized that belief in God is not done according to the scientific method, but more like the way I choose to love someone. Do I need a reason? Should anyone ask me to justify it?

Should I ask Game to justify the things he loves?

 

[NAOS]

Not really a problem. I did find it fairly funny that you would post about something in order to say it was boring and you didn't want to talk about it. That's all.

Look, you and Howard both tried to insert smoke and mirrors at different times in this discussion. They were different smokes and different mirrors, and you both probably had different reasons for inserting them. It isn't weird or funny that I pointed out how they tried to re-direct the conversation and/or jump over points, and how I wasn't interested in going there if that is what had to happen. All this, without even addressing how you both were using very time-honored and boring smokes and mirrors. I've heard them; yawn.

 

[RandyForRubio]

For somebody who has everything figured out, you sure aren't a very happy person NAOS. I truly hope that someday you become a happy, joyful person.

 

[Gameface]

I've heard that ignorance is bliss

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I believe in a tiny blue God who made me in his image, and although I recognize and respect the rights of others to disagree, you all still must die, as has been prosthelitized.

 

[NAOS]

For somebody who has everything figured out, you sure aren't a very happy person NAOS. I truly hope that someday you become a happy, joyful person.

Is this how you act when you can't sack up and join an adult conversation? How often does this happen to you?

Your quoted post contains my "favorite" kind of comment, btw..........

.... it comes from a person cornered by converging, strict asceticisms....
trying to convince himself that he's adopted the true, just values (while largely missing out the empowering process of creating his own).....
and when the only thing you have left in your arsenal is to point to the apparent 'unhappiness' of the other, while affecting this laughable certainty that you and 'your values' have given you some inside-track to happiness. LMFAO, gui.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

I like how atheist statist take all benefits of Christian society then curse on Christ. Just wait 50 years until there is no longer Christian morality. Your children will curse you for this mess you are creating.

 

[NAOS]

I like how atheist statist take all benefits of Christian society then curse on Christ. Just wait 50 years until there is no longer Christian morality. Your children will curse you for this mess you are creating.

I'll have kids in fifty years?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Look, you and Howard both tried to insert smoke and mirrors at different times in this discussion. They were different smokes and different mirrors, and you both probably had different reasons for inserting them. It isn't weird or funny that I pointed out how they tried to re-direct the conversation and/or jump over points, and how I wasn't interested in going there if that is what had to happen. All this, without even addressing how you both were using very time-honored and boring smokes and mirrors. I've heard them; yawn.

No smoke, no mirrors. I just addressed a point in a post of GF's that I felt like bringing up.

He made a point that all of the religious people he talked to worship a different God.
I see it as possible that all of those people can worship the same God, but understand/explain/see/etc the same being in different ways.

I used the concert/accident/school/etc as a real life example of something similar.
It is fact, even in your zero faith world, that in many, many, many cases witnesses to some incident all witnessed the same thing and saw completely different things or explained it in very different terms/ways.

Not a whole lot different than this imo.

But... go ahead and attempt to discredit using your lame "smoke and mirrors" and other cliche lame excuses to not even try to understand the point I made.
Classic NAOS, imo.

My original post was specifically directed at that one comment of GF. Not directed at the whole of this thread, or anything any other poster stated.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

So the argument is "my feelings explain all of existence unless you prove my feelings wrong". Pretty much the level of discourse I expected. I guess I'll go watch some basketball.

Not really, but even if it was, that's essentially your argument for why God does not exist. How is that any different.

You can't prove it, but unless God comes down and talks to you... must not be true.

Enjoy the bball.