Correction...i'm pretty open to the possibility of God. Show me any evidence.....any at all. And we can chat. Unless I'm willfully hostile to unicorns, dragons, and Justin Bieber's talent.....I find your characterization passively aggressive and weak.
I will be in town to play for the Royal Cup either on my own team or as a pick up. If you will allow me to take you out to dinner and talk for 45 min. to an hour, I will make The Case For The Possibility of God as you put it; on two conditions: 1) I am allowed to pray for the food at the beginning of the meal and our time together at the end of time. 2) I pay for the dinner.. We can meet Friday October 24th 8pm. I will PM you details as the date approaches. This isn’t a debate, just me talking and you listening for an hour as I lay out The Case For The Possibility of God. Let me know!
Brent
PS Think about it for a week, if you decline, no worries, I will make the above offer to anyone else, Mark, Shtebs, Trigs etc.
All right, I will take off my conditions. If your are serious about the The Case For The Possibility of God then it only is an hour of your time face to face. Not a debate, but a presentation for The Case For The Possibility of God.
All right, I will take off my conditions. If your are serious about the The Case For The Possibility of God then it only is an hour of your time face to face. Not a debate, but a presentation for The Case For The Possibility of God.
Brent
I appreciate the offer and I don't want to waste your and my time. The reality is this is what would happen. Forgive my presumptuousness but allow me to explain.
The issue with this, Brent, is that what you think constitutes proof will not sway Nik, Mark, myself and those like us in the least. If your case for the possibility of god contains ANY scriptural passages, you've already lost all credibility in our eyes for reasons repeated ad nauseam in this and other threads. The bible was not created by a divine being. It was also not created by men who were "inspired" by a divine being. As a matter of fact there is some really dated, barbaric and quite simply atrocious content in the bible. Yes, there are some passages that are "do unto other as..." and those are good but they hardly make up for a lot of the stone age mentality content.
Secondly, if any of your proof is based on the wonder of nature and the natural world then you have to prove that it has anything to do with your god. Every religion claims, to some degree, that anything amazing and wondrous is proof of THEIR god. They all provide no explanation or proof of why we should believe it's caused by their god (or gods) more so than any other religions' deities.
Personal or anecdotal stories of something incredible that happened that defies explanation is also not a valid reason to believe in any particular god. Every single faith has these stories and every one claims that they are absolutely true and the "know" their god was the cause. This is not grounds to believe because they can't all be telling the truth. Even if they all actually experienced something they are unable to explain it doesn't mean we should rush to attribute it to the supernatural. No matter how "impossible". Quite simply, we do not know or understand everything about our natural world and if we stuck with the knowledge the earliest men had and attributed everything unknown to "god" we would still be living in caves trembling at the sound of angry gods raging. Or, as we know it now, thunder.
I'm willing to hear someone out but there comes a point when the same staid old arguments just become tiresome and pointless. I have had these types of debates with people of multiple faiths or spiritualities and the "proofs" are always... and I mean ALWAYS the same. The moment I point out a very obvious lapse in logic of flaw in one of their "proofs" they abandon it and throw something else at me not at all realizing their truly ironic behavior. That the very basis for their beliefs are not required to maintain the beliefs. Ladies and gentlemen, faith!
I appreciate the offer and I don't want to waste your and my time. The reality is this is what would happen. Forgive my presumptuousness but allow me to explain.
The issue with this, Brent, is that what you think constitutes proof will not sway Nik, Mark, myself and those like us in the least. If your case for the possibility of god contains ANY scriptural passages, you've already lost all credibility in our eyes for reasons repeated ad nauseam in this and other threads. The bible was not created by a divine being. It was also not created by men who were "inspired" by a divine being. As a matter of fact there is some really dated, barbaric and quite simply atrocious content in the bible. Yes, there are some passages that are "do unto other as..." and those are good but they hardly make up for a lot of the stone age mentality content.
Secondly, if any of your proof is based on the wonder of nature and the natural world then you have to prove that it has anything to do with your god. Every religion claims, to some degree, that anything amazing and wondrous is proof of THEIR god. They all provide no explanation or proof of why we should believe it's caused by their god (or gods) more so than any other religions' deities.
Personal or anecdotal stories of something incredible that happened that defies explanation is also not a valid reason to believe in any particular god. Every single faith has these stories and every one claims that they are absolutely true and the "know" their god was the cause. This is not grounds to believe because they can't all be telling the truth. Even if they all actually experienced something they are unable to explain it doesn't mean we should rush to attribute it to the supernatural. No matter how "impossible". Quite simply, we do not know or understand everything about our natural world and if we stuck with the knowledge the earliest men had and attributed everything unknown to "god" we would still be living in caves trembling at the sound of angry gods raging. Or, as we know it now, thunder.
I'm willing to hear someone out but there comes a point when the same staid old arguments just become tiresome and pointless. I have had these types of debates with people of multiple faiths or spiritualities and the "proofs" are always... and I mean ALWAYS the same. The moment I point out a very obvious lapse in logic of flaw in one of their "proofs" they abandon it and throw something else at me not at all realizing their truly ironic behavior. That the very basis for their beliefs are not required to maintain the beliefs. Ladies and gentlemen, faith!
Shtebs,
Thanks for your well laid out response. Forgive me for including you or trying to get you to enter the conversation as it was Nik that said he was able to "listen to The Case for the Possiblity of God. I have put your shouldn't have put your name into a claim that Nik made. I know your mind is made up, but I was willing to engage Nik beccause he said he was "open".
I know these things can tend to go in circles. I also know it can be difficult for Christians to defend their faith against athesim.
The good thing for me is you didn't touch on many of the arguments I would start with building my case.
I hope to see you again at a tournament someday.
Brent
PS the wasting time line = that's why I was willing to pay for dinner so it wouldn't be a waste of time ... this way you get a free dinner.
Lets say the possibility of God is 1 in a googleplex.
If there are negative consequences for "coming out" as an atheist. Is it worth it to just pretend not to be an atheist? Are you free rolling heaven? The god in the bible doesn't seem very good at picking off bluffs.
Lets say the possibility of God is 1 in a googleplex.
If there are negative consequences for "coming out" as an atheist. Is it worth it to just pretend not to be an atheist? Are you free rolling heaven? The god in the bible doesn't seem very good at picking off bluffs.
This is called Pascal's wager... Why not hedge your bets? Pretend to believe and you're good.....except that you forgot the thought police: I have sinned in my THOUGHTS and deeds....in what I have done and failed to do. Either way screwed. But if you repent honestly on your deathbed: all good.
Or you could be to thine own self be true. Whichever you like I guess.
Thanks for your well laid out response. Forgive me for including you or trying to get you to enter the conversation as it was Nik that said he was able to "listen to The Case for the Possiblity of God. I have put your shouldn't have put your name into a claim that Nik made. I know your mind is made up, but I was willing to engage Nik beccause he said he was "open".
I know these things can tend to go in circles. I also know it can be difficult for Christians to defend their faith against athesim.
The good thing for me is you didn't touch on many of the arguments I would start with building my case.
I hope to see you again at a tournament someday.
Brent
PS the wasting time line = that's why I was willing to pay for dinner so it wouldn't be a waste of time ... this way you get a free dinner.
Unfortunately Schtebs is not only my financial advisor and sexual confidant but also my spiritual advisor....I defer to his well worded prose as I couldn't possibly improve while also being as tactful. And as for your offer of a meal in exchange for the possibility of salvation, my mother in law dines with me often enough that I dare say I'm immune to the food and Jesus tactic.
This is called Pascal's wager... Why not hedge your bets? Pretend to believe and you're good.....except that you forgot the thought police: I have sinned in my THOUGHTS and deeds....in what I have done and failed to do. Either way screwed. But if you repent honestly on your deathbed: all good.
Or you could be to thine own self be true. Whichever you like I guess.
Any sufficiently advanced hypocrisy is indistinguishable from faith.
Keep working on your bluffing, You may need to bluff God!
Unfortunately Schtebs is not only my financial advisor and sexual confidant but also my spiritual advisor....I defer to his well worded prose as I couldn't possibly improve while also being as tactful. And as for your offer of a meal in exchange for the possibility of salvation, my mother in law dines with me often enough that I dare say I'm immune to the food and Jesus tactic.
Forget the food and the barbs and jabs and rhetoric. In all reality, I have said my peace in this thread, but THEN you made the statement:
Originally Posted by 800OVER View Post
Correction...i'm pretty open to the possibility of God. Show me any evidence.....any at all. And we can chat.
I thought you were being sincere with this statement. So I took you up on the offer for a face to face sit down. I stand corrected. The reality is, you AREN'T open to the possibility of God.
I am not trying to “save you” not my job. Sorry for trying to take you up on your offer TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCES.
Forget the food and the barbs and jabs and rhetoric. In all reality, I have said my peace in this thread, but THEN you made the statement:
Originally Posted by 800OVER View Post
Correction...i'm pretty open to the possibility of God. Show me any evidence.....any at all. And we can chat.
I thought you were being sincere with this statement. So I took you up on the offer for a face to face sit down. I stand corrected. The reality is, you AREN'T open to the possibility of God.
I am not trying to “save you” not my job. Sorry for trying to take you up on your offer TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCES.
Brent
Nice..
Go on the offensive. Solid tactic that.
Well, not necessarily offensive, more the passive-aggressive, but a solid tactic.
He offered to take Nik out for dinner in order to put forth his case in person, based on Nik's comments about being open to the possibility of God's existence. When Nik demurred using Shtebs post as justification for doing so, it seems to contradict his earlier statement about openness.
Isn't Brent justified in calling him on that? If not, why not?
Anyone take the time to read what I wrote? or do you just read what you think I wrote. I wrote
Show me some evidence and we can talk.
Prophet has turned this into:
Hey girl....I've got this really awesome thing I want to show you....come over to my house and I'll tell you all about it. No no really....I'm a really awesome guy...and I want to tell you about me. I can't tell you about me HERE. You have to come over to my house to find out.
Or the knock at the door "can we come in and speak to you about the Lord?"
HELL NO. The showing of the evidence precedes the talking. I'm not the least bit interested in finding out the argument is ridiculous after I'm already out for lunch. I'm not sincere cause I don't want to have lunch with someone? Sounds pretty Culty to me.
Hey Milo,
If a scientologist invited you out....would you want to go and "hear what he has to say"....nope.
So, he's open to a discussion on the possibility of God, but he gets to pick and choose the presenter? Not very open minded . . .
THIS is a discussion. Present away! Knock it out of the park. You've had all the opportunity. This should be easy. Show us some evidence. Believe me....it is a lot easier to walk around believing what everyone else believes. It would be fascinating/life changing to see some evidence. But apparently it is a big secret. I'll leave you with a quote from Sam Harris about having EVERYONE'S opinion heard:
"Well, one thing to notice is that we do something different when talking about morality -- especially secular, academic, scientist types. When talking about morality we value differences of opinion in a way that we don't in any other area of our lives. So, for instance the Dalai Lama gets up every morning meditating on compassion, and he thinks that helping other human beings is an integral component of human happiness. On the other hand, we have someone like Ted Bundy; Ted Bundy was very fond of abducting and raping and torturing and killing young women.
14:34
So, we appear to have a genuine difference of opinion about how to profitably use one's time. (Laughter) Most Western intellectuals look at this situation and say, "Well, there's nothing for the Dalai Lama to be really right about -- really right about -- or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about that admits of a real argument that potentially falls within the purview of science. He likes chocolate, he likes vanilla. There's nothing that one should be able to say to the other that should persuade the other." Notice that we don't do this in science.
15:12
On the left you have Edward Witten. He's a string theorist. If you ask the smartest physicists around who is the smartest physicist around, in my experience half of them will say Ed Witten. The other half will tell you they don't like the question. (Laughter) So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference and said,"String theory is bogus. It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to view the universe at a small scale. I'm not a fan." (Laughter) Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist; I don't understand string theory. I'm the Ted Bundy of string theory. (Laughter) I wouldn't want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.
15:58
But this is just the point. Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count. How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering? Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. (Laughter) How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human well-being? (Applause)"
I'm not saying that anyone here is the Ted Bundy of Christianity....but Prophet is no Ed Witten. If this thread was called the case for God it would fucking empty.
If a scientologist invited you out....would you want to go and "hear what he has to say"....nope.
Actually, many years ago, I did give a pair the chance to pitch me . . . was in a phase of looking into other beliefs at the time. Would I do so now? no, but I have done so.
Comments
All right, I will take off my conditions. If your are serious about the The Case For The Possibility of God then it only is an hour of your time face to face. Not a debate, but a presentation for The Case For The Possibility of God.
Brent
I appreciate the offer and I don't want to waste your and my time. The reality is this is what would happen. Forgive my presumptuousness but allow me to explain.
The issue with this, Brent, is that what you think constitutes proof will not sway Nik, Mark, myself and those like us in the least. If your case for the possibility of god contains ANY scriptural passages, you've already lost all credibility in our eyes for reasons repeated ad nauseam in this and other threads. The bible was not created by a divine being. It was also not created by men who were "inspired" by a divine being. As a matter of fact there is some really dated, barbaric and quite simply atrocious content in the bible. Yes, there are some passages that are "do unto other as..." and those are good but they hardly make up for a lot of the stone age mentality content.
Secondly, if any of your proof is based on the wonder of nature and the natural world then you have to prove that it has anything to do with your god. Every religion claims, to some degree, that anything amazing and wondrous is proof of THEIR god. They all provide no explanation or proof of why we should believe it's caused by their god (or gods) more so than any other religions' deities.
Personal or anecdotal stories of something incredible that happened that defies explanation is also not a valid reason to believe in any particular god. Every single faith has these stories and every one claims that they are absolutely true and the "know" their god was the cause. This is not grounds to believe because they can't all be telling the truth. Even if they all actually experienced something they are unable to explain it doesn't mean we should rush to attribute it to the supernatural. No matter how "impossible". Quite simply, we do not know or understand everything about our natural world and if we stuck with the knowledge the earliest men had and attributed everything unknown to "god" we would still be living in caves trembling at the sound of angry gods raging. Or, as we know it now, thunder.
I'm willing to hear someone out but there comes a point when the same staid old arguments just become tiresome and pointless. I have had these types of debates with people of multiple faiths or spiritualities and the "proofs" are always... and I mean ALWAYS the same. The moment I point out a very obvious lapse in logic of flaw in one of their "proofs" they abandon it and throw something else at me not at all realizing their truly ironic behavior. That the very basis for their beliefs are not required to maintain the beliefs. Ladies and gentlemen, faith!
Shtebs,
Thanks for your well laid out response. Forgive me for including you or trying to get you to enter the conversation as it was Nik that said he was able to "listen to The Case for the Possiblity of God. I have put your shouldn't have put your name into a claim that Nik made. I know your mind is made up, but I was willing to engage Nik beccause he said he was "open".
I know these things can tend to go in circles. I also know it can be difficult for Christians to defend their faith against athesim.
The good thing for me is you didn't touch on many of the arguments I would start with building my case.
I hope to see you again at a tournament someday.
Brent
PS the wasting time line = that's why I was willing to pay for dinner so it wouldn't be a waste of time ... this way you get a free dinner.
Total Followers 3!!
I really hate that choice of word
If there are negative consequences for "coming out" as an atheist. Is it worth it to just pretend not to be an atheist? Are you free rolling heaven? The god in the bible doesn't seem very good at picking off bluffs.
This is called Pascal's wager... Why not hedge your bets? Pretend to believe and you're good.....except that you forgot the thought police: I have sinned in my THOUGHTS and deeds....in what I have done and failed to do. Either way screwed. But if you repent honestly on your deathbed: all good.
Or you could be to thine own self be true. Whichever you like I guess.
Unfortunately Schtebs is not only my financial advisor and sexual confidant but also my spiritual advisor....I defer to his well worded prose as I couldn't possibly improve while also being as tactful. And as for your offer of a meal in exchange for the possibility of salvation, my mother in law dines with me often enough that I dare say I'm immune to the food and Jesus tactic.
Any sufficiently advanced hypocrisy is indistinguishable from faith.
Keep working on your bluffing, You may need to bluff God!
Forget the food and the barbs and jabs and rhetoric. In all reality, I have said my peace in this thread, but THEN you made the statement:
Originally Posted by 800OVER View Post
Correction...i'm pretty open to the possibility of God. Show me any evidence.....any at all. And we can chat.
I thought you were being sincere with this statement. So I took you up on the offer for a face to face sit down. I stand corrected. The reality is, you AREN'T open to the possibility of God.
I am not trying to “save you” not my job. Sorry for trying to take you up on your offer TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCES.
Brent
Nice..
Go on the offensive. Solid tactic that.
Well, not necessarily offensive, more the passive-aggressive, but a solid tactic.
Mark
Troll quota getting low?
Mark
Isn't Brent justified in calling him on that? If not, why not?
Being open to the possibility of God… Does not mean that you HAVE TO consider Brent to be a valid source to present such proofs.
Show me some evidence and we can talk.
Prophet has turned this into:
Hey girl....I've got this really awesome thing I want to show you....come over to my house and I'll tell you all about it. No no really....I'm a really awesome guy...and I want to tell you about me. I can't tell you about me HERE. You have to come over to my house to find out.
Or the knock at the door "can we come in and speak to you about the Lord?"
HELL NO. The showing of the evidence precedes the talking. I'm not the least bit interested in finding out the argument is ridiculous after I'm already out for lunch. I'm not sincere cause I don't want to have lunch with someone? Sounds pretty Culty to me.
Hey Milo,
If a scientologist invited you out....would you want to go and "hear what he has to say"....nope.
THIS is a discussion. Present away! Knock it out of the park. You've had all the opportunity. This should be easy. Show us some evidence. Believe me....it is a lot easier to walk around believing what everyone else believes. It would be fascinating/life changing to see some evidence. But apparently it is a big secret. I'll leave you with a quote from Sam Harris about having EVERYONE'S opinion heard:
"Well, one thing to notice is that we do something different when talking about morality -- especially secular, academic, scientist types. When talking about morality we value differences of opinion in a way that we don't in any other area of our lives. So, for instance the Dalai Lama gets up every morning meditating on compassion, and he thinks that helping other human beings is an integral component of human happiness. On the other hand, we have someone like Ted Bundy; Ted Bundy was very fond of abducting and raping and torturing and killing young women.
14:34
So, we appear to have a genuine difference of opinion about how to profitably use one's time. (Laughter) Most Western intellectuals look at this situation and say, "Well, there's nothing for the Dalai Lama to be really right about -- really right about -- or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about that admits of a real argument that potentially falls within the purview of science. He likes chocolate, he likes vanilla. There's nothing that one should be able to say to the other that should persuade the other." Notice that we don't do this in science.
15:12
On the left you have Edward Witten. He's a string theorist. If you ask the smartest physicists around who is the smartest physicist around, in my experience half of them will say Ed Witten. The other half will tell you they don't like the question. (Laughter) So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference and said,"String theory is bogus. It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to view the universe at a small scale. I'm not a fan." (Laughter) Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist; I don't understand string theory. I'm the Ted Bundy of string theory. (Laughter) I wouldn't want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.
15:58
But this is just the point. Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count. How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering? Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. (Laughter) How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human well-being? (Applause)"
I'm not saying that anyone here is the Ted Bundy of Christianity....but Prophet is no Ed Witten. If this thread was called the case for God it would fucking empty.
But did Nik just accuse Brent of trying to date-rape him?
That's hot.
You have to give me credit for calling him a "Not Bundy"
...but let's get to what e'rrybodies thinking now
Even if only temporarily...
Actually, many years ago, I did give a pair the chance to pitch me . . . was in a phase of looking into other beliefs at the time. Would I do so now? no, but I have done so.
Model 1:
Empiricism, Pragmatism.
Parsimony.
Model 2:
What's written in their preferred texts. (their dogma)
Which model to do you use?
If someone is arguing using Model 1 they can't win an argument with someone using Model 2.
Similarly someone using Model 2 will never convince someone using Model 1.
Right?
Religious Sites Carry More Malware Than Porn Sites, Security Firm Reports | TechHive
Dr Tyore will be so proud...
I have to say I have fewer viruses these days....verified.