Dear God…

Yeah, i’ve already seen the whole “checkmate, atheists!” bit.

Next?

If there is a God who would prefer to remain mysteriously hidden, who decides he would prefer i “believe,” then i’m sure he’ll miracle me a religious experience, since he-who-knows-all-things-and-made-all-as-he-intended he can literally do anything he wants to do, being all-powerful and such. And if that doesn’t happen, then i shall assume that either there is no actual god, or that this alleged “God” prefers i remain skeptical. If He wants me to believe, he’ll make me. Otherwise, he doesn’t exist. Or he knows i think that, and doesn’t mind. If he’s okay with it, i’m okay with it. Or, he’s not real, and i’m okay with that too.

If i were to die and find myself “face-to-face” (because let’s face it – pun intended – once i die, i won’t have a “face”), i’ll be like “wtf dude?” And he’ll probably be like “BWAAAAHAHHAHA!! You should have seen your “face!” xD”

Meanwhile, back in reality…

temptation… so strong… must… resist…

“Proof”

google:
“evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”

merriam-webster:
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

3
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

thefreedicttionary:

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one’s beliefs to the proof.

dictionary.reference:

1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.
the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.
the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.
Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

Also of note:

“Evidence”

google:
“1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”

But, as any theist will tell you, “it’s not about ‘proof,’ it’s about faith!”

Faith:

google:

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Delusion:

google:

1.
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

I rest my case.

@lorax:

So what you’re really saying, is that your faith in your car’s ability to start upon turning the key, is actually dependent upon numerous observable conditions and measurable parameters? I don’t think that counts as faith.

I mean… you /know/ your car is actually a car, you can prove this, and you can observe, in reality, whether or not all of the necessary conditions to enable it to start, are aligned. It’s not actually faith. Your faith, in this case, is in the expectation that the parts and substances will not suddenly and inexplicably cease to function as expected, due to your understanding of the consistency of how materials and energy interact in the environment in which your car operates.

You can test all of those things, and verify your expectations to be reasonably justified. If something causes it to not start, you know there is either a breakdown in the cohesion of its various parts, or… the laws of physics have suddenly changed. It’s almost always the former.

@Amak:

I seriously doubt you can make a successfully overlapping argument, proving both wrong, while taking parts of each. God either exists, or it doesn’t. Either religions are correct, or they are not. Feel free to attempt, if you are so inclined.

@lorax:

So, what you’re saying is: it counts as “faith,” because you don’t have an adequate understanding of its functions, despite the knowledge being available to learn.

@SB:

Well, if god is literally omnipotent, then perhaps he has managed to both exist, and not exist, simultaneously. Since “God” lacks any discernible definition or limitations, you could say that “God” is literally able to do or be anything…

But can you prove it? Can you produce any evidence?

Should anyone believe anything that is not supported by evidence that can be discerned in observable reality? I would say “No,” but with one special exception: sometimes people need a special thing to believe, to have a reason to keep going. So, why not put that thing in the realm of what cannot be disproved, which could literally be anything you can imagine it to be? In fact, that’s almost exactly what happened. And this particular alleged entity, supposedly exists outside of “human” reasoning or logic.

@RT:

Dude… traffic… No.
I totally sympathize.

@SB:

Well, then, if what i need is a dead man whose body has long since disintegrated, then i guess i’m boned.

@lorax:

Perhaps it begins as superstition, and expectation of a result, due to observing the result connected to the action (flipping a switch), but the knowledge exists to explain why things work. I chose to attempt to understand why things work, rather than simply take them for granted.

Any electrical device can spontaneously fail, at pretty much any time, at various points of potential failure. That doesn’t mean thinking “it’s magic,” is the same thing as realizing that things we build can and do also break. I mean, i’m not a programmer or electrical engineer, but i have a rough understanding of why my electrical devices work when i turn them on, as well as the awareness that they might just not turn on one day. I won’t blame god or spirits, when this occurs, because i have an adequate understanding of how reality works, even without “perfect knowledge” being necessary.

So, either i’m some sort of genius, or you’re probably underestimating the human ability to know real things about real systems, based on a majority of willfully ignorant masses, who simply ignore their ability to acquire knowledge, and then blame everything on gods and spirits, or attribute all benefits to the same.

@numb_x:

theists argue that God is an entity that is both conscious and has intentionally created everything we can perceive. This is obviously an outrageous claim that bears supporting evidence to justify believing. But, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the claimant never brings any evidence, but instead, bases their entire premise on “faith,” there is, hence, never any evidence or proof produced.

@SB:

Ah, but isn’t the number ‘1’ just a faith-based false-construct? (lol)

How can you prove that numbers exist?

And don’t give me that “because we can test them” cop-out excuse. Math is the same thing as flinging poo at each other, because it’s impossible for anyone to know anything. Knowledge doesn’t exist. This comment is a figment of your imagination.

Lacking belief does not require proof or evidence to be a valid stance, when the claim it opposes, has never been legitimately substantiated.

The only side making a claim, is Theism. I hope they bring some supporting evidence to court! Otherwise, all the defense would have to say is: “your honor, the plaintiff refuses, or is unable, to produce any valid evidence to support their claims. Therefore, we find their claims to be unfounded, and invalid, until a time when they are willing or able to produce anything that can be construed as valid evidence in support of their claims.”

Now, the “anti-theism” V “theism” case might get interesting, because anti-T’s would have to show evidence of detriment reasonably attributed to the systems of belief. That’s one i’d like to see play out.

@lorax:

Everything was good until:

“All of the problems with theism are present in atheists because we all came from the same evolutionary tree.”

No. “ALL” of the problems with theism, are NOT present in atheists. And any that are, are not necessarily because we came from the same ancestral origin.

You have to understand that. There is a critical difference between the two approaches. If your mind understands them as both having the same problems, then you have completely missed the point of why the groups disagree (as most theists do, whether you are or not).

Like i said before: i don’t know how to explain that particularly critical difference. And here’s where i’ll submit to a Theism similarity: despite the fact that i seem unable to explain this difference to you, or anyone else who doesn’t want to perceive it, i can assure you that it does, in fact, exist.

Note that i’m not making outrageous claims of magic and miracles and supernature.

I’m simply saying that there is a difference of perception, and an important, critical distinction to make, about a realistic method of approaching attempting to understand reality, that either, i do not command my language well enough to explain, or others do not interpret my language, well enough to understand.

@lorax:

I wonder if you realize just how well you illustrated the point of contention that makes me feel like giving up and checking out.

You say “stuff that doesn’t really matter,” but you are doing exactly the thing… labeling me, defining me as part of a group, and not “getting” what i’m trying to explain, about just how much that particular distinction does matter.

What matters to me; to make that distinction, rather than being lumped into a group i do not belong to, and then treated as though everything i say is just “what that group says,” and then utterly dismissed, as though nothing i can say can have any value, due to your definition of my inclusion in that group… for which you are so vehemently arguing in support of… /doesn’t even matter/ to you.

People have put me in that position my entire life, and refuse to allow me to say anything that can change their perspective. I know they’re wrong, but they’re determined to solidify their own definition of me, before ever allowing themselves to understand what i’m trying to say.

So, regardless of how i define myself, others put me in a group, and in their eyes, that’s all i’ll ever be, no matter what i do. So, there is no point in even trying. And so i have to put “those people,” in “that group,” and rule out any possibility of wasting time trying to communicate with them.

Life could be so much better than what i’ve seen… but i am not allowed to make it any better, due to how others choose to define me, in which i have zero say.

That’s why it matters; but so many seem determined to believe otherwise, while often proving the opposite.

@lorax:

What’s ironic is that you’re doing the exact same thing that you say i’m doing, while i’m not actually doing that.

I’m not “using the word atheist to justify,” nor am i “identifying with a group.” I am using the literal meaning of the word (lack of belief in any god), to indicate my stance on an issue (the issue of whether any “God” exists, and whether that has any relevance in actual life; which is absolutely does).

The difference in the “box” that you mention, is that i allow people to get out of whatever box they put themselves in. You do not. You sit there saying “atheist, agnostic, theists, whatevers…” as if all those are “just groups,” or “social clubs people use to justify the exercises of their baser human tendencies…” rather than considering the nature of those terms, and the disparity among them.

People who believe in ridiculous things, form certain ideas, and adhere to certain ideals, which make them and i utterly incompatible. Interacting with people like that is a waste of my time. I don’t want to waste my time. Therefore: “those people” (who have chosen to remain in the box of their own choosing and definition) are in a group i define is being mentally incompatible, due to belief in something ridiculous, despite the fact that the means for understanding that, are certainly available. Some people like to think cars start by magic, but i know better. Some people like to think “refrigerator gods” are the reason their fridge stopped working. I know better.

People who don’t want to know better, can’t advance.

I want to advance. Ergo: i cannot allow myself to be disrupted and misdirected (like i am now) by people who do not want to advance, because they often attempt to prevent me from advancing as well. That is unacceptable, and i could certainly construe it as a serious threat to my well-being.

I’m saying there is a better approach to understanding the world more accurately, thus allowing for more efficient advancement, and others are saying that ignoring all the better “knowledge,” in favor of arbitrary belief in “magic,” is not just fine for themselves, but should be fine for everyone. Many of them even take it as far as ostracizing any who doesn’t believe what they do, or believes a better way exists. Some even take it as far as murder. Murder over their insistence to believe in magic. Genocide, even. These people are fucking insane! Some of them can’t help it, while others simply /choose/ to be insane. I want nothing to do with anyone like that. I simply allow them to define and confine themselves within whatever box they so choose. That doesn’t mean i can’t say “they’re wrong.” It doesn’t mean i’m “putting them in” that box. It doesn’t mean i’m stopping them from choosing otherwise. I’m simply criticizing them for what is, quite apparently, an utterly ridiculous, possibly vastly detrimental, stupid choice.

I don’t like people who make a habit out of stupid choices, and willful ignorance. I can’t just get along with everyone, i have to draw a line somewhere, and choose a worthy criteria of judgement. This one is worthy. This one, if i live by it, cuts out a huge amount of bullshit that i would otherwise have to directly encounter, which i would not be able to resolve. Rather than constantly fighting with something i can’t beat, i would rather avoid it, by using a reliable heuristic to determine who is, or isn’t, worth my time.

There are atheists i can’t stand, as well. But cutting out that one huge factor of “God belief” vastly reduces the amount of hay that must be sorted, to find the needles.

I need to find the right group for myself, so that i can prosper in cooperation with people who have similar ideals, character traits, and values. I know those people are not part of the “religion” spectrum, and i know it’s futile to attempt to explain my position to “religious people.” They have already decided to not understand, to reject the potential for a better way than theirs, to exist. They have chosen willful ignorance, and false belief. That doesn’t work for me, and i can’t fix them, so i would rather leave them in their box that they have defined. I didn’t make that box, i didn’t put them in it, and they can get out, if they choose. But instead, they choose to remain in the box, accuse me of building it, putting them in it, and doing all the things that it’s actually them, doing to me. What a fucking waste of time! That’s what i call “detrimental effects, resulting from belief.”

@ifound:

No, You.

The idea of people frothing at the mouth, rioting, murdering each other, insisting that there is a “God,” and that i’m supposed to find all this acceptable, and tolerate it, or even comply with it, is what is “ridiculous.” It’s absurd, heinous, foul, vile, disgusting, and shameful.

What’s worse, is that not enough people even want it to change.

Perhaps that assumes that all humans /want/ to make whatever excuse to attack each other. I don’t think that’s an accurate assumption, though it may indeed represent a majority, which i’m sure would cross religious lines.

Then again, there are some “underpinnings” which just about all religions share, regardless of the differences in what they actually believe.

Yes, we are creative enough to make an argument for just about anything. But are we all necessarily inclined to, and giving into temptation for, doing mostly bad or harmful things to each other? I don’t think so.

I think lots of people work the opposite: we want to create a universal argument for Not harming each other, but instead for cooperation and a sustainable world, with only special exceptions for instances of violence, like when someone is trying to kill you, or trying to grievously injure you or a loved one, or even a random stranger on the street, who seems helpless to observers.

“What happened in the eastern bloc countries during the cold war,” does not represent everything that will ever happen in the future. It is a specific set of circumstances and conditions, at a certain point in time. Those “statistics” don’t mean that’s how humans will always interact with each other. It just means shit happened and people were out of control, because they felt justified, for whatever reason.

Humans are human. Most of us will choose to feel good, when it’s available. Not everyone is just itching for the next chance to rip out the throat of a random stranger.

@SB: Ah! Yes.

@C4:

“…but in my experience reality hasn’t afforded me the luxury of enough spare time or funds to pursue the seemingly impossible goals I once had.”

This is the crux of my recent emphasis on the necessity of compatibility and integration of subsistence and advancement.

If we’re forced to choose survival before advancement, and survival takes all our time and energy, then there is nothing left for advancement, thereby perpetuating the problem that makes many lives not worth living.

If we can’t do both at the same time, then survival isn’t even worth the effort.

Guise, guise…

There is no “meaning of life.” The need for an intrinsic meaning of life to exist, is just an indoctrinated construct.

Also: i didn’t say mating was the only purpose. It’s just the one that tips the scale from “not worth it” to “worth it.”

We don’t have to be “more intrinsically meaningful and significant on a global scale, than bacteria.”

In order to fight to remain alive, i must want to remain alive. In order to want to remain alive, i must feel that the gains are worth the pains. If they aren’t, then we can either assume that’s just that, or we can evaluate the circumstances and attempt to change them. If what is lacking cannot be found, and/or if what is so wrong that life is not worth living, without fixing, cannot be fixed… we end up ‘here,’ or anywhere, wondering what next, and whether there is any suitable consolation prize to be had for our efforts.

@C4:

re: F-Hostile…

I flipped my car to that song! Probably why i was ‘miraculously’ unharmed (aside from a tiny scratch and lingering neck problems).

So this thread has been resurrected.

Apparently, there IS a God!

@re: free dissemination of dangerous information:

Idealistically, i agree with allowing everyone to access all information, for the particular dynamic that it would result in placing the burden of responsibility and accountability for what they choose to do with said information, squarely upon them, rather than being allowed to claim ignorance or religious-belief-based immunity to rules.

The best way to stop people from believing that claiming “it’s god’s will” is a valid stance to assume, is to give them free access to all information, and through education, develop in them, the tools to understand the information they encounter.

If they then claim to not understand, despite the best efforts to ensure they do, then we can justifiably label them “mentally incompetent,” and further, justifiably relegate them to an isolated and contained area, removed from free and free-thinking society.

I’m less worried about “crisis-chat-type,” and more worried about “christ-chat-type.”

I’ll take the former over the latter any day. (though i’ve never even attempted to use crisis-chat)

@Duke:

The problem with exploration is that sometimes you find things you might wish you hadn’t. Any explorer should be prepared to encounter things they don’t want to find, which sometimes includes people who think or feel or say or do, or base their perception and actions upon, things you will not approve of.

It seems like you’re making a somewhat noble assumption that everyone is supposed to respect all other people’s views, even the incompatible and contradictory ones, by default. While i suppose that’s a good and justified characteristic to include in any initial approach (give everyone a chance to earn respect), it does not automatically follow that such an aspect must be maintained, despite finding traits one might not wish to encounter, honor, or encourage.

There is no rule that says i have to approve of that which i must preclude from approval, just like there is no rule that says that anyone else has to like me, or agree with me, or even give me a chance to express what i wish to convey. There is no obligation in interaction. I can choose to begin, and you can choose to walk away, or vice versa.

What really sucks is when you talk to someone for hours, thinking they’re pretty great or interesting… and then eventually, they finally reveal something that negates any further desire to interact with them… or vice versa. That’s a lot of wasted time and energy. I prefer to be as direct as possible, as soon as possible, because i am quite sure that i will have to sort through countless people, for an indefinite amount of time, to find any with whom i might actually find a mutual desire to continue interaction. Very few people will be compatible with me, and i will be compatible with very few people… and far fewer are the chances for both sides of that potential interaction to actually agree, and result in a new friendship where both are mutually interested in maintaining it.

If i decide someone is unacceptable to me, i would prefer they know as soon as possible, because i don’t like wasting their time, or mine, and i would hope someone else would do that for me, should they find me unacceptable. If we could all just agree not to waste each other’s time and energy, and to strive to avoid harmful impacts to others, as a general rule of human decency, maybe the world would be a better place. But since i can’t just go around arbitrarily expecting such things, i take initiative and focus my efforts in such ways, because if i want something done right, i must do it myself, rather than just waiting around for any/everyone else to do what i wish would happen.

There is nothing stopping anyone from exploring… except the explorers, and those being explored. Some people see right away, indications that they should not explore, and/or would not find something they want, by exploring that place/person. Some people don’t want anyone to explore them. They just want to say what they want to say, have everyone accept it as it is, for what it is, and tell them they’re right and good and that everything will be fine. Some people want “support,” rather than help with getting to the sources of the causes of their effects. I tend to disagree with that approach, because we shouldn’t be encouraging things to stay the bad ways they have become; we should be striving to solve problems that make us miserable.

“We like broken hearts not lost causes. Just like them.”

This is why people like me end up isolated. No one likes lost causes.

robbie’s post seems pretty legit. That’s the only one of ‘those’ that i’ve seen, and i read most of the comments. There’s some very interesting stuff in there.

@RT: i don’t want to say “i told you so…”

30+ changes things, especially while aging with injuries like yours. You’re going to have to find a less physical way of doing things, or a way to mitigate the pain to a reliably manageable level.