The Bible God or Kali

July 8th, 2016 at 9:33:01 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Aussie

And it IS all about believing whatever you like. That's the whole basis of freedom of thought and freedom of religion. You can believe whatever far-fetched fantasy you want in whatever field of life you want and no one can tell you not to. More power to you. :)


This doesn't make any sense. You are not free to believe whatever you want, at least if you want what you believe to be true and beneficial. We are after truth not just our opinions or far-fetched ideas. I have no interest in believing in something just because it sounds good, is nice, or because it is what I want. I only want to believe what is true. The basis of all thought and religion is seeking truth. In fact this should be the very basis of our whole lives. Freedom is not to just believe whatever you want, but true freedom is to used to discover truth!
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
July 8th, 2016 at 9:35:46 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Evenbob
It's much like innocent until proven guilty.
No proof, no guilt. You start with the premise
that no god exists, and try to prove there
is one. God people are confused because
they do it backwards. They use the premise
god is real, and then try and prove he's not. They
can't, so of course their premise must be
correct. They put themselves in a box of their
own making and try and drag us in there with
them.


So are you saying that it only matters where you begin? If you begin with there is no God then no one can prove you wrong and if you begin with there is a God then no one can prove you wrong? Is there any reason to begin with the idea that there is no God versus the idea that there is a God?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
July 8th, 2016 at 10:23:25 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
The basis of all thought and religion is seeking truth.


Truth is a moving target, you act like it's
a solid rock. Truth changes. What was
true 100 years ago, some of that isn't
true at all today. I think you confuse
what should be true, with what is true.
That's why you seem to be floundering
around so much.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 8th, 2016 at 10:30:22 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
Is there any reason to begin with the idea that there is no God versus the idea that there is a God?


Any good, logical reason, any productive reason
other than the purely hypothetical? The only
reason to discuss god is in the context of how to
fool people into thinking he's real so you can
have power over them. That's the only power god has.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 9th, 2016 at 1:09:44 AM permalink
Aussie
Member since: May 10, 2016
Threads: 2
Posts: 458
Quote: Evenbob
It's much like innocent until proven guilty.
No proof, no guilt. You start with the premise
that no god exists, and try to prove there
is one. God people are confused because
they do it backwards. They use the premise
god is real, and then try and prove he's not. They
can't, so of course their premise must be
correct. They put themselves in a box of their
own making and try and drag us in there with
them.



This is exactly right. It's like they live in a bizarro world where up is down and left is right. Sorry, but logical argument doesn't begin with assuming the most ridiculous position to be true until proven otherwise.
July 9th, 2016 at 7:00:28 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
There was a so-so series called "Medium" not too long ago, starring Patricia Arquette. She played Allison Dubois, a woman who every week received cryptic hints from spirits, in the form of visions, hallucinations or dreams, giving her clues that helped her solve crimes. She used this ability to help the DA and the police.

I always wondered: why don't they just tell her what happened and whodunit? She can then tell the cops and DAs, and they can look for enough evidence of probative value to secure an arrest and conviction. Why giver her a mystery to solve, on top of the mystery she's already handling?

Because then the show wouldn't have been interesting.

It's interesting to solve a puzzle. It's even interesting to watch someone else solve a puzzle. It's not interesting to be given a solution.

But the latter is far more practical.

Imagine you go to the doctor, and instead of giving you a diagnosis and treatment, they gave you cryptic hints and clues so you can figure out what's wrong with you and how to treat it. Most likely you wouldn't pay your bill and would find another doctor.

Why doesn't Jehovah show himself? Because non-existent beings find it impossible to do anything. But when you ask those who believe in him the same question, they think handing you a puzzle is a satisfactory answer.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
July 9th, 2016 at 8:38:21 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Aussie
This is exactly right. It's like they live in a bizarro world where up is down and left is right. Sorry, but logical argument doesn't begin with assuming the most ridiculous position to be true until proven otherwise.


Why in the world is belief in God more of a ridiculous position than there is no God. It would seem that starting with a belief in God is the much more logically and sane place to start. Can you give one logical argument or evidence that there is no God? Even Nareed can't do that so why start with most bizarre, illogical, and ridiculous position?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
July 9th, 2016 at 8:42:33 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Evenbob
Truth is a moving target, you act like it's
a solid rock. Truth changes. What was
true 100 years ago, some of that isn't
true at all today. I think you confuse
what should be true, with what is true.
That's why you seem to be floundering
around so much.


Oh my God! I can't believe you would say this! Truth is truth. I think you are confusing what we think we know with what truth is. Does 2 plus 2 equals 4 change? Does who won the civil war change? Does the immorality of rape change? I know that you don't really think that truth changes, what you mean is that our understanding of what is true increases or decreases at times but truth remains solid always. Please tell me I am right?!?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
July 9th, 2016 at 8:45:49 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Evenbob
Any good, logical reason, any productive reason
other than the purely hypothetical? The only
reason to discuss god is in the context of how to
fool people into thinking he's real so you can
have power over them. That's the only power god has.


Or you could talk about God to think about where we came from? Why we are here? Is there meaning or purpose to my life? Is there life after death? Will I be held accountable for my life? How should I treat others? Who are we as human beings? Is there right or wrong? Am I free? Are we different than everything else? Who is God? Has He/She/It revealed Him/Her/Itself to us in any way? What can we learn about creation? Does nature teach us anything?

Only a warped individual would think the only reason to discuss God is to gain power over someone else.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
July 9th, 2016 at 11:23:20 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
It would seem that starting with a belief in God is the much more logically and sane place to start.


Here's how it works, and this is how I did it.
You start with neither premise. You study
and you read and you eventually come to
a conclusion. If you start this journey with
a bias, say were were raised in a certain religion,
you already have 2 strikes against you. Your
chances of reaching an impartial conclusion
are almost impossible.

Joe Campbell did it. He was raised a devout
Catholic, and he studied the origin of myth and
religion as his job for years and years before
he realized he was now an atheist. But he was
brilliant, and most people aren't.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.