CSflim

All that *I* am doing is refuting various "facts" that have been bandied around, masquerading as evidence (or even proof!) for the existence of God, and pointing out the absurdities that arise when you extrapolate the pseudo-logic of certain people.

You want my axiomatic logical argument for why I don't believe in God?

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. Therefore it would be ridiculous of me to believe in God.
3. Therefore I don't believe in God.

I have yet to see anyone come even CLOSE to refuting point 1.
And if anyone wishes to point out that my conclusion is that “I don’t believe in God”, rather than “God doesn’t exist”, I point them to yet another logical argument.

1. There is no evidence for the existence of an invisible purple llama living under my bed.
2. Therefore it would be ridiculous of me to believe in said llama.
3. Therefore I don't believe in the llama.

I have used my pet llama in many arguments about God, and I have yet to see someone highlight the fundamental difference between it and God.

As for a logical high ground, I think it should be fairly easy for anyone to see which side can lay claim that accolade in this particular thread, what with one side claiming that:
1. The earth used to be flat.
2. Lots of people believing in something is an irrefutable proof that it is true.
3. If lots of people believe something, then by virtue of this belief, it is true.
4. Believing in democracy is fundamentally no different than believing in an omnipotent creator.
5. Un-backed up claims that a certain well know scientist, proved scientifically the existence of a soul.
Etc. etc etc.

__________________

Lebell

As I have about 4 minutes to answer this before I must leave, I'll be brief.

Your logical flaw is in point 1)There is no evidence for the existance of God.

The best you can say, is there is no scientific evidence. There IS experiential and annectdotal evidence, which can never be reproduced under controlled conditions, as can scientific evidence.

And with that, I am off to class.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

CSflim

Formal debates are exercises in lingustics, rhetoric and mannerisms.
I have to admit I got a bit overly sarcastic in my last couple of posts, but lets face it...the arguemnts were getting arsurd!.

If you tell me that black is white, then there is no logical way for me to argue that point. No matter what I say, you can still tell me..No, black is white.

__________________

prosequence

****chuckle****
I enjoy using this board to bounce new thoughts and arguements both for and against stuff..... with everyones input I can come up with decent arguements when sitting around "chatting".

I know I use some pretty wild statements, trying not to fall back on the old "yeah then show me love. prove it!" and all the other worn out stuff....

I thank you all for your thoughts.

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

CSflim

oooh evidence. Now we're talking. Please enlighten me.

BTW, the following are not edvidence.

1. I just know it. I can't explain it, i just do.
2. I have felt God's presence.
3. One time, I was really depressed, and I turned to God for guidence, and then I got better.
4. Joe Smith saw a "vision".
5. The bible predicted stuff.
6. There is historical evidence that Jesus and Mary and Joeseph probably existed.
7. you get the picture...

EDIT: The above list was not really aimed at you Lebell. I trust you to be able to come up with some intelligent arguments. It was more aimed at some other posters, who may be a little more liberal with what one may define as "evidence".

__________________

virus

I think I have a rather unique viewpoint for a response:

1. I agree, me too. But:
2. Me too. I grew up in a cult, though it was falling apart and is pretty much crumbed now. Trust me, if you want to feel something, you feel it. I saw demon exorcising, gay conversions, speaking in tongues. These people BELIEVED this shit. But it was largely or fully bullshit.
3. This absolutely works. Reflection and prayer taps into something. An atheist can say it's part of yourself, I feel it's something more. But I promise you atheists and non-monotheists can have the same experience.
4. Me too. And in some Mormonist churches, having visions is practically a requirement. Especially in meditative or half-dreams, you can experience seriously wacky stuff, and it's going to be intense- and that means often religious. I knew a Christian guy who saw G-d as giant Buddah-like figure and Jesus as a ray of light.
5. It didn't predict jack. If you want, start a thread and I'll post my research from the last few months.
6. Jesus, kinda. Mary and Joseph, sorta. After a good bit of reading, I think that historically they weren't the people they are trationally. Just read the Gospel, backtrack and follow the "prophecies," and check a few translations. If you do, you'll change your tune a little. Again, we need another thread for this one.

I think the most important statement you made is the feeling- our "point of view" which somehow feels connected and eternal. I'm certainly not an atheist, but I think anyone who sits down and researches the events in the bible can't think they are historically accurate (without doing some seriously off-the-deep-end Apologist work).

Is that enough to return us to the question, "Why believe the Bible?" I think believing in the bible and the chuch can be seperate and from believing it as history. So I say you believe it for community, but people generally don't _really_ believe it. Because if you do, it can lead to being seperatist, bigoted, and/or exclusive. And as they said recently in South Park... exclusiveness sucks ass.

CSflim

sorry, your post was lost on me.
I don't mean that in a smart alec type of way, I just didn't understand what you were getting at. Could you clarify please?

__________________

docbungle

Threads on this subject are a bad idea. They always end up like this. You think we'd learn.

__________________
Bad Luck City

CSflim

Just because we can't agree doesn't mean that the arguments are pointless.

__________________

virus

sorry. the subject of thread is "why believe the bible," so i was trying to react to that. i'm just saying that i you don't have to believe it and you can be religious without it. i think that's how most people are.

i wasn't dissing anyone. i just think "belief in the bible" is belief in tradition, not necessarilly believing St. Paul's complete formula and the words of the OT or NT canons literally.

CSflim

no, I gathered that, it was just what were you trying to say when you responed to my 7 points of "non-evidence"?

EDIT: Just to clarrify. I was prompting for people to post some evidence for the existence of God. I then made a brief list of types of things that do NOT count as evidence, as these are the types of things that I hear all the time being put forward as arguments.
As far as I can tell, you agree that these do not qualify as evidence.

__________________

chavos

CSfilm...it's pretty well pointless to have a discussion on the existance of God if you won't consider experiential evidence, which you so kindly describe as "I just know it. I can't explain it, i just do."

People talk the same way about love, freedom, justice... We're talking about an abstract concept, and a natural law...it's hardly the sort of thing that can be proven or disproven by rationalism. Now, if you'd like to live a 100% rational life, that's cool. I won't stop you.

But...and this is important, if you would stop for a moment, and consider experiential evidence, you may see that there are valid, if contestable reasons for having a faith in a God or God like being. This is THE difference between God and your llama. Nobody has experienced the power of the llama. Now you might note that someone experienceing a unindentifiable emotion or sensation hardly consititutes a rational proof. And you'd be right.

But, and this is another huge but, that sensation is still there. What does it mean? Logic can't tell you that answer...it can suggest that it is a normal/abnormal human emotion in response to a stimuli...but that doesn't explain why that's the baseline response, or what it means to have that response. That response does indicate something about the human condition, and what resonates with us.

Go find a video of the Tienamen square crackdown...the part with The Guy, and The Tank. Y'all know what i'm talking about. Watch that and record how you feel. Proud to be human, the same species as one so brave? Ashamed to be human, the same species as a person trying to crush freedom? What, pray tell, makes that scene so damn compelling? I posit that it is beleif that there is a natural law, that human beings desire freedom politically and socially. You can't rationally prove that. You can dance around the issue, talking about all the famous smart people who beleived in it, or the sheer numbers that believe in it, or some guy who predicted that it would occur. But you will have a damn hard time actually making a logical proof that there is such a faith in freedom as part of the human soul.

Now at this point, you may say you do not believe it is intrinstic, that humans may prefer freedom when they know it, but have no such idea burned upon their hearts, and that it is chance that it has arrisen, and there is no certainily of its victory as a way of life. Peraps you'd like to point me to brave new world or 1984. Thank you, those are fine suggestions...but what makes those books so compelling and tragic? That special something that freedom has... Rinse, wash and repeat, starting with step one of this "I can't believe it's not a logical proof!"

Finally, one may well come to the conclusion that: Freedom is a uniquely compelling idea, that has the ability to evoke conviction, and courage beyond what is reasonable.

There ya go...an example of the non-rational idea that has many of the same characteristics as faith in God. I hope it's been informative to read, as i've had a most splendid time thinking it up.

Charlatan

As a member of the Chinese Communist Party I feel that that guy is an idiot and DESERVES to be squashed. He has no right to demand freedom. The good of individual is secondary to the good of the collective.

There is no natural law. We don't all desire freedom politically and socially.

There is a social contract. We argree on societal rules and mores and are willing to give up freedom for the good of all.

This is not part of the human soul. There is no magical soul. It is a evolved set of rules and mores that have allowed humanity to survive and thrive.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

asaris

Three brief points, some of them actually relevant to the topic at hand.

1. There *is* evidence for the existence of God. Consider the fine-tuning argument:
a. The various constants (Planck's Constant, the Gravitational
Constant, etc.) are incredibly sensitive to adjustment so
that, with very little change, the universe could not have
supported life.
b. Science cannot possibly explain why the various constants
have the values they do.
c. So we need God to explain it.

This is, btw, a very weak version of the argument -- Philosophy of Religion isn't my area. But it provides some evidence for the existence of God.

2. Onan's sin was not spilling his seed as such, it was failing to provide children for his dead brother, as required by Israelite law.

3. People have known the world was round for 1000s of years. It's easily observable by watching a ship sail beyond the horizon. Not, of course, to say everyone knew this, but the educated people did.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Mael

Charlatan

1. I agree that Onan's sin was not giving his dead brother an hier... however the reason that was important was to keep a dwindling population up... Therefore in spilling his seed instead of giving his (dead) brother an hier he was breaking the rules...

Ultimately he would be accused of failing to obey God but in truth he was just breaking religious law... (more or less the same thing if you believe the priest speak for God).

2. Let's let the world is flat argument die. It is a pointless argument in the context of this discussion.

3. There is no need to have God to explain the unexplainable. It is just something we haven't figured out yet. However, if it makes you feel better to have the unexplained explained by God... knock yourself out! I just don't need it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ierre Il

As to CSflim's pet llama, there is an intrinsic difference, that being that God is not inherently self contradictory... examine again the adjectives you apply to your domesticated dromedary. But I'm just being picky.
As to God being used to explain away the inexplicable until we come up with the REAL explanation... you're presupposing your conclusion. You use the 'fact' that God isn't the reason for things to show that he isn't the reason for these things. You assume there is another explanation. I'll admit it's a little unfair to say this without specific cases to discuss, but then so's shrugging off God as a merely how people explain things away.
To the main topic...
Here's a look at the textual criticism of the Bible... I've seen it presented better, but this is what I've found so far while searching for this thread.
http://www.ici.edu/gql/reliable.html
Essentially, we know about Jesus with more certainty than we do about Julius Caesar.

Lebell

Fully agree.

If you can't discuss anything but hard scientific evidence for the existance of God, I happily concede there is none.

I will also happily continue in my belief that there is a God.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Lebell

oooo, I was going to leave this thread but this caught my eye.

The reason heirs were so necessary was because the ancient Hebrews had a very different notion of an 'afterlife', where a person (read MEN) only lived on through their male heirs.

Hence:

-if your BROTHER died without heirs, it was your responsibility to give them to him. Else you were guilty of damning your brother's 'soul' to eternal non-existance.

-if you were a homosexual MAN, you were guilty of condemning your OWN soul, because you would never have heirs.

By corollary, notice how NONE of these laws about heirs and homosexuality applied to WOMEN? This was because to the ancient Hebrews, women did not have 'souls' and were not fully persons.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Charlatan

You are correct Labell...I'd forgotten about the concept of Shoal as afterlife...

I still believe that the reason for many of the laws found in Exodous, Deut and Leviticus have much to do with the fact that the people they were made for were a nomadic people (who lived thousands of years ago).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Charlatan

As for lere il... fine you start from a premise that God exists and I don't...

I see no need for faith in an all powerful God to add meaning to my life... some people do. More power to them.

Regardless of what you believe I see no need to hold all that is in the Bible as the "truth". It works just as well as a fiction.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

CSflim

This is very easily explained by the anthropic principle.
That is, that if the constants weren't suitable for proving life, then we wouldn't be here to observe that.
I quite strongly believe that there is more to reality than that which is within our universe. We define our universe as that which we can perceive, directly or indirectly. There is no reason to believe that, that which we perceive encompasses reality.
Now I believe that the nature of the "reality" outside of our own universe cannot be know to us. Furthermore I don't believe that even if it could, that we would be able to comprehend it. For the same way we cannot visualise a hypercube. We have evolved our brains through living in a three dimensional world. The reason we can "visualise" three dimensions is because are brains are "designed" that way.
Our brains in a similar way, could not hope to understand the reality our side of our universe.
So I will explain this in a concrete, understandable way, but bear in mind, that my "explanation" is only for illustrative purposes, and could be considered more as a metaphor.
What if ours, was not the only big bang. To me there seems no reason to believe that it was an isolated event. Whatever "caused" the big bang, could very easily have "caused" other such phenomena, all of which are mutually exclusive.
Some people "picture" this as different universes scattered around like specs of dust in some huge space, others prefer to think of it as other universes occurring "before" or "after" our universe. Of course this is misguided, as applying such concepts as space and time to this situation is meaningless. (This is why I cringe when people ask "what came before the big bang"...nothing came "before" the big bang. The question is meaningless. What they of course should as is what caused the big bang).
So if we have this infinitude of different universes, all with different physical constants, we can realise that only those with constants favourable to support live will foster inhabitants, who will undoubtedly ask..."why are the constants the way they are?".

Also I would point out that your point a has a fundamental flaw, but from the viewpoint of my above argument, it happens to be inconsequential.
"with very little change, the universe could not have supported life.", should read "with very little change, the universe could not have supported life, as we know it"...subtle, but vital.

Someone may point out that my belief in the anthropic principle is fundamentally no different than their faith in God. That is not so, and I feel that the reason why is pretty much self evident. If anyone really thinks that, then I will be happy to provide an explaination as to why it isn't.

__________________

CSflim

The llama is "invisble" because it cannot be seen in any way. It is "purple" because I am projecting properties found in our evryday life onto my pet.

__________________

CSflim

Lebell, you enjoy telling me about all of this wonderful evidence that you have for the existence of God, yet you provide none. You did the exact same thing in a previous thread.
Like I said...I'm all ears when it comes to your evidence.

__________________

CSflim

Freedom is a desirable thing.
People typically go after what is desirable, despite any logical reasoning.
Why are so many people so keen to start a family?
There's no purely logical reason for anyone to have children.

__________________

Lebell

I wouldn't exactly call it "enjoy", but I won't remain silent, especially when you present inaccurate or incomplete statements.

Nor do I think you are "all ears", since it appears that unless it can be measured or reproduced, it is not "evidence". (Nor is it, in the scientific sense.)

I will also correct you in that I've answered the question of "why I believe" at least twice that I can think of on TFP.

All that being said, I will answer a third time.
--------------------------------------------------------

Proving God?

Proving or disproving God is a fool's errand, as witnessed by the facts each side in the debate attempts to present.

Athiests will point to the fact that God as an entity can not be seen or measured, and that typical theological 'proofs' such as the burning bush, visions, out of body experiences, and the like can be explained away by modern science. For them, no proof logically leads to no God, via Occam's razor.

The faithful on the other hand, counter that God must be approached by belief or "faith" and that any attempt to prove God or to quantitize God is doomed to failure since God will thwart such efforts.

My personal contention is that any person who does have faith in a higher power (be He Buddah, Jesus or Allah) must acknowledge that which is most frightening of all: The possibility that there is really no one there.

So the question then becomes, if you acknowledge your belief may be wrong, then why believe? Aren't you happier facing the "probable" grim reality instead of releaving your fear in a "fantasy"?

Ultimately this answer must be a personal one and perhaps this is why science cannot (or maybe was never intended) to answer with theorems, measurements, etc.

My reasons for believing span well over 3 decades, so such a condensation does not do them justice, but in brief, I believe one of the dichotomies of this existance is that you generally find what you are looking for.

If you are looking for unhappy people everywhere and a miserable existance, you will probably find it. Conversely, if you look for the good in people and a generally joyous existance, you seem to find that as well.

So too, I believe it with the search for God.

I find it intellectually curious that science (of which I am an ardent proponent) cannot seem to squash God out of reality. There always seems to be wiggle room for an "Almighty" that can't be proved away. This can be seen in the Heisenburg (sp?) uncertainty principle, super space theory and chaos theory. This can also be seen in the above mentioned visions, along with past life experiences, levitation, and prayer healing, to name a few.

But we still come to that pesky, "Yeah, but maybe science just hasn't gotten around to explaining that yet" and I concede the point.

But for me, the bottom line is this: There appears to be much to me that indicates some higher existance than the one we experience in the daily grind. Further, those that I would consider far along in a spiritual life (The Dali Lama, Mother Theresa, Thomas Merton) seem to have a peace, a...a...something that is beyond words and physical explaination.

So my own scale tips and I choose to believe that there is a God.

And to date, the path that has proven most rewarding in pursuing the "God" I've choosen to believe in is Christianity.

And I don't believe that God would have it any other way.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

sixate

You're giving reasons as to why you believe. That is not proof that any god exists. You have not, along with everyone else, provided any proof.

Lebell

You're right.

My point was and is entirely that "proof" must always be personal and experiential when it comes to God.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

CSflim

In agreement with you so far.



A kind of a twisted up, bent over back wards Pascal's Wager goin on here. I put forward a poll on this subject as Red Pill or Blue Pill.
It is certainly easier to believe in God, then face the horrifing truth..."one day I am going to die."...to die in the absolute sense. I will cease to exist.
Again, what you might like to believe in, has no bearing on what is real.



How does Heisenberg leave the wiggle room for God to exist that a Newtonian universe did not?
Similarly, how does chaos theory prove God? If anythingm I would consider chaos theory as evidence against the need for a god to explain things.



Exactly. A couple of hundred years ago, the fact that humans and animals exist would be taken as (nearly irrefutible) evidence that God existed.



Like what? This is what I am looking for. What indicates a spiritual existence? This is the evidence that I am looking for.



Well, I would agree with you in a sense.
They are at peace with themselves. But their reasons for being so, are not necessarily correct ones. It is quite easy to convince oneself of the existence of God, and once you have that, and you devote your life to this cause, I can see how it would be easy to be "at peace".
I have seen this first hand. My aunt was years ago very very depressed. She was a mess. She is now a very religious person, and I know that it was her "faith" that allowed her to psychologically heal herself. It is in situations like this that I cannot claim to completely dispise religion. Her beliefs may be wrong, but if they allow her to get on with her life then what harm does it cause?
So having a faith has benifits, but that doesn't make it correct.

You still have not given me any evidence. You have made refference to evidence. Yuo have pointed out some consequences of religion, but you have given me no evidence, even of the non-experiemntal kind.

__________________

CSflim

so basically your evidence is points 1-4 on my list of 7 responses that I hoped not to see?

__________________

CSflim

Actually he is right. It can be proven with a reasonably siple geometrical excercise, by measuring the distance to an object that is just barely visible on the horizon, or noticing that when watching a ship appear on the horizon it is the mast that appears first, as if it were coming over a hill.
Anyway, for how long it has been know is inconsequental to the argument.

__________________

Lebell

Interesting that you have caught a glimpse, a tendril, a whisper, but that it is preferable, (perhaps safer?) to explain it away rather than explore it yourself.

Sigh...

You insist on distilling the breadth and depth of the faith experience to something akin to Letterman's Top Ten List, a process analagous in my mind to taking Beetoven's 9th Symphony and reducing it to its digital 1's and 0's in an attempt to understand the emotion it evokes in the mind and soul.

I'm sorry, but you will have to look elsewhere.

I sincerely wish you luck.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

CSflim

What am I explaining away?
The fact that it is a more comfortable viewpoint to have that something all powerful loves you, and that you are never going to die?

__________________

sixate

I can respect that opinion, but I just don't agree that it should be considered proof.

Thraeryn

It's hard not to believe the Bible. Most of the verses hold true even today! For example, the words of Genesis 3, 18-19:
And who can forget the wisdom of Numbers 6, 2-8:
Even today, many people find solace in these words of truth and security. My favorite verse, though, remains Revelations 6, 7:

virus

fuck you thraeryn. i laughed so hard i woke the fiance. i'll be sleeping on the couch tonight.

chavos

Lebell...thank you...i appriciate all your words.

CSFilm: I sincerely beleive you owe Lebell an apology. You've done nothing more than frame the debate in ways to ignore what he's saying, then taunt him when he won't play by your rules. It is quite clear that there is very little desire to "prove" God to you on the scientific evidence. It can't be done. But when you ask "why believe", as the title of the thread suggests...we try to tell you why. Experience. If you don't want to listen to that, then don't get in this kind of fight.

If you think that there is no role in experiential evidence...i suggest you try proving that love exists someday. You'll have a hell of a time if you can't cite someone's personal example.

I'm rather sick of being told that i'm wrong if i follow life's teaching, and explore what life has told me. You can't possibly construct an actual proof that i'm wrong...the closest you might come is occam's razor, which is hella far from 100% sure. Your life doesn't suggest faith, as you interpret it. You argue from your experience, but shut people down when they offer theirs. That's not fair, and that's not debate.

Charlatan: I didn't think of the perspective of a Commie in that example, but i don't think it takes anything from the idea. Why is that they fear "freedom" so much? Is there something logical about their reaction? Why do they live in fear that such movements will arise again, if not the human impulse towards freedom. I actually think i rather like this example all the better for that criticism. thanks.

XenuHubbard

The Communist party doesn't fear freedom.
They do, however, fear widespread unrest, rebellion, and separatist terrorism.

China has one problem; It is too big. The country consists of more than 200 minorities. What makes the situation unique is that the minorities are not there due to immigration, but because they are where they always have been.

When I see the footage, I just see it as another example of the tribal instincts that we still have programmed into us.
Some are good, such as empathy. Others are not so good - me and mine first.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

CSflim

All I am asking is what have you experienced that could only be explained by the existence of God?
I am not ignoring experiential evidence, simply because I haven't been given any.



Love exists, because I can see it's effects. Do I think that it is some profound and mystical force? No.
Do I think that those experiencing love feel it to be "magical"? Yes I do.
Love has observable effects.

I consider religion to be similar in some ways to hypochondria.
Many people believe that hypochondriacs lie about their symptoms. But in fact they are not lying. They truly believe that they have these symptoms.
Though they are experiencing these symptoms which don’t exist, They are absolutely real to them.
How could you convince a hypochondriac that they are not actually ill? If you accept at face value their "experiential" evidence, then you will never get to the truth of the matter.
Hypochondria is a psychological disorder. It tends to manifest itself in people who are isolated or lonely. In essence they are looking for attention. Of course, they don't know this. It is only deep in their subconscious that this "deception" occurs.
The way I see things:
Religion is similar. It manifests itself in people that cannot accept the facts about life. It is short and pointless. They experience things which comfort them. These things seem real to them, but ultimately they are nothing but a bit of sleight of hand on the part of the sub-conscious..
This is why I am always very sceptical about accepting experiential evidence. What difference is your experiential evidence to that of the experiential evidence of a hypochondriac?

How many times have you heard a widow claim that "I felt Henry with me last night"?...of course she did, because she cannot accept the fact that he is dead.

Like I said already, there are plenty of things that we cannot prove don't exist. Doesn't make them exist.

__________________

Charlatan

Communists don't fear freedom per se... The whole point of Communism (when you get down to it) is equality. You cannot have both equality and freedom... They are either sides of the see saw...

Communists (like the Soviets and the Chinese) believe that personal liberty must take a back seat to the "betterment of all".

As such anyone who steps out of line must be squashed for the greater good.

(the US is pretty much the opposite of this thinking... Freedom for all at the expense of many)

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke