Brother Jeff Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 I agree with Asimov and Vigile on this entire issue and would like to add... Ancient people did not know much about the world in which they lived and created stories about God, Gods, Goddess, angels, devils, spirits, etc. in order to explain what they didn't understand. Soon some of those people turned these God stories into a way of controlling others. What a person believes is their business (so long as they don't get in my face with it), BUT saying to one who states, "There is no God!" close-minded, intellectually dishonest, telling them that they really "don't know" etc., IMnotsoHO, has no basis. Would you call me close-minded if I said with 100% certainty that it is a fact that there isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn in the sky? Of course, not. But for some reason, even non-believers who are agnostic (and even some atheists) will call those who say the same about God "close-minded." I'm an "open-minded" person when it concerns reality, but when it comes to this "god" business, forget it. Science may not be able to prove exactly how the universe was created, there are a few theories floating around, but it doesn't make a difference to me whether or not they ever prove it...in that, I am perfectly comfortable with saying "I don't know" and honestly...I really don't care. If one's passion in life is to seek out how the universe came into existence, good for them. However, it has no impact either way on how I live life in the here and now. Well, my whole point with this thread, I suppose, was to point out my own personal opinion that it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that there is no God. But, that is just my opinion. As I said before, I agree with Brother Eccles and others that the existence of God is very improbable and unlikely, but I just can't say with total certainty that there is no God. If real evidence for the existence of God became available - not just ancient myths that are allegedly true according to religious apologists and not just philosophical arguments - but real evidence such as verifiable miracles or something, would you consider it and consider changing your position? If not, then you are closed-minded on the issue. If so, then you aren't closed-minded on the issue. That's how I see it. Closed-minded people will stick to their opinions and refuse to consider any evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. Pseudo-skeptics and, of course, fundie religious believers routinely do this. Open-minded people will readily consider all sides of an issue - even those that they currently disagree with. I agree with you that there isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn living in the sky because if it's pink, then it can't be invisible because that would be a miracle! Glory! I know how the universe came into existence! Before anything at all existed, there was an Invisible Man named Jesus Kryasst living in Nowhere. He got lonely and the friendly spooks He had created to worship Him weren't satisfying Him because they didn't have free will and therefore they couldn't choose to worship Him by their own choice. So, Jesus created the flat planet that we affectionately call "Earth" by speaking a powerful magical spell from Nowhere and then He made Himself a home located just above the stars, which are fixed in a glorious dome-shaped structure. He then created an awesome garden and, in a playful moment, scooped up some dirt which He fashioned into a glorious-looking doll. Then He called upon His Spook which is also somehow magically Him to magically breathe life into the glorious little doll. He named the new magical lifeform "Adam". And, well, you know how the rest of this absurd fairy tale that fundies actually take seriously goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 but real evidence such as verifiable miracles or something, would you consider it and consider changing your position? If not, then you are closed-minded on the issue. How does a *miracle* prove or even make possible God? Who defines this *miracle*? Some people heal completely, with no explanation, from cancer...others don't. Some die in car accidents. Others *miraculously* escape death. All of life is like that. There is absolutely no way to prove the possible existence of God, let alone the existence of God. I think the term *close-minded* is being used rather loosely. To be close-minded to homosexuals is one thing...to be close-minded about the existence of a supreme being is quite another...its like comparing apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted July 1, 2007 Author Share Posted July 1, 2007 but real evidence such as verifiable miracles or something, would you consider it and consider changing your position? If not, then you are closed-minded on the issue. How does a *miracle* prove or even make possible God? Who defines this *miracle*? Some people heal completely, with no explanation, from cancer...others don't. Some die in car accidents. Others *miraculously* escape death. All of life is like that. There is absolutely no way to prove the possible existence of God, let alone the existence of God. I think the term *close-minded* is being used rather loosely. To be close-minded to homosexuals is one thing...to be close-minded about the existence of a supreme being is quite another...its like comparing apples and oranges. By definition, a miracle is something that happens that violates known physical laws. I don't believe that miracles are real or that they occur or that they have ever occurred, but if I personally saw a miracle happen it would be proof enough to me that God exists because only God could cause something to happen that normally would be an impossibility. Some people do heal from cancer by means which we cannot currently explain, but that doesn't mean that their recovery was miraculous. It means that we don't currently understand the purely natural causes that led to recovery. As far as escaping death goes, that's mostly probably just pure luck. I've been in several serious car accidents in my life and walked away from every one of them with only very minor injuries. It wasn't because God miraculously protected me while the crashes were taking place. I have just been very lucky in that regard in the same way that back in my younger, wilder days I was extremely lucky that I never hurt or killed anybody while I was driving while either drunk or stoned off my ass or both. I once found myself waiting on the light in a left turn lane with a cop waiting on his light in the opposing lane of traffic. My light changed first, so I had no choice but to go or really call attention to myself. I was so drunk (and probably so stoned as well) that I was seeing triple. I had to choose between three roads when I made my turn - only one of them being the real one, of course. I chose correctly and somehow managed to give the cop no reason to suspect anything and stop me. Was it God or was it just pure luck? Obviously, it was pure luck. I'm damned lucky to still be alive and damned lucky that I never hurt anybody. If I ever had, I probably would have killed myself because of it. Some might call me "blessed", but I wouldn't agree with them in the supernatural sense of the word. You may be right about the "closed-minded" issue. I dunno...we may just have to agree to disagree on the issue. I don't really believe that God exists, but I don't have absolute certainty on the issue. I still can't say with absolute certainty that he/she/it doesn't exist. I suppose that makes me an atheistically-inclined agnostic, which is a label I'm okay with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirangel Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It depends on what kind of miracle, but personally I would most likely attribute it to something else. I did hear this story once about a kid who was about to get run over by a car when all of a sudden the kid was lifted into the air and set down safely on the side of the road . Seeing something like that would have me a little curious but I'm not sure I would automatically conclude that it was some sort of divine intervention. oh, I voted it was and opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 I think that it is an opinion. I think it should be the default opinion because it is the most logical assumption. Kind of like its a rational opinion that leprechauns do not exist. Fairies. Unicorns. Vampires.... Since I do not like the idea of thought police I really think that people should legally be able to think what ever the hell they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 and does that extend to how they raise their kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 and does that extend to how they raise their kids? That is a tough question Grandpa Harley. I don't know. I think the public school system should have no opinions either way and that students should be able to express all views. As far as policing how families raise their kids...I worry a little about such things. It gives me a bad feeling. I cant really explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 As far as policing how families raise their kids...I worry a little about such things. It gives me a bad feeling. You and me both! The only time one should interfere with how people are raising their children is if there is physical abuse (starvation, beating, tying children to beds, etc.)going on within the home. There are a lot of great Christian parents out there who love their children, same goes for those in secular circles, and other religious circles...we do not need Big Brother to tell people how to raise children because there happens to be a minority of those raising children with extremist views, i.e.: White Supremacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 As far as policing how families raise their kids...I worry a little about such things. It gives me a bad feeling. You and me both! The only time one should interfere with how people are raising their children is if there is physical abuse (starvation, beating, tying children to beds, etc.)going on within the home. There are a lot of great Christian parents out there who love their children, same goes for those in secular circles, and other religious circles...we do not need Big Brother to tell people how to raise children because there happens to be a minority of those raising children with extremist views, i.e.: White Supremacy. I really do not like big brother interfering with citizens too much. I think the best ideas on how to do things in society is from everybody trying different things. I agree with Libertarians on some issues. Big brother can cause stagnation. Another thing. I am very anti-religious, but I just can't even entertain the thought of using laws like the neo-cons do. It smells very bad to me. I think a stronger foundation is built on convincing rather than coercion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Can a mind set become child abuse? Does teaching a child that they are unworthy pieces of filth constitute 'abuse'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Can a mind set become child abuse? Does teaching a child that they are unworthy pieces of filth constitute 'abuse'? That was what I was thinking when you asked me the first time Grandpa Harley. I feel like a low down dirty dog for considering what the lesser evil is when you know that some children will be emotionally abused. I have experienced that and more... Its a tough question. There are a lot of house holds who are "Christian" that don't get the same brain wash that we got. Loss of a freedom or allow some kids to be emotionally abused? Letting big brother have another way to control? I don't like the government in my face. I think it needs to be proven that many theologies are abusive and have a negative impact on children's development. Scholars have no balls. Scientists have no balls. Why would mental health experts have any balls? Christians are the majority of tax payers and we can't do anything that would piss them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Can a mind set become child abuse? Does teaching a child that they are unworthy pieces of filth constitute 'abuse'? Dangerously slippery slope. When you start trying to label what parents teach their children as “abuse”, you de facto demand government intervention, through definition and legislation. Who will write the laws defining where and when such “abuse” occurs, and its penalty? What happens if people you disagree with happen to be in power, and they start writing laws that deem what you are teaching your kids is “abuse”? How will you ensure rights, including freedom of religion, are not trampled? This gets very difficult, and usually ends up with people employing sophistry to gain more power over the lives of others. It is a frequent tool of christian fundamentalists, because its easier to get a law passed than to try to convince someone of your point of view. Yes. It smells bad to me. But I think if it can be shown that it is abuse... I go back and forth on this in my mind. I prefer to come to unbiased and rational decisions, but this one is tough for me. I just don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 There is more than one way to abuse someone... it's why I asked the question. When does the freedom of the many outweigh the rights of the individual? One has the right to think something, but do you have the right to teach it, and then who can say what is 'sane' and what is not... For me, well, I'm the last of my line, so it's of limited interest, but to those with a vested interest in future generations it's something that, perhaps, needs critical examination... and not just the usualy 'libertarian - good. Government - bad' stuff... who even says that legislature should get involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 There is more than one way to abuse someone... it's why I asked the question. When does the freedom of the many outweigh the rights of the individual? One has the right to think something, but do you have the right to teach it, and then who can say what is 'sane' and what is not... For me, well, I'm the last of my line, so it's of limited interest, but to those with a vested interest in future generations it's something that, perhaps, needs critical examination... and not just the usualy 'libertarian - good. Government - bad' stuff... who even says that legislature should get involved? I am new to critical examination Grandpa Harley. I am learning the basics of logic. There are a lot of other things that I want to learn too. I am not exactly a well rounded person. Look at my avatar. I'm handsome but not to bright yet. Could you expand more on the part about not needing legislation for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Artur, True. but we're already at that stage. Remember the various Satanic Abuse hysterias of the 1980s and 1990s. and Mankey, I have no idea. I was a blue sky idea. There was a time that drinking and driving was socially acceptable. Now it's not just illegal, but you become a pariah if you hurt someone other than your own dumb self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Artur,True. but we're already at that stage. Remember the various Satanic Abuse hysterias of the 1980s and 1990s. and Mankey, I have no idea. I was a blue sky idea. There was a time that drinking and driving was socially acceptable. Now it's not just illegal, but you become a pariah if you hurt someone other than your own dumb self. Yea. I was one of those tards. Luckily the other guy only got whiplash. Spanking your kids is another. Although I agree with this one. Raise em right and you won't have to. Perfect example was my Grandmother. I always did what she told me and never talked back. She never had to hit me. But my dad wasn't too intelligent in how he did things. But then, he, like most of my relatives, were religious lunatics... Maybe there is a good argument that freedom of religion is a right that even kids should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts