God without Religion?

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I get stressed with work, relationships, etc... and come here to debate with y'all.  Relieves my stress...  I actually like the people here....honest, intelligent, nice.  We just disagree most of the time and I know I'm right and don't mind pointing out the obvious and arrogance amidst the masses here.

 

Edit:  but to your point, yes, I am in need as well. 

 

Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhist and many others know they're right too, Edgarcito.  

 

But ALL such, 'I know I'm right' claims are irrelevant to us.

 

Here's why.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83166-a-notice-to-christians-visiting-the-lions-den/  

 

Relevance

 

In the Den Christians are often requested to provide evidence to support their claims. However, if they submit only personal and private thoughts, feelings and experiences, then this kind of evidence is considered to be irrelevant.

 

Why?  Because nobody else is party to these things and nobody else can independently test, check or examine these things. A person’s private thoughts and feelings are exclusively their own.  A person’s individual experiences are their own and nobody else’s.  Therefore, private thoughts, feelings and experiences are relevant only to the person describing them.  Not to anyone else.

 

This kind of private and intimate personal evidence is irrelevant to anyone else.  Nobody else can feel what others have felt, think their thoughts or share in what has been experienced by another individual. If this kind of evidence is submitted as an answer to a challenge, it will be considered to have failed the test of relevancy.  

 

Even if Christians truthfully describe what they have thought, felt and experienced it is impossible for others to test the reliability of such testimony.  Everyone is fallible and even people of good conscience who genuinely believe they are telling the truth are still capable of error or of unwitting bias.  There needs to be an independent test of the reliability of their testimony. 

 

 

 

 

[florduh]

Ed, they just don't understand. 

[midniterider]

Everyone is fallible and even people of good conscience who genuinely believe they are telling the truth are still capable of error or of unwitting bias.

 

....

 

Even atheists are biased? No way! lol

[WalterP]

38 minutes ago, florduh said:

Ed, they just don't understand. 

 

What's there for Edgarcito to understand?

 

That his everyone-is-totally-unique argument prevents others knowing what he knows is right?

 

Surely he can understand the workings of HIS OWN argument?

 

[Edgarcito]

30 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

What's there for Edgarcito to understand?

 

That his everyone-is-totally-unique argument prevents others knowing what he knows is right?

 

Surely he can understand the workings of HIS OWN argument?

 

 

What truly bothers me about you/your argument Walter, is that you are inconsistent with your science.  I have already explained to you so that you might understand and even started a thread about types of evidence...that you demanded get closed because, if I'm remembering correctly, you were placing limits on discovery.  The prudent stance you should take, per your own standpoint, is YES, YES, YES, triple YES, that the sheer number of parameters needed to be calculated at once will forevermore prevent you from understanding what I understand, or Florduh, or the Professor, et al.  And moreover, sir, this is even on parameters that science probably has the capacity to measure.....   NOT EVEN on the ones we will never be able to measure. 

 

DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS???????????????????

 

A mere concession of your stubbornness will suffice.

 

Thanks, lovingly,

 

Ed

 

I must add Prof, that this is why I left the first time.....at some point we just realize the argument is futile....a waste of energy....and move on to the potential sport of it all.  We shall see when we die I suppose. 

 

I really like my anecdotal evidence types over the years.  But, we can't use those examples because although anecdotal evidence has a definition, it's not real....  And heaven forbid we form a thought about one thing pointing to another.  That's just not good science per my friend across the pond....

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

Ed, they just don't understand. 

It's like the Seinfeld episode where George calls all his new Texas friends,  bastards.....  May have told you this before, but here in our part of Texas, if a horse starts to buck, your friends will start to holler and slap their leggings to make the horse go higher.....and then laugh their collective asses over a beer....describing how you got bucked off.  But they would carry you to a doctor if needed.

[TruthSeeker0]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, IMHO, and it's me to call the kettle black, but you still seem rather pissed most often....if not always....js

Pissed at religion? Yes that's an understatement..I'm still pissed sometimes. I lost 38 years in that. So what's wrong with being pissed? You gonna do the xtian thing now and tell me that bitterness is wrong, or sin, or that negative emotions are wrong? Or that I haven't forgiven and forgotten and moved on? 

 

I'm allowed to have my emotions and process them. Maybe you're also reading too much tone into my comments. I feel complacent writing this. I'm at a happy stage of my life. But I do get slightly pissed when people start telling me I "need" religion, or a god. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Edgarcito, I don't know your history like some of the others, but have you studied the history of gods and religions in general?  And have you studied the moral development of mankind?  If you haven't,  then you are not seeing the big picture.  Why do you think Christianity is the "true" religion?  It is just one of several making the same claim.

[WalterP]

What truly bothers me about you/your argument Walter, is that you are inconsistent with your science.  I have already explained to you so that you might understand and even started a thread about types of evidence...that you demanded get closed because, if I'm remembering correctly, you were placing limits on discovery.  The prudent stance you should take, per your own standpoint, is YES, YES, YES, triple YES, that the sheer number of parameters needed to be calculated at once will forevermore prevent you from understanding what I understand, or Florduh, or the Professor, et al.  And moreover, sir, this is even on parameters that science probably has the capacity to measure.....   NOT EVEN on the ones we will never be able to measure. 

 

DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS???????????????????

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you for this Edgarcito.

 

I don't dispute your point about the sheer number of parameters.  In fact, I accept it readily.  

 

But the vital point you and I are consistently disagreeing on is not the number of parameters, but how any two people should agree on how to communicate with each other.

 

If you say that we are totally unique, then no communication is possible between us.  None at all.  That's what total means.  Total isolation in our own bubbles of uniqueness.

 

The fact that you and I are communicating with each other means that you and I cannot be totally unique to each other - we must have something in common.

 

Our bubbles must overlap.

 

1. Do you agree that we have something in common?  

 

2. Do you agree that our bubbles must overlap?

 

3. If you don't, then how are we communicating in this thread?

 

 

 

 

I'll wait on your 3 answers before explaining any further.  That explanation should fully answer your question.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I must add Prof, that this is why I left the first time.....at some point we just realize the argument is futile....a waste of energy....and move on to the potential sport of it all. 

Okay... but you came back.  Obviously you knew your arguments would be just as futile as before.  So why?  Why did you join an online community the second time?  What sort of support do you need here?

[florduh]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Okay... but you came back.  Obviously you knew your arguments would be just as futile as before.  So why?  Why did you join an online community the second time?  What sort of support do you need here?

I'd go have a beer with Ed anytime. Not in Texas, of course. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, florduh said:

I'd go have a beer with Ed anytime. Not in Texas, of course. 

I would, too, though I might settle for an RC and a Moon Pie.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Okay... but you came back.  Obviously you knew your arguments would be just as futile as before.  So why?  Why did you join an online community the second time?  What sort of support do you need here?

Idk, everyone needs to be heard occasionally.  I'm no different.  And I'm gonna be truthful here.  I think we all have that internal conversation going on and don't much let it out to the full extent we'd like.  So, when I get stressed, and sometimes not, I come here to let the internal struggle out....the real thoughts, the emotions.  I think it a prophylactic measure to keep my more immediate relationships intact.  Better a bunch of strangers online think me an ass than the people I encounter daily.  The interesting thing is the real knowing, good or bad, seems to build community/belonging and lower stress.  You heathens would credit the latter to some tribal evolution theory while I give credit to knowing others as the Bible suggests.  Both viable in my mind.     

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, WalterP said:

What truly bothers me about you/your argument Walter, is that you are inconsistent with your science.  I have already explained to you so that you might understand and even started a thread about types of evidence...that you demanded get closed because, if I'm remembering correctly, you were placing limits on discovery.  The prudent stance you should take, per your own standpoint, is YES, YES, YES, triple YES, that the sheer number of parameters needed to be calculated at once will forevermore prevent you from understanding what I understand, or Florduh, or the Professor, et al.  And moreover, sir, this is even on parameters that science probably has the capacity to measure.....   NOT EVEN on the ones we will never be able to measure. 

 

DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS???????????????????

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you for this Edgarcito.

 

I don't dispute your point about the sheer number of parameters.  In fact, I accept it readily.  

 

But the vital point you and I are consistently disagreeing on is not the number of parameters, but how any two people should agree on how to communicate with each other.

 

If you say that we are totally unique, then no communication is possible between us.  None at all.  That's what total means.  Total isolation in our own bubbles of uniqueness.

 

The fact that you and I are communicating with each other means that you and I cannot be totally unique to each other - we must have something in common.

 

Our bubbles must overlap.

 

1. Do you agree that we have something in common?  

 

2. Do you agree that our bubbles must overlap?

 

3. If you don't, then how are we communicating in this thread?

 

 

 

 

I'll wait on your 3 answers before explaining any further.  That explanation should fully answer your question.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

I'm just saying you are basing your answers on the currently shared....which is valid to the point that we know the shared information/conclusions likely yield confidence to answering larger questions....i.e. smaller mechanisms yield a larger mechanism.  Given man's search for the very small and the very large, and we know these findings will be relevant, that you are happy with the mechanisms now to beat Christians down when they come here.  How absurd is this.  Man's search for knowledge and God is like looking at the alphabet.  We know it finite to our experience/reality, but that doesn't keep us from wondering did it always start at A and end at Z.  You seem to be satisfied with l,m,n,o,p to form the basis for forming words and conclusions.  Just saying there may be a day where science uncovers some insight that it wasn't always A to Z.  You don't seem to be leaving any room for more discovery and discounting that I do.   

[MOHO]

20 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I get stressed with work, relationships, etc... and come here to debate with y'all.  Relieves my stress...  I actually like the people here....honest, intelligent, nice.  We just disagree most of the time and I know I'm right and don't mind pointing out the obvious and arrogance amidst the masses here.

 

Edit:  but to your point, yes, I am in need as well. 

 

<sarc>I know I'm right and don't mind pointing out the obvious and arrogance amidst the masses here.</sarc>

 

all better...

[midniterider]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm just saying you are basing your answers on the currently shared....which is valid to the point that we know the shared information/conclusions likely yield confidence to answering larger questions....i.e. smaller mechanisms yield a larger mechanism.  Given man's search for the very small and the very large, and we know these findings will be relevant, that you are happy with the mechanisms now to beat Christians down when they come here.  How absurd is this.  Man's search for knowledge and God is like looking at the alphabet.  We know it finite to our experience/reality, but that doesn't keep us from wondering did it always start at A and end at Z.  You seem to be satisfied with l,m,n,o,p to form the basis for forming words and conclusions.  Just saying there may be a day where science uncovers some insight that it wasn't always A to Z.  You don't seem to be leaving any room for more discovery and discounting that I do.   

 

Is science about proving that Jesus and all religions are false? 

 

Is science about learning new stuff? 

 

Is science about making damn sure we all think like robots for materialism? 

 

Is science about exploration and curiosity? 

[WalterP]

34 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm just saying you are basing your answers on the currently shared....which is valid to the point that we know the shared information/conclusions likely yield confidence to answering larger questions....i.e. smaller mechanisms yield a larger mechanism.  Given man's search for the very small and the very large, and we know these findings will be relevant, that you are happy with the mechanisms now to beat Christians down when they come here.  How absurd is this.  Man's search for knowledge and God is like looking at the alphabet.  We know it finite to our experience/reality, but that doesn't keep us from wondering did it always start at A and end at Z.  You seem to be satisfied with l,m,n,o,p to form the basis for forming words and conclusions.  Just saying there may be a day where science uncovers some insight that it wasn't always A to Z.  You don't seem to be leaving any room for more discovery and discounting that I do.   

 

Thank you Edgarcito.

 

But the point I'm in the process of making and explaining to you has to do with what is common between us. 

 

Therefore I need to find out your answers to my questions.

 

Please confine yourself to answering them as simply and directly as you can.  Thank you.

 

1. Do you agree that we have something in common?  

 

2. Do you agree that our bubbles must overlap?

 

3. If you don't, then how are we communicating in this thread?

 

I can't make my point, nor give you the explanation until I know where you stand on these three questions.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

47 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Is science about proving that Jesus and all religions are false? 

 

Is science about learning new stuff? 

 

Is science about making damn sure we all think like robots for materialism? 

 

Is science about exploration and curiosity? 

The problem I have is the attitude that Walter is displaying, science as a tool to discount when it could be a tool of healing.  And we also have religion as a tool of hurting rather than healing. 

[Edgarcito]

35 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Thank you Edgarcito.

 

But the point I'm in the process of making and explaining to you has to do with what is common between us. 

 

Therefore I need to find out your answers to my questions.

 

Please confine yourself to answering them as simply and directly as you can.  Thank you.

 

1. Do you agree that we have something in common?  

 

2. Do you agree that our bubbles must overlap?

 

3. If you don't, then how are we communicating in this thread?

 

I can't make my point, nor give you the explanation until I know where you stand on these three questions.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) N/A

 

[AntiChrist]

22 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

you're

The reason people need something to believe is because belief gives them easy answers to those confronting questions (A band-aid) that protects them from facing the fear of the unknown. So they'd rather make things up about reality, the universe and everything in-between, until belief takes over the world.

 

The Matrix is not a computer generated dreamworld, it's a belief generated dreamworld.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Idk, everyone needs to be heard occasionally.  I'm no different.  And I'm gonna be truthful here.  I think we all have that internal conversation going on and don't much let it out to the full extent we'd like.  So, when I get stressed, and sometimes not, I come here to let the internal struggle out....the real thoughts, the emotions.  I think it a prophylactic measure to keep my more immediate relationships intact.  Better a bunch of strangers online think me an ass than the people I encounter daily.  The interesting thing is the real knowing, good or bad, seems to build community/belonging and lower stress.  You heathens would credit the latter to some tribal evolution theory while I give credit to knowing others as the Bible suggests.  Both viable in my mind.     

 Interesting that, as a christian, you don't find this level of intimacy in the church, but rather with an online community of godless heathens.  Says something about you... and the church... and us.

[Edgarcito]

53 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 Interesting that, as a christian, you don't find this level of intimacy in the church, but rather with an online community of godless heathens.  Says something about you... and the church... and us.

It's a family thing I expect.  As I probably told you before, Dad was a PhD analytical chemist.... would beat people down with science.  So it triggers me, that position, as he and I had problems.  I expect a twofold answer...one, it triggers me to defend a position without science and two, I'm still probably looking for acceptance.  It's all good.  But betting this answers your thoughts without guessing.  Just my attempt at therapist...  There are people within science that don't have this effect on me....but Captain Controlling Walter is on point with his efforts to demean. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's a family thing I expect.  As I probably told you before, Dad was a PhD analytical chemist.... would beat people down with science.  So it triggers me, that position, as he and I had problems.  I expect a twofold answer...one, it triggers me to defend a position without science and two, I'm still probably looking for acceptance.  It's all good.  But betting this answers your thoughts without guessing.  Just my attempt at therapist...  There are people within science that don't have this effect on me....but Captain Controlling Walter is on point with his efforts to demean. 

 

Isn't that why we turn to ex-christian?  Because we're in need?

 

Certainly sounds like that's why you're here.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

1) Yes  

2) Yes

3) N/A

 

 

Thank you Edgarcito.

 

 

In this forum, we agree that what we have in common is where our bubbles overlap. 

 

This overlap, this commonality is the only place that you and I can communicate meaningfully with each other.

 

So, inside this overlap you and I must be excluding all other possibilities, parameters, variables and such like.

 

All the other immeasurable and infinite unknowns that you've mentioned lie outside our common bubble of overlap.

 

We acknowledge and agree that they exist, but we choose to exclude them.

 

 

And now to our main point of disagreement.  Evidence.

 

Evidence can fall inside our common overlap or it can fall outside of that shared bubble.

 

When you present evidence from outside you exclude me from understanding it.

 

I can only understand evidence that is common to both of us.

 

Therefore, you and I need to agree on a common standard of evidence.

 

A common standard to be used within our common bubble of overlap.

 

 

 

In this thread you asked what the common standard of evidence was.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82693-evidence-types/#comments

 

Posted November 12, 2019

Per our recent conversations.....the question in my mind is what types of evidence will a non-believer accept? 

 

 

I will now set the record straight in my next post.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Earlier today Edgarcito wrote this...

 

What truly bothers me about you/your argument Walter, is that you are inconsistent with your science. 

 

No.  This is false.  Science uses one commonly accepted standard of evidence gathering and evidence sharing.  So, I am being entirely consistent with science.

 

I have already explained to you so that you might understand and even started a thread about types of evidence...that you demanded get closed because, if I'm remembering correctly, you were placing limits on discovery. 

 

This is also false.  You recall incorrectly, Edgarcito.

 

I requested (not demanded) that your Evidence Types thread be closed.

 

I did so because you asked a question...  

 

Per our recent conversations.....the question in my mind is what types of evidence will a non-believer accept? 

 

...and then refused to accept the answers you were given, making the thread unproductive.

 

Every member you didn't agree with placed limits on you that you didn't like and couldn't accept.

 

That's what really happened.

 

You asked what the common standard of evidence was and you wouldn't accept it.

 

Now the record is straight.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.