Stirring some shit with a BIG spoon

---

You either witness it for yourself, or you don't. That's the point I'm getting at. The point that I'm getting at is that a child believes everything that he thinks he sees. An adult should know better. A belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is not rational. Children are not rational, but the hope is that adults are. Given the popularity of irrational belief systems, that's a vain hope.I'm sorry, but you don't get to define objective reality based on what's going on inside your own head. It's equally as true of creationism as it is of the existence of the Easter Bunny.I don't think you understand what the word "arbitrary" means.

"The point that I'm getting at is that a child believes everything that he thinks he sees. An adult should know better."The only adults that "know better" are the ones that haven't "seen it" for themselves...many because they're afraid to look because of what they might find. By context, your definition of "know better" equates to "knowing only what you can prove to somebody else"...which, of course, cancels out what most would presume to be a large part of the universe. Congratulations.Where's Chance so I can poke a stick in his eye.

Quote:The only adults that "know better" are the ones that haven't "seen it" for themselves...many because they're afraid to look because of what they might find.Oh, I saw this movie. Thats the line they used to explain why grown-ups don't believe in Santa.

> "knowing only what you can prove to somebody else"

That's called a straw man.. It's where you falsely attribute an idea to someone else and then you run with it. In reality, it does no good to argue down something that then other person never claimed.

What I'm talking about is not jumping to conclusions, and the idea that the accumulation of evidence should have an effect on what one believes to be plausible.

> The only adults that "know better" are the ones that haven't "seen it" for themselves

You seem to put belief God, the Easter Bunny, and planetary mechanics on the same plane; as if your subjective experience with some phenomenon is no different than the demonstrable existence of atoms and molecules. They fact that your beliefs are supernatural, and violate the known, objective workings of the universe, is of no concern to you.

If I am constructing a straw man here, then please tell me what exactly you disagree with. More detail would be illuminating.

It's convenient that no concrete evidence has to be shown for your particular magical beliefs. When God fails, it can be explained away as our not understanding his thinking processes. I don't see how random chance offers a less sensible explanation, but then you'd tell me that probability is my personal belief system.

I'd like to see your belief system restore a lost limb, make an airplane fly, or make my DVD player work. I won't be holding my breath.

Nobody I know of has found Santa (or the Easter Bunny) yet...a lot of found Christ. Hmmm. Maybe it's Santa and not Christ that's lost?

I disagree with people who can't seem to grasp the idea that human beings may not be the most advanced creature in this universe, the possibility that there are intellectually (and spiritually) superior creatures that do exist, and that there is also a possibility that there is one superior entity that is responsible for creating it all. Do you fit any of these categories, Steve?

Nobody I know of has found Santa (or the Easter Bunny) yet...a lot of found Christ. Hmmm. Maybe it's Santa and not Christ that's lost? Any number of children have found Santa. It gives them what they want (goodies). They get older and figure out that their former belief was not rational. Unfortunately, other irrational beliefs take hold afterward, beliefs that serve a psychological purpose for the believer. Those magical beliefs are harder to shake.What do you mean by "found" anyway? More people are finding Mohammad than Christ these days. Are neither false profits...or are both?

Quote:I disagree with people who can't seem to grasp the idea that human beings may not be the most advanced creature in this universe, the possibility that there are intellectually (and spiritually) superior creatures that do exist, and that there is also a possibility that there is one superior entity that is responsible for creating it all. Do you fit any of these categories, Steve?The possibility that there are intellectually superior creatures in the universe? Of course.Spiritually superior? What does that mean? That they've found a better system in which to couch irrational beliefs? Possibly.That there is one superior entity that is responsible for creating it all? It's possible, but I see absolutely no evidence for it, and thus have no reason to believe it; it's also possible that there is a tribe of Indians living on Mars, but I doubt it. I defy you to prove that it's not true, though.So, to the creator question, the rational approach would by to say, "Could be, but I see no reason to believe so". But your answer would be, "Must be". You won't say that it's within the realm of possibility that there was no creator, would you?Are you someone who just excludes the idea that there is no creator? Or do you really think you have the answers? It must be nice.

Could it also be possible that one is a false prophet and the other the son of God?Apparently you don't know what "found" means...if you did, you would try to draw a parallel between "finding Christ" and "finding Santa". Perhaps you should refrain from using the term in this context?

"So, to the creator question, the rational approach would by to say, "Could be, but I see no reason to believe so". But your answer would be, "Must be"."

No. My answer would be (and has been) "Must be for me."

Einstein also said "Could be..."...but he didn't stop because he saw no reason to believe so. He proceeded because he saw no reason to believe it wasn't so. He was right. We won't always be right with such things...but if you don't try and honestly find the answer for yourself, you'll never know...will you.

Could it also be possible that one is a false prophet and the other the son of God?Could it be possible that Ozzie Osborne is the Son of God? I suppose so. Could it be possible that Mohammad is the Son of God and Jesus is a false profit? Yeah, maybe.> Apparently you don't know what "found" means...if you did, you would try to draw a parallel between "finding Christ" and "finding Santa". Perhaps you should refrain from using the term in this context?Thank you for patronizing. I know what "found" means. I just don't know what you mean when you use the word. "Finding Crist" is a coy expression Christians use to mean they've adopted a certain system of irrational belief. Children do the same at an early age when their parents hoodwink them into believing that the presents under the tree came from a guy in a sleigh circling the globe. Many kids passionately believe in the existence of Santa Claus.How would you argue with them that Santa doesn't exist? What sort of logic would you use?

Originally Posted By: HelmsmaNThor, I have a question for you.Why does God hate amputees ? Just my opinion and belief but I think god puts us through trials for a reason; often times to teach us lessons and perhaps even in some cases to test our faith. It might not seem fair or even right, but in reality we all have our struggles and loses. But what I find amazing, is those who go through some of the strongest struggles are often times the most religious of people after the struggle has ended. Some even find their faith through the struggle.Again these are my opinions, though I am sure someone will tear it apart Shrugs. I wouldn't expect anything less from a few people here.

No. My answer would be (and has been) "Must be for me."You seem to live in a solipsistic world, where you are the only reality. That means that you could build an airplane that would fly inside your head, but not one that would fly in the real world.What leads you to your firm belief that there is no objective reality? Would you really want to fly on a faith-based airplane?Quote:Einstein also said "Could be..."...but he didn't stop because he saw no reason to believe so. He proceeded because he saw no reason to believe it wasn't so. He was right. We won't always be right with such things...but if you don't try and honestly find the answer for yourself, you'll never know...will you.One difference between you and Einstein is that he had an appreciation for the scientific method. He came up with a system of ideas that were (or would be) testable, and so far his equations fit objective reality. Newton's equations also seemingly fit reality to a tee, until more was learned about the objective universe. Such will likely be the same with Einstein's equations, and he knew it. (I don't think this would be an appropriate place to discuss quantum physics.)This rates a reiteration:Quote:but if you don't try and honestly find the answer for yourself, you'll never know...will you.[/i]As if wishing would make it so; as if all questions could be answered based on current knowledge. Some things are not knowable; some people, however, cannot live with the insecurity of not having an answer.You don't seem to be big on the idea of objective reality. Are you willing to concede that the divinity of Christ is not an objective fact, even if you believe it's true for [i]you?

But what I find amazing, is those who go through some of the strongest struggles are often times the most religious of people after the struggle has ended. Some even find their faith through the struggle.It's a demented response. It's as if you love your parent even more after he leaves you to half starve to death. He could have stepped in any time to give you food, but he thought that putting you through trials would build your character. He might even let your brother beat you senseless every day for the same reason.If the Holy Father were a real father, the authorities would have long since taken away his children.There are people without families who die horrible, painful, lingering deaths. Who learns what from that experience? If you have a sense of right and wrong, how could you justify it? Plead ignorance, that we don't know the mind of God?If God is standing idly by while things like that happen, he's a sick f*ck. Now go ahead and justify the Holocaust. (Was that caused by most of the victims having the wrong belief system?)

"One difference between you and Einstein is that he had an appreciation for the scientific method. He came up with a system of ideas that were (or would be) testable, and so far his equations fit objective reality."Eistein did not do as you suggest. Many portions of his theories remain untestable to this day."Newton's equations also seemingly fit reality to a tee, until more was learned about the objective universe."Bingo. But in order for this to happen, one must be willing to admit that there is more to learn before comming to a conclusion, and not close their minds to the possibilities that exist.

Steve I'm not even going to get into it with you because I already knew you'd take my post, twist it around and try and find evil in my message. You're overly predictable.

Maybe Steve IS the devil.. HAHAAA

WHAT! OMG steve is the father of my youngest son *faints*

Quote:Eistein did not do as you suggest. Many portions of his theories remain untestable to this day.What do you think I suggested? Einstein couldn't himself test his theories. He also did not have religious faith in them. They seemed to make mathematical and physical sense at the time, but he was a scientist, not a priest. So some things haven't been tested? Then they remain an open question. If you understand the process of science, though, you'll understand that even things that have been tested remain an open question.Newton's laws of motion applied (and still apply) to things not moving at relativistic speeds. It's not a shock that they proved to be inaccurate under a certain condition.So now you know that light can move slower than c, its velocity in a vacuum. Can you tell me which parts of Einstein's theories have been confirmed (note that I didn't say "proven") by experimental evidence? It's a tangent to the subject of the thread, but an interesting one.Quote:"Newton's equations also seemingly fit reality to a tee, until more was learned about the objective universe."Quote:Bingo. But in order for this to happen, one must be willing to admit that there is more to learn before comming to a conclusion, and not close their minds to the possibilities that exist.If your mind wasn't closed to the possibility of the non-divinity of Jesus, I'd take you seriously. In terms of religious belief, there doesn't seem to be "more to learn". You just believe what you believe.And there are no experiments you can run, or even conceive of. It's a house of cards built on nothing but faith.

Originally Posted By: sdpMaybe Steve IS the devil.. HAHAAA Hmmm that is a thought! LoL