So when the schizophrenic says his car told him to run down a kid, as in, the car audibly told him to mow the little brat down, then we must accept that he is telling the truth, right? After all, he personally heard his car say the words and he really felt in his heart that it was the truth. And since everybody knows cars don’t talk but his car did, surely that must mean the talking car incident was a miracle and that ergo the schizophrenic should act on what his car told him, right?
My above example is actually very much like the story I read today about a little 13 month old child who was beaten to death with a hammer by a man while the mother stood by watching. It happened in Texas, the bastion of rationality and good taste. Why did the man kill the child and why did the mother stand by, you ask? Because they believed the child was possessed by a demon and they had to literally beat the h~ll out of her. They felt that doing so was the right thing to do, so ergo they must be right… right?
If you see the problems with this line of reasoning Lega then you will see the problem with yours.
Don’t be ridonkulous Lega. I never said “Lega is a schizophrenic”. I never even implied it. I made up that example on the fly to illustrate a point I thought would be patently obvious once you read it and the story following it. I was wrong. My point is that using personal feelings as a basis for grand metaphysical claims, like that god exists for instance, is a problematic way to go about establishing what is and is not reality. I used the made up illustration of the schizophrenic and the real life example of the dead toddler to show you why. The problem is that anyone anywhere can say anything is true on the basis of what they felt in any given moment, which is no way to consistently get at the facts. Now do you see what I mean?
And can you now see why you suggesting that I pray is still no way to verify whether your god does or does not objectively exist? Suppose I did pray and suppose I saw a bright light appear in my bedroom window in the middle of the night, and from that light a heavenly voice rang out, announcing that it was an angel of the lord and that the lord is calling me to be his prophet… Would that actually serve as objective proof that there really was an angel, who really did represent a god, who really was calling me to a substantive job called prophet? Would you believe it Lega? Would you organize everything you ever did for the rest of your life around it? Do you get it now?
Why on earth should anyone just take my word for it and dedicate their entire lives to my story? Not that this hasn’t happened of course. My story is the origin of Islam in a nutshell. My point again is that personal experience is just that, personal. Not objective and not verifiable for anyone else, like hallucinations for instance.
I have to agree with Daniel. Your post here is ridiculous. First of all, he was not calling your schizophrenic. He was saying that someone could imagine that "God" was talking to him, but that could be mental illness, not "God." He did not say you are mentally ill.
In the second place, you have a perfect right to believe anything you like, but the fact that YOU believe it doesn't prove anything to anyone else. Suppose I tell you that I know there is no "God." Does that mean that you should believe me? Why? If you don't believe me, why should I believe you?
I am sorry to say this, but your attitude really makes me wonder if you have the intelligence to engage in this kind of conversation. Maybe you should just believe what you believe, and leave it at that.
When you try to argue against science you just come off sounding rather foolish. I am not saying there is no God. I am saying that you have no way to prove there is. If you believe it, fine, but asking everyone else to believe you is a bit too much. After all, you could be mistaken, deluded, desperate, mentally ill,or just needy for something to believe in that will give your life meaning or relieve you of your fear of death,emptiness, or whatever.
How about opening your mind to the possibility that you are mistaken? Could you do that? If not, why not?
I would like you to explain why you are the one who knows, and people like the Doc, Daniel, myself, and others are wrong. Can you do that without talking about faith? Doctor Robert says that "faith" is just another word, a better sounding one, for "credulity," and I think you are the proof of that.
No insult intended, but really, please get a grip.
Your idea about science and what you read in a magazine is absurd. When a scientist puts out an idea, he has to prove it. The idea has to be falsifiable, meaning that there must be a way to prove the idea is wrong. If there is not a way to prove the idea is wrong, by some experiment for example, then the idea will not be accepted. But when someone like you says that you KNOW god exists, how can that be proved wrong? It can't because you just KNOW it.
That is the difference between a faith-head and a scientist. The scientist is always ready to be proved wrong. But the statements you make CAN'T be proved wrong. Therefore they have no real meaning except to you.
I am not an atheist, by the way. I just don't know, and you dont either.
Ok, because I am bored at the moment I’ll try to translate what I think Lega is saying, which will be difficult. Then I’ll add my response.
Lega’s first point seems to be, “We can’t be 100% sure of anything… therefore god exists”. Yes, I think that’s true to a certain extent. We can’t know things with complete certainty. And yes, I do think a leap of faith is necessary to get anything done in the world. Having said that, it is one thing to leap to a belief that can be reliably counted on, based on repeated history (if you let go of an apple you are holding in your hand, it will fall instead of float away for instance) and quite another to leap to a belief based almost entirely on hearsay, exaggeration, and possible hallucinogenic experiences. The former is a small little hop onto something reasonably solid. The latter is a huge leap across a bottomless chasm. We actually don’t need to know anything with certainty in order live.
Secondly, Lega’s position on subjectivity leads inexorably to solipsism, or the belief that my mind is the only one that matters because for all practical purposes, it is the only one that exists. Subjectivity is a favorite of the religious of all persuasions. The argument goes something like, “Since I can’t be certain anyone or anything exists outside of my awareness, I can’t really say that anything science explains has any validity… therefore god exists.” Which is all well and good. Until you get out of bed in the morning. All of a sudden, every single thing you do and will ever do will depend on you believing that the world around you continues to exist with or without your awareness of it. That goes double for the people who inhabit it. Your boss just won’t go away, bill collectors won’t go away, rent and/or mortgage is still due, family drama continues to go on, etc ad nauseum. It’s funny how things just keep persisting as if they existed when you aren’t aware of them. Solipsists are left in an untenable position practically speaking, and their actions prove this.
So we can see why it is easy for Lega to disparage science, all the while using instruments (computers, the internet and so on) that science (thru technology) made possible. This is always the part I find ironic about religious people who poo-poo on science when it seems to counter their cherished fairy tales while using the internet to buy male prostitutes or going to a physician when they are really sick or getting on an airplane or driving a car or watching TV… Faith in god made none of the things we moderns take for granted possible. Reason, thru science, thru technology did. Tell me Lega brother, did you use your faith in god to make your comments appear on this forum? Or fix your car? Or pay your bills?
You see Lega, the truth is you don’t actually believe science is on the same intellectual footing as religious faith because your actions demonstrate that you know better. You know what can and can’t be relied on in your real, day to day life, and it isn’t god. To demonstrate the factuality of what I am saying, all I need do is ask you to let go of the apple you talked about. I can guarantee you, with almost complete certainty, that the apple will fall instead of rise. I can tell you why by referring you to some physics texts. Very practical stuff. You in turn ask me to pray… but you cannot guarantee me that any god of any kind will answer in any way that is intelligible or reliable. You can only tell me to tell myself to believe you no matter what the evidence of my senses tell me, which is all religious faith amounts to.
The whole idea of god is nonsense to people who arent stupid idiots. God created the world in 7 DAYS?! **** off. no he did not
I approve of this thread. It's full of all sorts of awesome.
Come on man, I'm not mad! I said I was bored, hence the speechifying. I'm just talking to be talking at this point. I know you aren't going to change your mind so I'm not taking this conversation seriously.
That is the beauty of the religious meme. It is like a virus and part of the way it infects the mind of its host is by making it impervious to reason. It is really quite ingenious actually. I would start a church or a religion for fun and profit because it would be all too easy to gather a large following, but meh, I don’t feel like it.
Your story is boring and uncreative. But... I laughed at the part where you both fly to Heaven. In my head you both sprouted wings and flew your fairy butts straight into the sun and got bug zapped!
I know this is leaving topic but it's human nature to evolve and change.
We aren't arguing, so it's fine.
I just realized something. You are a child masquerading as an adult, aren’t you Wolfster? Your emotional immaturity stunts your capacity for reason, judging by your comments here. In that way, you are in fact no different from the very people you need to feel superior to. I would feel sorry for you if I could.
Are you a psychopath Daniel?
I think someone can be amoral without lacking a conscience. That is pretty much where I am at.
Defining yourself and what your morals are to be is something everyone must do. Thats not being a psychopath.
Turning your back on a friend in need because you don't want to deal with their emotional crap and "you don't care" is being a psychopath. Having sexual thoughts about a girl while she is bleeding her feelings on you.. is being a psychopath.
Having an emotional arguement with a woman and to just stop yelling and burst into laughter... because she makes funny faces when she is angry... is emotional disconnection. It happens all the time. People start crying about retarded crap and.. it's funny.
Besides the idea of us having anything valid in common is just offensive to me. It's insulting. Hurts my pride. Ego deflated. I nearly killed myself. Please... stop.
That really made me smile, woflie, thanks! Also, you are way too over the top recently, why is that? It's fun to see these silly responses but... meh.
You, I must say, are very talented using Paint. :D
im is THINKING you dont ever READ bible?
if you DOES read bible im is THINKING you turn inligtened im DOES knows you are WEAK you FAITH is waving.
just because you did THINKS you KNOWS dosent make you KNOW eveything.
you DOES says i dont KNOWS when you SAY you knows you dont PROVES you knows.