[C MacKN]

I made this thread to share what happened to me and my beliefs of what happened that night. You want proof, I cannot give you any proof that there is a God, that is what I believe.

[Derr]

Ok cool but sharing your Jesus experience is what the Christ Krew thread is for.

[C MacKN]

Ya it is, everyone in the christ krew is obviously already a believer, I just wanted to share this with people that are also a non-believer.

[Јon]

Well, this isn't a "Everyone post why you believe, then proceed to not question each other about it" board.
It's a discussion board.


There are designated threads for this, and anything out of those threads is fair game.

[MeRfCaKe]

Originally Posted by C MacKN

I made this thread to share what happened to me and my beliefs of what happened that night. You want proof, I cannot give you any proof that there is a God, that is what I believe.

That'd be like me starting a thread about how "god" didn't answer my question, and when a CK person came in my thread suggesting that I try to do this or that to accept "god", I tell them that's their belief and they're entitled to it, but I disagree. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?

[C MacKN]

lol, ok lets discuss this then. Go ahead and ask questions and I will do my best to answer them.

[Derr]

Originally Posted by C MacKN

Ya it is, everyone in the christ krew is obviously already a believer, I just wanted to share this with people that are also a non-believer.

Which is the exact reason you should be posting this nonsense in there and not out here. What did you expect was going to happen?

'Praise Christ! He is REAL!'

'Oh man, you totally saw God in your rearview mirror! He is RISEN!'

'That was a heckuva close call, brother-in-Christ!'

Get real.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by Јon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Adding a statement (a word, more or less) that claims "less" assumption by comparison; does not add any more validity unless you're able to first specify any given amount of content rellevent to the said discussion. In this case, whether a God intervened during the subsequent events involving the OP's cousin.

I think what highly complicates your opinion, was that you were never present, where as the OP was. Therefore, how are you really able to disagree?

Just to be clear, I'm not agreeing, NOR disagreeing. I'm just not about to call someone a liar, or an incompetent person when I was never present to begin with, despite my own personal opinion on the matter after reading.

[C MacKN]

Ya it was a close call, but again I believe God interviened and you don't. You have your belief and I have mine this conversation is going to go nowhere. I agree I should have posted this in the ck section but I didn't so lets just move on from that.

[Derr]

You don't believe God intervened, you believe:

There is no other way to explain the thoughts that I had and to explain that flash that I saw in my mirror other than to say that it was an act of God.

Which is to say there are entirely NO OTHER options, which is patently false as Aaron proved.

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

Adding a statement (a word, more or less) that claims "less" assumption by comparison; does not add any more validity unless you're able to first specify any given amount of content rellevent to the said discussion. In this case, whether a God intervened during the subsequent events involving the OP's cousin.

I think what highly complicates your opinion, was that you were never present, where as the OP was. Therefore, how are you really able to disagree?

This thread is now about: confusing the issue. After reading your edit it appears your entire purpose was to come in here and incite argument without actually contributing anything to the topic at hand.

[Јon]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

Adding a statement (a word, more or less) that claims "less" assumption by comparison; does not add any more validity unless you're able to first specify any given amount of content rellevent to the said discussion. In this case, whether a God intervened during the subsequent events involving the OP's cousin.

I think what highly complicates your opinion, was that you were never present, where as the OP was. Therefore, how are you really able to disagree?

I think you missed the point. =/
The validity of his claim is lessened when more and more information with supernatural qualities is integrated into said claim.



Think of it this way:



Which is more likely? A bunny that travels across the world that leaves candy filled plastic eggs on your lawn? OR, your parents lying to you and doing it themselves?

Of course a believer in the Easter Bunny is going to prefer the supernatural claim with no evidence because it is more favorable than the harsh reality. But logically, what makes more sense? With the Easter Bunny case, there are details in this story that make no apparent sense and are assumed to be correct with no questioning. When you begin to question these things and search for truth rather than the warm and fuzzy answer, Occam's Razor comes into play.

"The Easter Bunny traveling across the world? No, no, that doesn't sound right. Where the hell does he get his eggs? Magic? No, that can't be. Nix that too. And this whole idea that a bunny could even accomplish any suggested action in this little story told to me, well, it's just silly."

After accepting reason, even if it means your parents lied to you, the whole thing makes much more sense. Why? - Because you cut out all the bull**** (Via Occam's Razor).

As an atheist, I don't believe that a supernatural deity manifested a glimmer of light that was seen in the rearview mirror which caused him to not back over his cousin.
Is that so weird?

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by Јon

I think you missed the point. =/
The validity of his claim is lessened when more and more information with supernatural qualities is integrated into said claim.

Think of it this way:

Which is more likely? A bunny that travels across the world that leaves candy filled plastic eggs on your lawn? OR, your parents lying to you and doing it themselves?

Of course a believer in the Easter Bunny is going to prefer the supernatural claim with no evidence because it is more favorable than the harsh reality. But logically, what makes more sense? With the Easter Bunny case, there are details in this story that make no apparent sense and are assumed to be correct with no questioning. When you begin to question these things and search for truth rather than the warm and fuzzy answer, Occam's Razor comes into play.

"The Easter Bunny traveling across the world? No, no, that doesn't sound right. Where the hell does he get his eggs? Magic? No, that can't be. Nix that too. And this whole idea that a bunny could even accomplish any suggested action in this little story told to me, well, it's just silly."

After accepting reason, even if it means your parents lied to you, the whole thing makes much more sense. Why? - Because you cut out all the bull**** (Via Occam's Razor).

As an atheist, I don't believe that a supernatural deity manifested a glimmer of light that was seen in the rearview mirror which caused him to not back over his cousin.
Is that so weird?

No, I get it! I'm just not about to go public (despite whatever I may believe) and say otherwise by making it all sound as absolute fact, when the truth of that matter is -- I was never there to begin with.

Or...

In other words, if you were to tell me that a GIANT rainbow spotted dinosaur crossed your path while you were out camping in the wilderness, I'd be like; uhhh... ok? But, unless I had a witness or had personaly observed the same situation, I'd stay quiet on the matter, regardless on how stupid it may sound.

*edit*

Personally, I think the whole Theism vs. Atheism debates are pointless. I'll voice my opinion, but I won't speak as if there's any legitimate fact involved. Since, in the end we're always back to square one -- speculating about this, this, etc...

[C MacKN]

I respect your opinion and your beliefs Jon but like he said you weren't there and if you were and if you saw what I did you wouldn't be saying what you are now. Also you are comparing God to the easter bunny??? Obviously the easter bunny isn't real because it is just a made up thing for the wrong reason, just like santa clause. They are not real they were made up by people that what God out of the equation.

[Јon]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

Or...

In other words, if you were to tell me that a GIANT rainbow spotted dinosaur crossed your path while you were out camping in the wilderness, I'd be like; uhhh... ok? But, unless I had a witness or had personaly observed the same situation, I'd stay quiet on the matter, regardless on how stupid it may sound.

So let me ask you this:

Why do we keep crazy people in asylums?




See where I'm going with this?
And as for the dinosaur, wouldn't it be more fitting to say "Well, according to Occam's razor, I believe that there is no giant rainbow spotted dinosaur, and that you need to lay off the shrooms"?

[Јon]

Originally Posted by C MacKN

I respect your opinion and your beliefs Jon but like he said you weren't there and if you were and if you saw what I did you wouldn't be saying what you are now. Also you are comparing God to the easter bunny??? Obviously the easter bunny isn't real because it is just a made up thing for the wrong reason, just like santa clause. They are not real they were made up by people that what God out of the equation.

No, I don't think I would.
You believe in a deity, saw something you couldn't explain, and attributed it to that deity.

What would I say if I was there?

"I don't know what that was."

Just like anyone should when they have no evidence to attribute something to.




And how do you know the Easter Bunny isn't real? Now before you answer that, try and word it in a way that I can't use against your claim that god is real.

[C MacKN]

You don't know what you would say or do because you weren't there. The Easter bunny, is a made up myth just like all the other holliday characters to give the children and others entertainment ( yes it is a fact that it is made up, look it up ). On the other hand God is not just some made up myth, there is way to much to prove that, go read the bible for that info. To you it might just be a book and here we are again disagreeingn because we have to different beliefs so this will never go anywhere, no one will win this arguement. No one will win because you cannot prove that he is not real and I cannot prove to you that he is.

[Јon]

Originally Posted by C MacKN

You don't know what you would say or do because you weren't there. The Easter bunny, is a made up myth just like all the other holliday characters to give the children and others entertainment ( yes it is a fact that it is made up, look it up ). On the other hand God is not just some made up myth, there is way to much to prove that, go read the bible for that info. To you it might just be a book and here we are again disagreeingn because we have to different beliefs so this will never go anywhere, no one will win this arguement. No one will win because you cannot prove that he is not real and I cannot prove to you that he is.

I've read the bible. More than a few times in its entirety.
Sounds like a book of myths to me, especially the more I read it. Worldwide floods? Talking snakes? Parting the sea? Living in a giant fish's stomach for days and days?

Come on now.

You can't honestly tell me that those are somehow less absurd than a magical bunny.



And as far as the "You can't prove me wrong thing"...
Ugh. Here we go with that again.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by Јon

So let me ask you this:

Why do we keep crazy people in asylums?

See where I'm going with this?
And as for the dinosaur, wouldn't it be more fitting to say "Well, according to Occam's razor, I believe that there is no giant rainbow spotted dinosaur, and that you need to lay off the shrooms"?

Well, when phrased that way...

I think we lock up "Crazy" folks sometimes because it's conforting to label them as such. And, because I find that we live in a highly hypocritical, rather arrogant nation that's generally less likely to ever pronounce defeat.

As for our rainbow spotted dino...

I think, when discussing a topic when two or more people are in no real position to argue, is within everyones right to uphold an opinion, as I was saying

[Јon]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

As for our rainbow spotted dino...

I think, when discussing a topic when two or more people are in no real position to argue, is within everyones right to uphold an opinion, as I was saying

I agree that when you weren't there to see it yourself, a slight bit of agnosticism must be taken in with every outsider's approach. BUT, the fact that a claim was made means that evidence must be put forth. And when you can't put forth that evidence because it deals with something not physical, then the claimer shouldn't be surprised when the claimee calls his position absurd. This can happen with anything we can't disprove, and it's logically fallacious to accept the claim simply because of that.

With the dino, we could actually find the dino if he existed because he was supposedly physical. You can't do that with gods, or anything involving "magic".


This point has been argued ad nauseum, and it's all because of faulty logic that most theists are taught.
Preachers don't want kids to accept that the likelihood of their being an Easter Bunny is the same that their god is real.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by Јon

I agree that when you weren't there to see it yourself, a slight bit of agnosticism must be taken in with every outsider's approach. BUT, the fact that a claim was made means that evidence must be put forth. And when you can't put forth that evidence because it deals with something not physical, then the claimer shouldn't be surprised when the claimee calls his position absurd. This can happen with anything we can't disprove, and it's logically fallacious to accept the claim simply because of that.

With the dino, we could actually find the dino if he existed because he was supposedly physical. You can't do that with gods, or anything involving "magic".

This point has been argued ad nauseum, and it's all because of faulty logic that most theists are taught.
Preachers don't want kids to accept that the likelihood of their being an Easter Bunny is the same that their god is real.

Fair enough, but I do have one more thing I'd like to add...

Where as the Atheists embrace what's physical; Theists embrace what's spiritual. So, naturally evidence will be present from the following, according to what each party believes in most. So, it's basically like an English speaking person arguing w/ a Chinese speaking person. Two people who clearly speak separate languages are clearly going no where. But, that's not to say anyone at that point is being irrational. You would need a third party involved capable of comprehending both sides equally if you were to have any hope of proving anything. In which, isn't even theological through Christian belief.

[Јon]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

Fair enough, but I do have one more thing I'd like to add...

Where as the Atheists embrace what's physical; Theists embrace what's spiritual. So, naturally evidence will be present from the following, according to what each party believes in most. So, it's basically like an English speaking person arguing w/ a Chinese speaking person. Two people who clearly speak to different languages are clearly going no where. But, that's not to say anyone at that point is being irrational. You would need a third party involved capable of comprehending both sides equally if you were to have any hope of proving anything.

I semi agree. These aren't subjective viewpoints in need of an objective overseer. If I wanted to, I could attack the argument for the existence of the soul, and attempt to explain a physical (chemical) explanation for "spirituality". But, I've read enough Wittgenstein to know that emotions can not be quantified, and I certainly wouldn't want to express that I think transcendental/spiritual experiences are nothing but chemical induced states of being. That's a-whole-nother tangent I don't have time to get into.

Needless to say, I don't believe in a physical or nonphysical soul. It's one of those things, again, that you can neither prove or disprove.
I choose not to recognize or come up with a personal definition for one for myself because I see no need for one.