matsu-ri-ka
Tornado_Creator
sutoroberrii!
Tornado_Creator
I'm looking for someone to convert me because I want to follow the correct religion. Saying that a religion is based on faith is a pathetic cop-out, if the religion is truth then it should be provable fact, and there will be evidence to prove that it is fact. You freely admit that there is no logical reason to follow your own religion, so why would I?
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
i never said religion was truth. don't be putting words in my mouth! truths are relative. even science admits that. you will never find an absolute truth in this world because nothing is ever certain. we aren't omniscient creatures.
i believe in god not because i think it's 'ze absolute truth or whatever (i'm having a difficult time reconciling evolution, which i believe in, and god, along with homosexuality), but because well, i believe that there's a higher being watching over all of us, who loves us, and takes care of us. god has helped me through some of my hardest times.
ANYWAY.
i wasn't here to convert you.
but have fun with anselm's proof that god exists. ;]
"To begin his argument, Anselm must first establish that God is the equivalent to "something that which nothing greater can be thought." Since the idea of God is an idea of perfection, the common explanation for God at the time of Anselm was just that. Since perfection can not be improved upon, then nothing greater can be imagined. From here, he takes a look at the passage in the bible that says, "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God." He begins to contemplate if and why this statement is true. He decides that it is true, and he comes to the conclusion that they must be a fool because that very statement contradicts itself. He argues that in saying the word "God" you are acknowledging that you have an idea in your mind of something than which nothing greater can be thought.
From here he states that because we are able to conceive of such a perfect being, then one must exist. If one did not exist then that would mean that it wasn’t perfect, and therefore there is something out there that is greater. The idea of a being that nothing greater can be thought of had to be put there by something, and that something is the real being, which is God. He argues that we couldn’t have just come up with it since we as humans are flawed and are incapable of perceiving perfection unless it has been shown to us by something that is perfect." -- http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentsexist_rbxf.htm
(yes, i know, it can be disproven on a grammar issue, i believe.)
and you obviously have faith.
look at your belief in atheism.
just because god hasn't been found doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and vice versa. there is no proof supporting either stance.
for all we know, god could just be dormant, and laughing at us idiot humans down here.
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
mm. and correct (i'm assuming you mean right?) is relative. so, again, what is correct for me may not be correct for you.
"I believe because I believe, next"
That's basically your argument, which is outright pathetic. If you don't have an argument don't take part in the debate.
As for what is relative and subjective. The following things are not. Truth, Correct, Fact, Theory, Science or Proof. These are definite. You can't have something that is fact from one perspective but not from another. One of the people involved is just wrong.
If you can't grasp this please go to another thread, I want empirical evidence and reason, if you can't provide these things I'm not interested in what you have to offer.
First of all, thank you for a well thought out and intelligent reply. I will attempt to counter any point argued that I disagree with and clear any air or unravel any misconceptions that may be apparent in this post.
matsu-ri-ka
Your own arguments are beginning to fall into the Whiny-b***h Reformed School of Atheism. Look. Dawkins (and I don't know if you agree with him on whatever, but since it is so common to group religions with their worst parts, then using Dawkins as a reference for the common arguments for atheism is surely acceptable) says that there are different levels of belief. I'll focus on two:
* Having reviewed the evidence, coming to the NOT INCONTROVERTIBLE conclusion that there is no God.
* An irrational disbelief in God; faith in the non-existence of God.
This whole thread seems to be one very circular way of getting cred that you fall into the first of those categories. It seems a little weird to me, since no one in recorded history has changed their mind based on the Gaia forums, but whatever.
There's plenty of people who have. I know 7 people myself (perhaps 8 by the end of the day depending on a current PM conversation) that have converted from a religion to atheism because of or during conversations with myself.
As for whether or not I'm trying to get credit for my position on religion, I'm not. I don't care if others approve, I simply don't believe. The topic was quite clearly asking for objective proof of religion for two reasons.
1. It makes people look at their religions objectively and in many cases realise how completely anti-intuitive and illogical the religion is. They then become more critical and religions hold over the world has one less mindless zombie. This is something worth doing I feel.
2. On the off chance that one religion is correct, this gets my voice out there, to the most people I could reasonably reach with the least amount of expended effort. After all 80,150 people where online this morning when I logged on. If anyone has any actual proof of a religion, statistically speaking I'm more likely to find it here, and in that event I would happily convert. I will however, freely admit that I'm not expecting this to happen.
matsu-ri-ka
The point at which you seem to me to be slipping into the second is when you begin to insult a person attempting to present what she may see as evidence for the belief of God. This hostile behavior seems to have less in common with a rational inquiry into other people's faiths than it does with some kind of abortion clinic picketing... only backwards.
It's not unreasonable to ask that the evidence they supply be based on logic, reason and objective observation. If it's not, then yes, I mock and ridicule. I said in my opening post that Appeals to Faith would be disregarded as would Appeals to Emotion. If they can't give me evidence they shouldn't take part.
matsu-ri-ka
You are trying to get someone to prove to you the existence of God, correct?
Yes
matsu-ri-ka
You have cloaked this in "I want to convert" but in all honesty your replies seem to point unerringly towards Whether God Exists.
I don't actively want to convert. Personal wants have nothing to do with if God exists. I want someone to proof there religion is true. If they succeed I will convert. It's not a plead it's a challenge. If they can't prove god exists I won't convert to their religion... unless there religion doesn't have a god in which case they can start by explaining their religion.
matsu-ri-ka
From a logical perspective, God does not exist. That's just it. God does not exist if you go at it rationally. And it's not even that hard to "prove" (scare quotes as one cannot disprove something's existence). Hell, Dawkins did a pretty bang-up job of it; I'm not sure if any more arguments even need to be formulated.
Agreed.
matsu-ri-ka
The problem is that, since you framed this in the context of conversion, people are trying to give you arguments in the form of "Why Leading A Religious Life Is Better Than Other Options"-- which is in fact a debatable point unlike the objective existence of God--and you are shooting them down with "Truth, Correct, Fact, Theory, Science [sic] or Proof".
Correct.
I'm doing this because whether or not a religious life is better than a non-religious life is incidental. I don't care. I want to live my life based on facts, not daydreams and wishes that could potentially improve my life, if I'm willing to sacrifice my objective mind.
On top of this I would debate that a religious life is actually better. I enjoy my life. I have no excessive guilt because of stupid commandments or sins, and I have no fear of an eternal hell. I don't have to lie about my sexuality and I can accept scientific advancements without needing to check if my holy book disagrees first. I find my life more enjoyable than any religious life I have been exposed to as of yet.
matsu-ri-ka
They're not being idiots. Some things are relative, like what makes people happy. Religious solace in the depths of murky facts can be sometimes good and sometimes bad.
But at all times wilful ignorance and self-deceit which is against my personal philosophy.
matsu-ri-ka
Your own opinion that life ought to be led in pursuit of greater knowledge is a great example of this. You can't say definitively that that's better than someone who, say, wants to spend their life in pursuit of greater chocolate syrup, because that is relative.
Agreed. It is a philosophy on life and nothing more. It is subjective and it is personal by it's very nature. I can't argue against this. If you don't value the pursuits of knowledge and truth then all I say is meaningless to you because I assume these things are of inherent value.
matsu-ri-ka
And of course it isn't what you were looking for, because what you were looking for is a Proof that God Exists In The Form You See It--oh wait, not even that, because the one person with the Philosophical Pantheism was quickly told that "That's not God". So more accurately... Proof that God Exists In The Form "Society" Sees It. Or... Dawkins.
I am not sitting here sucking Dawkins proverbial d**k. I agree with much of what he says, I also disagree with much of what he says.
I want proof of something. I don't define God. I don't have a God to define. The theist defines God and then once they do that it is there job to prove that specific God exists. Often people will try to be vague when I take this stance. Saying things like "God is everything", "God is truth" or "God is all that is good" then in the next breath say "and He wants us...."
Woah!... Since when did "everything", "truth" or "all that is good" have a p***s, or for that matter have any desires.
If someone defines God to be something other than the mainstream Gods (all of which do not exist, and that I can support), then fine. I still however want proof, and so far, no-one has provided this.
matsu-ri-ka
Summary: Your beliefs are not wrong, this thread is. Either reformat to the same "Prove to Me That God Exists" that has already been done in M&R a thousand times, or quit trying to tell people how much absolutism/relativism they are allowed in the religions they're trying to present to you.
No.
I will tell them exactly how much absolutism and relativism they are allowed in a religion for me to be successfully converted to it, none. I don't have to meet people in the middle here. They are trying to convert me, if an argument doesn't work they have failed to convert me. This is the point of the thread and people still seem to not grasp this.
In my original post I said I wanted evidence to support any claims and would not accept quotes from Holy Books, faith based arguments, subjective experience or "logic doesn't apply" as an argument. People have tried to derail this and even tried to get me to justify atheism. I don't need to justify my position. I don't have a position. I'm listening to peoples arguments and at present no-one has made a convincing one. If people want to keep trying, by all means do so, but realise that some things are simply never going to work against someone who actually thinks before believing something.
I want either proof of peoples beliefs, or an admittance that their beliefs are unfounded... either that or they can not take part in the debate. Is this so hard?
