Messages

I could do an edit, but I need to know "who" is this guy, for making "genetical design".

Is he strong? Nerd? We need more info...

"fiend"?

Anyway:

http://www.gaychristian.net/
I guess here are the answers..

True. There are assholes in every segment of the society.

But Religious claim their morale is divine inspired, so, it should be flawless. Finding a religious flawed morale could indicate that it' s not actually divine inspired... At least as I see it. And we do not find one... but lots.

Okay, so, basically, trust in your morale rather that what the "authority" (note the quotes marks) says.

I agree... But brings some interesting points to the discussion. I am not going to mention them, I am tired.

Okay! I have a question... Imagine that you go to a priest, that is supposed to be the sheppart, with a doubt. Let' s imagine that this doubt is about homosexuals... You have a fiend who is homosexual and you think that your priest can give some good ideas about his situation: How to accept his new condition, how to match that with his religious life, etc...

And the priest starts to be completelly arrogant about the topic and tells you something you consider totally stupid. (For example, and using this case: "Your friend is a pervert! You can' t be his friend anymore! Tell me who he is and I will take him out of this church forever!!!")

What to you do?

Now, imagine the same case, but now the "IYHO" stupidity comes from "Rome". What do you do?

Not asking pretending to argue, and being an ass... I am just curious.

Okay... an extremelly quoted "maybe" is ok? 

Well... According to all we know about Big Bang, if a creator existed, he dissapeared when the time was created.

Of course, what we know about Big Bang could be false... We will have to wait, but, atm, science says "No!".

I concur, Prog... From now, every approach I do to this topic will be which much more care. In my deffense, I must say that I just used "stupid" for some stories in the Bible, if taken literal, and that I haven' t used them from lots of pages before.  Thanks everybody for helping me improving my skeptic tactics for the next time I need them.

Happy Thanksgiving Day to everybody! 

Ohhhhh! Now I see the reason of this "Do you believe in free will" movement that started some pages ago!

True. I am not one of those skeptics that are thaaaat skeptic that enter into the cynism (Not insulting, it was a filosophical trend, as well...) So, I launch hypotesis and I dare myself to "think" that what I can preview is going to be true at the end. If my hypotesis are false, I don't hesitate to say "Hey! I was wrong".

I am quite aware that there are lots of possibilities that in the near future my guessings about how mind works can be rebated with scientific studies. I don' t think that my guessings about Religion will.

Happy?

Again, you discuss how I say what I say, not what I say...

Anyway, I mentioned it before (The "evidences I put in a bag" metaphor), but I will say it again. It is ME who doesn't find them convincing.

And I am sure that some other people find them convicing. I am also convinced that many people who believes to have been abducted believes it, and I am sure that some people telling they have psychic powers are convinced that they do have these powers.

Still, I don' t believe in abductions or psychic powers.

The system brain uses for taking decissions is still very unknown and I can't really give an appropiate answer... I basically think that we have free will just in a degree... For example, if we get into troubles a person with certain chemistry in his brain will have high probabilities to get out without fighting, and one with another chemistry will have more possibilities to end in a fight... But I can' t be sure, since I am not an expert in neurology, or brain chemistry.

So, to summarize... I don' t know how people thinks.

What I am not going to do is to take the first pilgrim answerI can figure, and, without any evidence, believe on it for all my life.

So, going on with the example: I don' t know how people thinks. I don' t think that my thoughts are:
-Created by an alien.
-Inspired by a psychic Yeti.
-Transmitted by a telequinetic smurf.

In an analogue way, I don' t have answers to EVERYTHING. What I am not going to do is say: "Ok... it' s probably God".

Mankind did that for centuries. A thunder? That' s God, farting. It rains? Angels are crying. Bad harvests? God is annoyed with us...

At the moment all those replies using "God", have been proved to be false. Why there should be a future answer needing the concept "God", if no one did in the past? Dunno...

Dual, you can do it in the opposite direction:

You' ve never seen an unicorn. Do you believe they exist?
You' ve never seen a Smurf. Do you really think they exist?
You' ve never seen a Gnome. I guess you assume they exist, no?
You' ve never seen a Dragon... Do we go on?

Conclussion. Not everything that exists can be seen. Not everything we can' t see exists. I use my common sense to know if something I don't  see exists or not.

And we have seen atoms (Atomic microscope).
And the wind (Moving clowds).

SSH, I don' t understand you example of the cat in a box. Why I don'  believe in God is simple: I will try explain.

I can' t see the whole world. I couldn' t be sure if whales exist, or the North Pole, or China if I heavilly trust in the old skeptic tactic of "doubting of anything". So, I must trust in my perceptions and assume that the things that I received evidences enough of its existance, must finally exist. That' s why I am sure (99.999999999999999% sure) that if I fly to the East, I will finally find China, or that if I go north I will finally find the North Pole, with Whales in it... I put evidences in a balance, that' s why, for example, I am not skeptic about what happened in 9/11 2001. I believe 4 planes were hijacked by yihaddists, I don't believe the "Missile hit the Pentagon theory". I don't doubt of anything... I have a "bag" where I store evidences supporting the existance of something. If the "bag" does not reach the minimum weight, I don't believe it.

Nessie' s bag never reached the minimum weight, nor the "ghosts" bad, nor the "UFOs are Aliens!" bag...

"God" bag doesn' t reach the minimum weight, either. The bag called "Did humans create God" is full (for me).

I was looking the reason why (for you) the bag "God exists?" is full... I found it, that's why I left the discussion, but if you want to ask me anything else, I will be here for you for trying to reply as best as I can.

And I don' t declare myself "Agnostic" of "Atheist" because I know that the definitions are difficult, and I am too lazy to go to Wiki and see the differences to see which matches more to me... So, I am skeptic. I want evidences to believe, and I will believe when the amount of evidences reaches the "realistic" point.

SSH: I think there is no God. To be precise: "None of the evidences I received so far tell me that God exists". So I don't  believe in it.

If you feel tempted to say something like "But you have never seen a whale and you believe they exist!" control your desire... I said "NO EVIDENCES SO FAR", I said nothing of "Seeing". I had enough evidences to think that whales exist (I'v e seen videos, I' ve seen bones...) or that there was a revolution in France in 1789.

And as I knew that the definition of Gnostic and "Atheist" can enter into a muddy terrain, I define myself as a skeptic, which is, and in danger to make a mistake (I am not going to wiki) a person who asks evidences to believe in something, and believes on them at the point where those evidences are enough for him.

That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understant or differenciate... A Skeptic does question everything.

And TV.

Talking of "converssions"... Hehehe... Apparently Gramsci, founder of the Italian communist party, also found "Faith" before dying It' s a funny story. ^_^

Probably for the same reason why I have been typing "Enviroment" in spite of "environment".

Probably saying 99% is pulling out... But definitelly saying "some tendency" is also a bit too kind... ^_^

Anyway, the important data, for me, is the other. How many "atheistic raised" become believers. Very few. Even the example you posted is the example of a man who was raised in a religious family.

If "God" is a supernatural being, and he has the power to put religion in every newborn baby, shouldn' t the percentage of kids believing in God, without parental intervention, even, be 100%? It isn't. It is not even close...

I am not going to say "Mwahahahaaaaa, Andrew, that proves my pointaaaaa!!!" because it' s been brave of you to recognise it (Brave, since that action could prove my point, not for being raised in a religious environment... That' s not a sin, IMHO), but... but... Well... It really reinforces my point, at the moment, and till we have more data. I am sure that if we ask the same to atheistics here, many will say "Yes! I was raised in a religion environment, but went to atheism when adult..."

Without the "Mwahahahaaaaa", but it does open the door to think "Maybe people without religious would see it as irrational if told that when adults", no?