Proof Of God

[inner shale]

Boom? 😆

[gray kettle]

Haha

[inner shale]

you know what I have learned in the last three years?

[gray kettle]

Just messin

Wats that?

I knew it was a long paragraph and was trying to say boom as if I dropped a large word chunk onto the page lol and it made a sound

[inner shale]

That age has no bering on the validity or quality of one’s beliefs
And that rational skepticism is the best way to live your life

The thing is you act like I’m confused how can I be confused when I’m not taking a position?

You tell me I may believe a lie about the Bible

I’ve read the whole damn thing

[gray kettle]

I believe it has some Bering. Which is why younger people are prime candidates to “faith based religions” easier to manipulate.

[inner shale]

Absolutely not

The validity is determined by rational thinking not age

[gray kettle]

So you don’t think that putting propaganda to kids is wrong

Rational thinking is developed is it not?

[inner shale]

Bro that has nothing to do with what I’m saying

[gray kettle]

I have told you that reading the whole Bible is not the same as understanding the whole Bible in full context.

[inner shale]

When a child says something you don’t dismiss it because they are a child you dismiss it because it is illogical
So you can in no way say that the age of the person has any grip on the validity of their belief

[gray kettle]

Age has no Bering on one’s beliefs?

[inner shale]

Yea age does have Bering on one’s beliefs

Not on the validity tho

[gray kettle]

Validity is subjective.

[inner shale]

Sure

[gray kettle]

You say one thing matters and that is opinion until proven as a fact.

[inner shale]

No I never said that

[gray kettle]

Like if you claimed “if I go 600 feet under water with no outside help or gear and I will survive” that’s only true if you survive

[inner shale]

I am saying when dismissing beliefs you can’t ever bring age into it

[gray kettle]

No no

I’m saying you say skeptical rational is the best way to live. But that’s an opinion. Not an objective fact.

[inner shale]

Yea it is my opinion
And it isn’t simply an opinion
It is a belief based on my life experience

Based on evidence

[gray kettle]

You can bring age into it definitely. Because by definition more can be learned objectively with more time. (It doesn’t mean it will) but it can.

[inner shale]

No this is the biggest logical fallacy ever

[gray kettle]

Sure but without proper thinking some life experience can be misleading.

“Biggest”

How is that?

[inner shale]

If a 3 year old said something I should not dismiss it just cuz they are three I should think about the statement logically and see if it makes sense

Age does affect beliefs
Age doesn’t determine validity

[gray kettle]

No one is clamoring to dismiss anything but one would also be inclined to believe the 30 year old about money investments and not the 3 year old.

[inner shale]

Ofc

And the 33 year old seams to be condescending to the 16 year old because of his age

[gray kettle]

One could assert that to the 3 year old in there “lived experience” they don’t need to use a toilet when they could just poop themselves and be cleaned by someone else. Are they wrong for thinking this? Is it a “valid” thought or do we still decide to potty train the 3 year old

I have not condescended to you at all.

[inner shale]

Why are you bringing my age into this?

I call that condescending

[gray kettle]

The fact of the matter is you have a limited range of knowledge at no fault of yourself. As do I. However with time your scope will grow.

What you call it is immaterial.

[willow plover]

This fails on number 2. There are no objective moral values. Everything is subjective, based on out own opinion. Just because it is the opinion of lots of people does not make it objective.

[gray kettle]

When did I bring age into it. Was it not you who inquired as to age?

[inner shale]

I believe something and instead of breaking down why what I believe is illogical or doesn’t line up you are telling me I have limited life experience

[gray kettle]

That is a fact. Unless you believe you have experienced everything.

[inner shale]

Ofc why does it matter

It seams condescending to bring it up within a debate

[gray kettle]

Again. I did not bring it up. This is a forum and not a debate. Ideas are shared here but no one has engaged in a formal debate.

[inner shale]

If you are gonna have a discussion with me you should look at the merit of my beliefs not these factors of my experience

[gray kettle]

I never claimed to discredit or devalue your experience or knowledge. I just said it is limited for now. And I also said mine is as well.

[inner shale]

Ok so let’s discuss the merit

[gray kettle]

Getting defensive does not benefit a “debate” nor a discussion.

[gray kettle]

Of?

[inner shale]

My beliefs

[inner shale]

You are the one bringing up superficial Information

[gray kettle]

Interesting claim. If no objective moral values exists then morals are irrelevant?

[inner shale]

Let’s talk morals then

[gray kettle]

Can you show me where?

[inner shale]

Oml

I am ready to move on

[gray kettle]

Quote me if need arises

[inner shale]

Morality is a human construct

[gray kettle]

There is no need to discuss the “merit” of yours or my beliefs. Simple facts or truths behind our claims.

[inner shale]

That is what I meant by merit

The value

The quality

The relevance

[gray kettle]

Funny is you believe that statement because a book told you that. Same as I. (In regard to what I believe about morality)

[inner shale]

What book???

Bro what

[gray kettle]

Where did you learn morality is human construct?

[inner shale]

Learn???

[gray kettle]

Even if you learned it from google or YouTube the fact is that claim was written In A book years before it was anywhere else

[inner shale]

That is my belief I came to through logical analysis

Bro whattt

[gray kettle]

Yes “learn” simple concept

So your logical analysis is not flawed?

[inner shale]

Noo learning implies a teacher

[gray kettle]

Being self taught is a thing

[inner shale]

The logic I use works

[gray kettle]

Your avoiding the question 😜

[inner shale]

Yea that is where my beliefs come from

[gray kettle]

Fishing with dynamite “works”

[inner shale]

Ok what do you mean

Is my logic “flawed”

[gray kettle]

So you came up with the concept of rational skeptical belief or you learned it existed and identified with it?

[inner shale]

What do you mean by that

[gray kettle]

Imperfect. Possibly wrong.

[inner shale]

How can my logic be wrong if it works?

That’s all logic is

[gray kettle]

Ahhhhh great question!

[inner shale]

You use it to make predictions and consistent observations

[gray kettle]

Just because something g works for you does not make it logic

Sure but you discovered these ideals you did not invent them

[inner shale]

Ofc but I use logic BECAUSE it works

[gray kettle]

Or so you think

[inner shale]

No

[gray kettle]

But it’s not “your” logic

[inner shale]

I don’t think

[gray kettle]

You are borrowing it

[inner shale]

I know

Cuz I use them

[inner shale]

Yes it is

[inner shale]

Ok?

[gray kettle]

So the. It’s not yours by definition.

[inner shale]

It is mine

I use them

So it is my logic

[gray kettle]

It’s your preferred reasoning sure

[inner shale]

Yea

And?

[gray kettle]

But someone you watched, read, listened to, etc taught you this “logic” so back to my initial question.

Is that or “your” logic flawed or perfect.

[inner shale]

I use logic because it works not because I was taught it

[inner shale]

It doesn’t matter if it is flawed as long as it works I use it

[gray kettle]

Like it or not you where taught it. You did not know it at 3 right?

[gray kettle]

And boom we have a self defeating argument.

[inner shale]

How

I’m guessing you have never heard of pragmatism

[gray kettle]

If it has flaws it could be misleading, wrong, incorrect, etc therefore it is not a sound “logic” to base one’s life upon. (You still may do it, however it would “rationally” be advised against)

[inner shale]

Stop

[gray kettle]

Don’t pivot just because your stuck. And your guess has been wrong each time. So maybe stop the guessing game.

[inner shale]

When u send one message let me address it before moving on

[elfin sleet]

Well I think objective morality exists, whether or not you believe in a higher power. Think of the holocaust, almost every person in the world has condemned this as an evil. Will you argue that the holocaust was objectively evil? Or will you say that the holocaust was deemed evil by the "herd of humanity." I argue that the murder of innocents during the holocaust was objectively evil and not subjective evil because most of humanity deemed it as so?

[inner shale]

Stop typing

[gray kettle]

There is no more “debate” or conversation at this point. Because unless both parties recognize error or “flaw” or the possibility of it rather then the conversation is mute. And if indeed a flaw or irrational point is made then it is no longer a viable source of truth to base a rational decision.

You can address it. But an imature comment starting with “I bet you never heard” will profit you little in an academic conversation

[willow plover]

Hitler did not think the holocaust was evil. In my subjective opinion the holocaust was wrong but Hitler would disagree

[gray kettle]

Something that is flawed NEVER works. I invite you to research this as you seek out wisdom.

[inner shale]

You are misunderstanding me entirely

Look at your dms

[gray kettle]

But who is right? Hitler or the allied forces?

[elfin sleet]

Of course. There are people who disagree. Does that make it subjectivity right? Just because some believes an opinion does not mean they are objectify wrong. I think almost every human would argue that torturing children is morally wrong. Again, I would argue this as a moral truth. And if a society decided that this was suddenly okay. That would not change the fact that torturing children is still objectively morally wrong. However, I did talk about objective truths in the Absolute truths forum if you want to look at that as well.

[willow plover]

I don't think it matters for the purposes of this discussion

[gray kettle]

Boy does it.

Arguably what is being discussed is someone is right and someone is wrong and one of them has not caught up to the truth of there position. I. Doing so we discuss these things and the likelihood of them being “true” or not. If the outcome is irrelevant the. The discussion is mute.

[willow plover]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what Cowan and I saying. I gave my opinion on the holocaust.

[willow plover]

I would think an extremely high percentage think torturing children is wrong, I am one of them. However just because almost all the humans agree does not make it objective. You need a basis outside of human opinion that says this is true. You have not provided such a basis.

Some, like Sam Harris, might say that things are objectively right or wrong based on how they effect human wellbeing. Even if this is true it is of limited use because we have no way of judging the long term effects of a particular action. Perhaps torturing one particular child at one particular moment of time will have such a large benefit to the well being of humanity that it overrides the negative effect on the wellbeing of the child. However it might take beyond the life time of those involved for that to become apparent so they cannot work out what is better for human wellbeing. This means we cannot be certain that something is objectively right or wrong even if such objectivity exists, so our judgement of right or wrong is always subjective.

[elfin sleet]

I have provided that basis. I had done it in a different forum and I'm lazy to rewrite it.

[willow plover]

Copy and paste would work, you do not have to rewrite it.

But I will see what I can find.

[sonic field]

Because there is no argument to believe other than faith, which is not a reason to believe in my opinion. I don't see why it is so hard for you to accept that not everyone believes in your fairytale. And surely it's about which God. How do you know what to prove if you don't know what God you are trying to prove

I get that from your POV this may seem straight forward as you only believe in one God

But that's not what the rest of the world thi ks

It is the definition, just look it up if you don't believe me.

[sonic field]

There is no debate because you are not open to one. You claim the Bible to be evidence for God, which respectfully it is not. The we ask for any other piece of evidence andyou completely avoid answering the question. If God would be real, there should be loads of evidence for experiencing him as humans for ~200000 years.

[sonic field]

Well if objective truth/morality does not exist then neither or both.

[sonic field]

You can also respond to a message in Another forum to link it here

[willow plover]

I found something to respond to which I have done where I found it.

[sonic field]

Yeah but you said copy it, I just wanted to point out that there is another option

[sonic field]

why is the quran any more or less dangerous than the bible?

sounds like islamophobia to me tbh

in practice they are very similar

[gray kettle]

A phobia is a fear of. I never stated a fear of @sonic field and read my responses in real time to what was said and that states my perspective.

You claim the Bible is not “evidence” which is fine. However that is simply your claim to which you would have to support evidence.

When asked for a piece of evidence I have not “avoided” anything.

[gray kettle]

If I stated “fire is dangerous” am I now fire phobic? @sonic field please keep it civil and rational conversation. Not just make a claim and proceed to label or accuse someone of something just because you disagree.

[willow plover]

Both the bible and koran are dangerous in the sense they are used to justify things which are wrong. They are both part of deluding of large amounts of people that a god exists that they have to follow and do what is commanded the books. The world would be a massively better off if both books did not exist.

[sonic field]

But the burden of evidence is not on me as I do not make any claims

[sonic field]

I'm trying to keep it civil. I'm telling you that saying a religious book is dangerous is not civil

[gray kettle]

you said "which respectfully it is not." that is a claim.

[gray kettle]

I am not in a position to need to prove anything. I believe what has already been claimed in the Bible. If you do not that is fine. And claiming a book is dangerous is not uncivil. It is an opinion and nothing more.

[sonic field]

because for something to be evidence, it needs to prove something. Now I dont judge the content of the bible, im only contesting you idea that your bible is evidence.

[sonic field]

I mean, you are directly insulting 2 billion people by saying the basis of their religion is inherently dangerous

Im not an expert on either the bible or quran, but from my personal experience muslims tend to be nicer people

But i also dont understand what is dangerous about the quran

that is not in the bible

i mean, i hope you understand most of it is similar

so you if say its dangerous, you probably have some specific things in mind

[gray kettle]

Based on what? Besides your own opinion.

[gray kettle]

Im not saying anything about the people at all. Just the content of a book. Just like the people who read ANY book can if they want despite the content of that book being what it is.

[willow plover]

@gray kettle If you want evidence the bible does not contain truth lets start at Genesis

Genesis 1 contains a story about how god created heaven and earth and everything in it. It is said to have happened in 6 days. This completely contradicts science and simply can not be true.

Genesis 2 contains another creation story that not only contradicts science it also contradicts Genesis 1 so it also cannot be true.

Genesis 6 onwards contains the story of Noah's flood. This is said to have covered the whole earth. There is no scientific evidence to support there has been a world wide flood as described. So this story must be false. If you want to claim it is true then you are left with a very troubling insight into the character of the god of the bible. It shows this god to be a mass murdering homicidal maniac, not the god of love that christians seem to want to claim he is.

Do you want me to continue, because I can? The bible is evidence against the christian god existing, especially in the form of a loving god that christianity presents. If the god of the bible existed he would be an evil god. This god kills and kills and kills and kills and then kills some more and will kill in the future. Killing is the opposite of love.

[gray kettle]

Where does it contracdict science. As far as I’m concerned science doesn’t know the moment time and space began.

[willow plover]

@gray kettle Genesis 1 - creation in 6 days, science - evolution over a vast period of time. They both cannot be true, all the evidence tells us evolution is true so genesis 1 is not true. So the bible does not even make it one page before containing false statements, not a great start for the supposed word of god.

I think you are right that science doesn't know the moment time and space began, but genesis 1 is not really about that. It is about what happened after time and space begun

[gray kettle]

Evolution is not a proven fact it is a theory currently.

[gray kettle]

Correct so the point is mute if the beginning cannot be discussed accurately.

[willow plover]

No, it is both a theory and facts. Here is the first definition of a scientific theory given when I googled it. "A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts." Notice how it says facts, the theory of evolution contains facts. Common descent is a fact that is part of evolution. This alone proves genesis 1 to be false.

[willow plover]

This video should help clear up what science knows about the start of the universe, time = 0 and what why know about what happen before time = 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr6nNvw55C4

I learnt a lot from the video

[gray kettle]

Sure. It contains facts but is itself not a proven fact IE Evolution is proven to be how all manner of life got to where it is now. That is a fact claim, which evolution does not say 100% that it is. However I digress. I have no problem with evolution because one theory could be that a higher power uses evolution to accomplish his/her will.

[willow plover]

Common descent has been established to be true, the mechanisms that caused common descent have been established to be true. This means we know what happened and largely how it happened. However there a things which are not known, but not knowing some things does not make the things that have been shown to be true any less of a fact.

No where in the bible does it say that god used evolution as the means by which he populated the earth with animals. The bible is clear however that creation took 6 days

[gray kettle]

6 days to God is not irrational. As is says he spoke things into existence. Again a person either believes this happened or does not. So be it.

[sonic field]

what do you mean? the stories in the bible are not historical fact, so they cannot be used as evidence to prove something. That is just not how proving something works

I don't understand how that can be so hard for you to understand

It is not my opinion that the bible is not historically factual, it is a fact that the bible is not historically factual

whether you believe in what is says or not is a different discussion

but as it is not a factual piece of information, there is no way to ''use'' it as evidence to proof something

[gray kettle]

To claim they “are not historical fact” has to be proven (which it cannot) same goes for me, I have to go on faith that these things happened because I too cannot “prove” that they happened

[sonic field]

Well no, there are many things stated in the bible that can be proven to be wrong

or at least didnt happen the way it is described in the bible

[gray kettle]

Such as? Or for Example?

[inner shale]

Noah’s ark

Adam and Eve

The creation account

King Jehoiakims life

Specific details on specific battles fought in gods name

The story of Jonah

Heck anything in the Bible that contradicts itself can’t be true

Either one or the other

“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20

“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13

“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1

I could go on

@gray kettle there are bunch of examples

[civic helm]

No one can prove God exists scientifically. Science cannot prove evolution, creation, source of evil, divine intervention, or anything metaphysical by definition. Science is measuring, recording testing, observing, etc. Logic can test the validity of statements that can be valid or invalid but it can't prove the truth or falsity of their premises. My friend founded the Religion of the Naïve, Confusionism, which has only one tenet: I don't know and neither do you. However, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I am a witness that there is a Uncausable cause or First Cause, believe me or not. But there is no proof. So I agree with Truth Powers that one cannot prove God exists, but I know that God does exist, and I can give you my reasons, but they are not based on a "provable" premise, but on being a witness (I am not a Jehovah's Witness FYI).

[inner shale]

Give me the reason you believe

If it could convince u surely it could convince others

[sonic field]

i can give you the reason for the majority of believing people (any religion)

Getting indoctrinated as a kid with the teachings of respective religion
Getting told anyone who doesnt follow your religion as bad/wrong/whatever negative connotation
Not daring to question own beliefs because of previous point
Result is never critically thinking about own position and arguing you are right without any argument

but thats just my personal experience from arguing with lots of religious people

Bonus points if the religion teaches you fallacious arguments to ''convince'' you that your religion is the only true religion

[civic helm]

Essentially, at some point in my life the Spirit of the Lord indwelt me. How that happens cannot be explained in human terms precisely, but in practice it is realizing that your own spirit was dead. You cannot know the difference unless it happens to you, and then you realize that the fairy tales and misprints and ideas that contradict each other in the Bible are to keep the unchosen out. The Lord has chosen the foolishness of preaching to share the Good News that this world is doomed, but there is a way out. Not unlike the space ship that was going to pick up the people that killed themselves in California, only that was a counterfeit of the truth. My Lord says confess He is Lord, and he will save you. But it is really a chicken-egg thing. You cannot confess Him Lord unless He chooses you first. "I believe Lord, help my unbelief!" So I said a prayer to God, and said I am a sinner (but that meant nothing to me) and I confess that you are my Lord, that you sent your Son to die for me in my place, so that on the last day you will raise me up. It was Pete's logical explanation (paraphrasing here) for choosing to do something to preserve ones life, my life, as a motivation to be a moral person. It was the most selfish thought I ever had; Pascal's Wager: you're better off choosing God because the alternative is either oblivion or worse. Tyler's philosophy chose the worst; it is better to be against God than nothing. Others choose oblivion in their minds, but that is another metaphysical thing that cannot be proven.

The truth is we don't know what is going to happen until this Spirit indwells you and speaks to you like Jiminy Cricket. But I changed by saying those words. It was promised, and it was not promised "Not everyone who cries 'Lord, Lord!' will be saved. If people are already chosen then why tell anyone? Kill them all and let God sort them out. That's the human reaction. Once I said the "magic words" my life seemed great, but it was really unraveling. I gained this Spirit, but I was still me. I wanted to party with my friends, do stupid things like drive drunk and tear up property. This new Spirit in me said no, don't do that, and at first I listened. Soon, though, I was living the way I wanted to. I have met many people who were much more moral than me, who weren't Christians. Someone like Pete, who I admire for his strength of character yet I can see the little devil in him too. Perhaps this is also you. I certainly am not smarter or a better person than any of you. I want to be Tyler Durden, you probably don't. Talk about miserable: I hated been torn between what I wanted to do and what the Spirit told me to do. Slowly, the Spirit stopped telling me. I thought "great!" I can do what I want and in the end I still get to go to heaven.

[inner shale]

I had an experience very similar to this a few years ago. I was in my room praying and I told god that I was "ready for whatever he had for me". I asked for his presence and I felt an overwhelming feeling almost like a vibration through my whole body. Not a literal vibration at the time I would probably describe it as a "spiritual vibration". The feeling was there no doubt. It was like a higher form of happiness. I was a very strong Christian and my faith was never more solidified than at that moment.
A few years later being an atheist I sat in my youth group. The leaders of our group told us we should try praying in tounges. I (wanting to fit in) started practicing and I became very good at it, spouting gibberish as if came from the holy spirit himself. The leader of the group told me he saw the spirit of god in me. "God told him that He was speaking to me at that moment".
I thought back to that experience I was talking about and attempted to recreate it. To see if I could get myself to feel what I had felt all those years ago. I told myself that it was all real and I tried hard to drill the idea of being overwhelmed by his presence once again. Within seconds I felt that same convicting "spirit of god" except I sat there knowing it was all in my head.
I had no explanation for it. But I sure as hell wasn't gonna ascribe it to god any longer. There are things about the mind that baffle me to this day. I don't use that as an excuse to make up ad-hawk explanations. I have decided to put my personal feelings aside and think logically and skeptically about everything in my life. I hope you may also do the same.

[inner shale]

Very familiar with this type of brainwashing
I’m sitting in a church service right now and the pastor just said
“Love isn’t a feeling it is your actions”
Sounds profound right?
The whole church start clapping saying “amen”
They don’t even take a second to think critically about what he really is implying

[civic helm]

My witness is that eventually, like a child who finally learns not to misbehave because it's painful (spanking) or they don't get what they want or have to sit in a corner, I was going to be good. Back to Pete's philosophy (or whoever shares that philosophy) so I didn't get punished. back and forth my whole life. Some fellow believers think I am wacked, because they think their picadillo's are not Cosmic Treason against their Creator. We can't comprehend His Glory, His Otherness, that even the slightest wrong against Him will destroy us. But that's our problem as the chosen, we are still rotten. The unbeliever sees this rationally, logically, as madness. But it is the truth. If you believe, you will be saved. If not, you are already doomed. If this doesn't touch you, forget about it. Laugh at it, Scorn it because to you, it is nonsense. But I can't witness that your life will be better, that God will straighten out your life, give you everything you ask for. But inside you know, that the Spirit is truth, and is power, and you can do things that will bring you something that nothing else offers. You will gain a living Spirit, and be able to see the truth, and some day, you will shed off the bad part of you and be left with peace.

[small cradle]

Isn't evolution scientifically proven?

[small cradle]

I think critically of my religion all the time 😭

[inner shale]

Yea lol

[small cradle]

Oh! Very cool thing in Islam. You don't go to hell if you aren't Muslim. You're judged based on a universal morality scale.

[small cradle]

Literally the coolest shit I've ever seen we're those birds evolving in a decade on Galapagos.

I'm reading back what both @inner shale and @civic helm and it sounds a bit uh. Schizo..?

[civic helm]

I kept going and came back to what you wrote. I see that you have experienced this "Christian show" and reject it. I did to, but I can't get away like you have. Part of me is happy for you, in the Fight Club way, that you and I could go tear up the world, and that actually you are more moral than I am. Here is the key I think. I always come crawling back to God. Just like a kid will come back home after realizing how bad he was. Repentance hits me like a brick. Part of me is thinking "I'm a shmuck to lay all this out", but there, I've done it.

[inner shale]

A very natural phenomenon

[small cradle]

Indeed.

[inner shale]

It isn’t voices or anything

It’s more like a placebo

[small cradle]

Yeah, that's what religion is.

[inner shale]

Yep

[civic helm]

Opiate of the masses

Evolution is a work in progress, but "proven" only to believers in it. Science shows us rocks, but to say how old they are is an educated guess, and I'd rather not get into it here, and I really don't care to discuss it. If it works for you, good.

[inner shale]

I’m sorry but this message shows your ignorance for modern science

Radiometric dating is not an educated guess

Neither is evolution

It is a replicable predictable and accurate way to determine the age of isotopes

[small cradle]

👆

[small cradle]

the only critique you may give is that there are wide ranges when it comes to dating rocks, because its pretty hard, but if it's biological matter we are usually pretty accurate

[sonic field]

There is a 40 year old expiriment on E. Coli evolution, currently somewhere in the 70.000th generatjon

Which leterally let's us see evolution in realtime

Evolution is not something to believe in. It is true even if you don't believe in it

Just like gravity or something. Doesn't matter whether you believe it to exist or not, it exist either way

[inner shale]

Potassium 40 works just fine for most rocks

[inner shale]

There are even experiments with fruit flies in which speciation could be demonstrated within 5 generations

[sonic field]

If you look at just one marker true, but if you use several markers simultaneously to date something, the error becomes really small

so look at multiple elements and biological markers for example

use them to date something

[civic helm]

Assumption 1 - We know how many unstable isotopes of a given sample existed for example 100 million years ago.

Assumption 2 - We know the rate of decay was the same over 100 million years.

Assumption 3 - We know that there we no cataclysmic changes to the sample over the past 100 million years.

These are unknowns upon which the current observations are based, therefore logically if any of these factors are not the same as we observe now, we have a theory, not proof. Adding multiple samples increases the number of assumptions based on current observations. Confusionism, I don't know, you don't know. You believe the assumptions are correct. I do not. Belief is not proof. But I know someone who observed the original rocks. Do you?

That's it, I took the bait and talked about creation.

[sonic field]

You don't need to know the initial concentration of anything. You compare various elements that are present and compare them to eachother and the corresponding natural occuring concentration to obtain a reference from from where you can make time estimates.

[sonic field]

Rate of decay for radioactive material is a property of the isotopes themselves. This does not change over time

[sonic field]

Well yes you can know this, because that would change the relative abundance of various elements within a specific sample, so you can compare it to other samples to see whether the composition is significantly different

I agree radiometric dating is not perfect, especially the longer you go back in time, but to claim it is inaccurate is just ignorant

(I am an academically trained chemist, that's why statements like this hurt me in the feelings)

[inner shale]

these arent assumptions they are demonstrable facts
which further goes to show your ignorance on the subject 🤷‍♂️

radiometric dating methods support eachother no matter what isotope you use you get a consistent result

[sonic field]

The way i understood the first assumption is:

''you need to know how much of a specific isotope was present in the first place''

Which you obviously don't

you don't compare the amount of radioactive elements to how many there were x years ago. You compare the relative abundance of various elements that are present NOW

there is no need to know how much there was x years ago in your specific sample

[inner shale]

mmm

hold on

i think you are forgetting an important fact

when an isotope decays it doesnt just dissapear

it changes form

[sonic field]

yes ofcourse

thats literally what i am saying

''you compare the relative abundance of various elements''

[inner shale]

ok gotcha hard to tell what u were saying

[sonic field]

say you do carbon dating, then you have 14C that falls to 14N. If you just compare the amounts of 14C and 14N that are present now, you know how much has been decayed and thus how old the sample is

[inner shale]

yea so @civic helm carbon 14 for example has a half life of 5,000 some odd years in that time half of the c14 isotopes decay turn into n14

[sonic field]

Granted you have some other sample to compare it to

[inner shale]

lol yea we got it

[sonic field]

''BuT dECay Is RaNDom''

[inner shale]

LOL

[sonic field]

just throwing it out there because someone is going to mention it

[inner shale]

u coulda say that

but it is "random" from particle to particle

so if u had 999,999,999 pennies and flipped them all you could say that each penny was random but the average flip rate was 50:50

[sonic field]

It is exactly the way a dice roll works. If you have one dice, then sure the outcome is random. But if you roll 1 trillion dice simultaneously, there is nothing random about the distribution of specific numbers you roll

it will always give you back the exact same answer

LOL

[inner shale]

LOL

[sonic field]

nice explanation

[inner shale]

we keep saying the same thing in different words lmao

nice to know we have at least one scientifically literate person here

🤣

[sonic field]

almost got my masters degree 😄

[inner shale]

in what lol

[sonic field]

sustainable energy technology with a focus on battery technology, biomass technology and climate economics

[inner shale]

whoo

that sounds cool lmao

[sonic field]

it is lol

[inner shale]

im not outta highschool yet 😅

[sonic field]

did a bachelor in chemistry

[inner shale]

oh wow sick

[sonic field]

thats why my internal alarm goes off when someone implies radiometric dating is inaccurate

[inner shale]

🤣😂

please if i ever say something wrong lmk cuz i want to make sure im not spreading misinformation lol

[sonic field]

Well, I don't know everything so I can't make any promises

but yeah, if someone in this discord is spreading misinformation I tend to reply

[inner shale]

thats good lol

[inner shale]

i feel like the only claim against radiometric dating would be something like
"god put all the isotope distributions as they are"
which is logically coherent but also an unfalsifiable claim that makes god seem a bit evil lol

[sonic field]

I mean, if your argument is that god created the way our universe works then sure

[inner shale]

well for a young earth creationist

[sonic field]

but in the end it is just some logical consequence from quantumdynamics

you could argue god made matter and energy behave this way

[inner shale]

yea im saying the only argument that would work is if god made a young earth to look old

cuz radiometric dating is extremely reliable

[sonic field]

still doesn't work because there are also relative abundances of elements outside of earth

the whole concept of ''earth'' does not apply here

this is how matter behaves everywhere in the universe as far as we know

doesn't matter where you are

[inner shale]

yea ofc I'm saying that if a theist were to argue logically they would make an unfalsifiable claim like
"God made wavelength to look redshifted and he made the distribution and decay of isotopes to match up even though he really created it all 5,000 years ago"

similar to the 5 minute hypothesis

not sure if you are familiar with that

does that make sense @sonic field ?

[sonic field]

idk what the 5min hypothesis is

and no redshifting of wavelengths of light is not something that god had to make

as it is a concequence of relativity

he only had to introduce relativity and the rest would come as a result

[inner shale]

"The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included."

[inner shale]

yes ik

ik all about relativity

[sonic field]

I mean, in a sense there is nothing verifiable about that, it could be true for all we know

[inner shale]

im talking about a argument for a young earth that has no internal contradictions

[sonic field]

you know all about relativity?

[inner shale]

lol ik the basics

not all

[sonic field]

I was about to say, there are people out there studying relativity for over 40 years and still know only very little about it

[inner shale]

well

depend on what you mean by little

relativity is simply a working scientific theory

[sonic field]

Little dunning-kruger at work here

[inner shale]

bruhh

listen

there is nothing "not known" about relativity because relativity is a human theory therefore everything theorized must have been thought of and therefore "known"
ofc more significant questions come from relativity but that is not a lack of knowledge of relativity itself
and once again i don't claim to know all about the theory
i simply know the basics

[inner shale]

please dont pull the Dunning Kruger card on me when i am not claiming to know more than i do 😝

@sonic field all good and dandy?😅

[sonic field]

sorry i was engaging in a discussion about masturbation with a minor apparently

caught me offguard

[inner shale]

uhhhhhhhhhh

[sonic field]

hahaha this sounds really bad

[inner shale]

u understand what i am saying now?

[sonic field]

Well, relativity has a lot of unanswered questions. Biggest problem is that relativity and quantum theory both produce perfectly reproducable results in any experiment we do, but mathematically they are mutually exclusive

they cannot both be true the way we understand them now

[inner shale]

yes exactly

[sonic field]

so im skeptical when you are saying you understand about relativity

[inner shale]

"ofc more significant questions come from relativity but that is not a lack of knowledge of relativity itself"

[inner shale]

I haven't said shit lmaoo

i simply know the basics

the typical stuff you learn in a highschool physics class

[sonic field]

yeah and im saying high school basics are nothing

[inner shale]

although i have never been in a physics class

[inner shale]

YEA

that is what im saying

[sonic field]

I have had 3 classes on relativity and quantum and i still know jack shit

[inner shale]

i know the basics

[sonic field]

in uni that is

[inner shale]

nice lol

[sonic field]

the thing is, the more you get used to a subject, the more you start to understand how little you actually know about a subject

[inner shale]

oml

[sonic field]

but yeah, ofcourse you know the basics of relativity

anyone gets to learn it in physics class

[inner shale]

i respect you man but u gotta understand that by me saying ik the basics is not me thinking i know everything

[sonic field]

although, im actually not sure about other countries so nvm

[inner shale]

usa

i havent been in those classes lol

i learn everything from the internet

and by the basics im referring to the stuff that 98% of ppl dont know lol

[sonic field]

idk, my country has a relatively well functioning educational system

sorry usa people

[inner shale]

lol

[sonic field]

but ur education system sucks

[inner shale]

ok haha

i dont learn anything from my school lol

[sonic field]

exactly

like just this alone : '' i learnt it from the internet''

why would you even need to learn it from the internet

it is basic fucking knowledge on how the universe works

[inner shale]

u forget that very reliable sources are on the internet...

and yes most of the internet is a cespool

[sonic field]

i dont care, if you have a brain cell larger than a peanut you should be able to distinguish between good and bad sources

[inner shale]

ofc

what is your point

[sonic field]

that you can very well learn things from the internet

[inner shale]

[sonic field]

my point was that you shouldnt HAVE TO LEARN them from the internet

you should learn this in school

[inner shale]

yea fully agree

makes sence

[small cradle]

none of these are assumptions, they're fact.

[inner shale]

but the internet does have the most effective sources from inforation

[inner shale]

yea lol

DEMONSTRABLE fact

[small cradle]

like what "cataclysmic events"? the world doesn't just cease to follow the laws of physics on a whim.

(many exceptions)

[inner shale]

my thoughts exaclty

[sonic field]

the internet is arguably the best thing humans have ever invented

all knowledge ever gained localized in one place

[small cradle]

the degeneracy bred on it really hurts me

[sonic field]

whn im doing scientific studies, I use the internet for everything

[inner shale]

yea i would probably agree

well

[sonic field]

but i mean, I only use peer reviewed sources from established journals

[inner shale]

if you allow it organization would be the best invention

[sonic field]

i dont expect every person to do this

[small cradle]

most don't even consider it

[inner shale]

which encapsulates most of the stuff we have today

[sonic field]

i mean there are definately problems with scientific literature, most prominent being that it is nearly impossible for someone to understand if you are not trained in it

[inner shale]

cars
phones
food
the internet
cities
literally everything we have that doesn't matter to a nomad

[sonic field]

most science is made to appear way more difficult than it actually is because of the language that is used

[small cradle]

Agreed. I have ready heavy classical literature works, and they pale in comparison to the simplest study abstract

[inner shale]

yea which is why it bothers me so much to see news sources and other unscientific sources to make false analogies to things better explained by a scientist themself

[sonic field]

I dont agree, but im a trained scientist. I find reading literature really hard tbh

[inner shale]

i hate reading 😅

[sonic field]

There is also a greater problem in science communication in general. Ususally what happens is:

Scientist publishes article
Science journalists write about article
Mainstream journalists write about article of science journalist
People read mainstream papers/blogs/journals whatever

In every step a bit of information gets lost or twisted

[inner shale]

SO TRUE

very well said

[small cradle]

this is actually really funny to me. I plan on going into engineering and CBRNE, and currently my best/strongest subjects are english, history/social studies. I enjoy and immerse myself in so many books. But the scientifc stuff is like a whole nother language

[sonic field]

its like the game where you whisper some sentence in a circle

no idea how its called in english

[small cradle]

big game of telephone

[inner shale]

lolll

[sonic field]

if you want to become an engineer, you have to have really strong basic conceptual understanding of maths and physics

I truly hope you won't struggle with that

[inner shale]

to get even the smallest grasp on quantum mechanics you need to understand it down the equations and math
yet many internet sources make it sound like childsplay

[sonic field]

i did all the math 😄

[small cradle]

my conceptual understanding is very good, reason why im doing it as a career, my ability to read studies is minimal.

I guess I don't have practice. I've read probably close to a half a million pages in my lifetime, but like no studies

[inner shale]

😅 AlL ThE mAThhhHH!!

[sonic field]

as in, literally. We had to prove certain quantummechanical concepts using maths by hand for certain tests xd

[inner shale]

ooof

sounds dull ngl

[sonic field]

if its just the understanding of scientific literature, you will get there, just takes time to get acquainted to like any language

[small cradle]

Any suggestions? I think the only thing I'd actually read in studies is related to warfare

[sonic field]

actually pretty fun to be able to prove the different quantisation states of a hydrogen atom in a finite space with infinitely dense walls

if you are interested in that stuff ofcourse

[inner shale]

intersting

ig id have to try it to understand lol

i aint gonna go to college tho so rip

[sonic field]

why?

[inner shale]

cuz i dont need it to do what i want with my life

[sonic field]

Hmm idk, heavily depends on what you want to do or learn

[inner shale]

although it may be fun

[sonic field]

like everything in science is super duper specific so most papers will be super hard without some basic knowledge first

but you can go to college/uni when you are 24

dont have to go when youre 18

[inner shale]

i could definitely get a shit load of scholarships and be in debt free but time is money and i can live without four years to get a piece of paper

it just isnt nessesarry

[small cradle]

Im currently engaging in a deep dive of anything military, specific the napoleonic wars. reading Vom Kriege and it is literally the best book i've ever read. I have to pace myself so i can enjoy it for longer.

[sonic field]

again, depends on what you want to do

[inner shale]

planning on ecom

we will see

[sonic field]

for me it is 100% for the jobs i want to do

[inner shale]

yea i understand that for sure

[sonic field]

but i didnt go to uni because i wanted a piece of paper, i went to uni because I wanted to learn more about certain topics

[inner shale]

yea

which is a good choice

for you

[sonic field]

and while i was in uni I understood that i needed the knowledge for what i want to do after

it was never my primary motivation

[inner shale]

yea

[small cradle]

Im actually going to a uni specifically for that uni, the program is secondary; meaning Its something I can make a job out of.

[inner shale]

love how we are chatting about college in a proof of god channel lol

[sonic field]

ah that sounds very cool

yeah idk this forum was dead after a week anyway

[small cradle]

Royal Military College of Canada

[inner shale]

lol

[small cradle]

there's a reason this place has 5k messages

[sonic field]

this may sound dumb but what is the difference between college and uni?

i dont know shit about american education system tbh

[inner shale]

one is merica one is brit lol

same thing

[sonic field]

i see

[inner shale]

we call it "college" or "a university"
not "uni" or "university"

[sonic field]

actually now i think about it, i dont even have a physical piece of paper as a diploma

[inner shale]

haha makes sense

no need for that shit

[small cradle]

Colleges generally only have bachelors, or graduate programs.

Unis have post graduate (PHD, masters, etc.)

Thing is, the place i want to go is called a college but its a university.

[inner shale]

we are in a different world from 30 years ago

[sonic field]

i can get it if i pay for it

[inner shale]

lol

[sonic field]

but my uni says: its waste of paper, dont want to put extra strain on the environment for no purpose

and i like my uni for that

[inner shale]

LOL

[small cradle]

im sorry but if I spent all my life in school and got into a university I will definetly take a piece of paper

[sonic field]

idk the piece of paper doesnt mean shit

its the knowledge you gain that is important

[civic helm]

I didn't want to hurt your feelings. I'm am not a scientist, my bachelors is in business. Applying science to our current needs is vital. The Earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid, and exploring space a necessity for humanity to fill all the earth. But that does not change what we don't know by observation. It must have always been this way is still a belief, no matter how many facts we have at the moment. Astrophysicists are in awe of all the new stuff the get to see. There are a good many assumptions in that field.

[small cradle]

yes the paper itself is meaningless, but it signifies the work of my entire life up until that point

[sonic field]

Dont take it too hard, its okay. I just get frustrated sometimes when people are really convinced about something they really dont know much about. Same would be if I would talk shit about business that you know to be wrong, that would also make you think like ''wtf bro''

or something similar

[inner shale]

BRSRKR has some knowlege for us

has been typing for a while

[sonic field]

I agree there are many many many things we dont know, but there are things we DO know, and this was the type of thing we do know. Don't need assumptions for radiometric dating that's all

i am not mad or anything

[civic helm]

Of course the atoms don't go away. What's your assumption about C-14 in fossils? Shouldn't it all be all gone by now?

[inner shale]

whattt

depends on the fossil

if it is millions of years old u dont have a large enough sample to make any sort of estimate

which is why we use different isotopes

[sonic field]

you can do radiometric dating with any radioactive isotope

[inner shale]

yep

[sonic field]

carbon dating is generally only used for short term (say <100k yrs)

[inner shale]

thought it was 50k

[sonic field]

idk, is the same order of magnitude to me

could be 50k

i just know its short timescales

[inner shale]

yea

also the earth is flat

[sonic field]

fuck you

[inner shale]

i have scientific evidence to prove it

[small cradle]

yes

[inner shale]

LOL

[inner shale]

so dont go telling me its a globe

[small cradle]

5,730 years
The time it takes for 14C to radioactively decay is described by its half-life. C has a half-life of 5,730 years. In other words, after 5,730 years, only half of the original amount of 14C remains in a sample of organic material. After an additional 5,730 years–or 11,460 years total–only a quarter of the 14C remains.

@civic helm that means, half a sample. Meaning if you had a billion atoms of carbon 14, it would take 170 thousand years for it to decay.

But decay doesn't mean it all dissapears, shit decays into and out of c14.

[small cradle]

There are greater assumptions in the field of business.

[inner shale]

uhhhh

idk wym by that

[small cradle]

There are a good many assumptions in that field.

Simply saying that while yes, astrophysics has many assumptions, it pales into comparison to the assumptions made in business.

[inner shale]

not a fair comparison imo

[small cradle]

@civic helm very cool thing I found

*hanges in the carbon cycle however can make such effects difficult to isolate and quantify. [18][19] Occasional spikes may occur; for example, there is evidence for an unusually high production rate in AD 774–775,[20] caused by an extreme solar energetic particle event, strongest for the last ten millennia.[21][22] Another "extraordinarily large" 14
C increase (2%) has been associated with a 5480 BC event, which is unlikely to be a solar energetic particle event.[23]

Carbon-14 may also be produced by lightning [24][25] but in amounts negligible, globally, compared to cosmic ray production. Local effects of cloud-ground discharge through sample residues are unclear, but possibly significant.*

[civic helm]

I wouldn't make that claim. We deal with what we know. I think that being shown the error of my ways is a curtesy. The Christians who combined church and state said something similar about being right, and persecuted those who had different opinions, and killed many in God's name. I apologize for them because they were wrong like all the other forms of tyranny that have plagued mankind. If you don't want me to share my views I'll stop.

[inner shale]

i have never met anyone to make the claim

im only saying it is the only logic argument for a young earth

(that i can think of)

because the scientific community is standing right in front of you and you have discredit them to go on believing

yet you can't demonstrate the fallibility of the processes used to establish the blatant issues with your worldview

[sonic field]

Well some people see science as just another opinion, so as long as they have that belief, its no use arguing

[inner shale]

😬

[civic helm]

Lol. (To typing a while) Well I am not one of those, I see science as facts known, and then there are the interpreters of those facts, that make assumptions that are not necessarily wrong, not necessarily right, but not observed.

[civic helm]

This isn't an argument, it's contradiction. https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

[small cradle]

no way you cited monty python

[inner shale]

Idk who that is

[inner shale]

Science is ok with being wrong you are not
That’s the difference
When new information is given we change our model
You reject it because it doesn’t fit your world view

[civic helm]

It's your straw man that I reject science. I do not reject science. And just because you say I do doesn't make it so. Oh, and how come everyone has ignored the Radiocarbon in fossils?

[civic helm]

Way.

[small cradle]

satirical comedy troupe, actors and the like

[small cradle]

no one has ignored radiocarbon in fossils, quite the opposite...

[civic helm]

Quite right, I'm looking at that now. Sorry, tired.

[small cradle]

I am too, lets stop this pointless arguement

[civic helm]

Actually I told cury, but I fixed it to something you'll like, too.

[civic helm]

Ok, but I still don't see how 170,000 half-life gets us back to 65 million years. The other unstables and their stables are there, so it must be millions, was that what you were saying. Clarify if you care to, if not then as you said, let's move on.

[small cradle]

ok, well, 2 grams of carbon 14 is about like 14 quintillion atoms of carbon 14

[small cradle]

if we took your eyelashes it would take a few hundred thousand years for ONE to completely loose all carbon 14

I think, using this math, you would need a few kilograms of c14, and dinosaurs weighed tonnes

[civic helm]

Ok, so how much C-14 is in a blue whale, if you know, and if not , I'll go check and let it go.

[small cradle]

23 percent of a human's body mass is c14, if we use this same number a whale will have 35 thousand kilograms of c14

[small cradle]

34,500 kilograms

[civic helm]

Well, 23% of the human body is carbon. 1 in every trillion atoms of carbon is C-14, slight calculation error.

[small cradle]

thats, the universal abundance of carbon.... my guy. Do you know what "carbon based life form means"?

the most common elemnts in our body are hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon

like im sorry but the 1 in a trillion means how common it is in the universe

[civic helm]

no, 1 in a trillion carbon atoms are c-14 atoms in a human, not the whole universe. Says right in this physics web site https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/675970/what-happen-if-all-the-carbon-14-atoms-in-a-person-body-decays-at-once

[civic helm]

There is 30000 kilos of carbon in a whale, and 3.0x.10e13 divided by 1.0x10e12 (1 trillion) means there are 3 kilos of C14 in a blue whale.

[inner shale]

No straw man You reject radiometric dating for irrational reasons

[gray kettle]

Same. At this point I’m inclined to think @sonic field is slightly hostile and angry by how he/she communicates

[gray kettle]

Which is most “theist” positions

I’ll exit as this channel is no longer about the topic title. But enjoy your back and forths about carbon dating and the like

[sonic field]

how is it hostile? This is literally how the majority of religious people around the world grow up

[sonic field]

Nope you are wrong. C14 only constitutes about 2% of all carbon on earth, the rest is c12 and is very stable, non radioactive

They are formed when neutrons collide with N14 in the atmosphere

When an organism is alive, they will constantly replenish their c14 uptake, but when they die, this stops. This way, you can date organic material by the amount of c12 vs c14 vs N14 in organic material

(not to scale)

[civic helm]

You say I reject radiometric dating. I did not reject anything, son. You reject the Living God. Have a nice day.

[gray kettle]

There is no objective means to measure this by. I grant that some have claimed this (and some have strengthened there faith aside from false doctrine while others have left there faith because of false doctrine) but in all cases it has not just resorted as a bad religious experience.

[inner shale]

What do you mean objective?

This is the most backed up scientific process for dating everything

I really don’t understand how people want to reject something before even taking a second to understand it

[gray kettle]

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

[gray kettle]

wait what is?

[gray kettle]

who is rejecting something? And im not sure what im rejecting at this point

[inner shale]

(of a person or their judgement) your definition doesnt fit

[inner shale]

radiometric dating

[gray kettle]

Im not arguing radiometric dating. my comment was towards the comment Cury made about people growing up in religions.

[gray kettle]

doesnt fit what. Humans are making the assertions in all of these forums. The objective opinions of persons or their judgement aka there "facts", "moral claim", or their "logic" is all supposed by us humans. SO my statement from earlier is that humans (apart from a deity) make up the rules if you will. and im curious as to who is right and why?

[inner shale]

as i said im not gonna argue with you on something so trivial

[gray kettle]

I respect your position to decide that.

[small cradle]

I don't think so

[gray kettle]

Same

[small cradle]

Okay

[sonic field]

Lol

[dense flicker]

I think it makes no sense to adhere to a set of beliefs that doesn't think it's the true/only correct religion

And opposing religions often respect each other because of that

If two beliefs are incompatible they are incompatible. Both sides have mutual understanding of that point. The perspective that they are both correct and neither one is better than the other is an insult to both sides

[dense flicker]

Solution:
Teach your child about your religion as if it were truth, but teach your child the reasoning behind why it is truth. Just because many people fail to do the latter doesn't mean you should not teach your children what you think are true.

If your child was convinced the earth was flat, you'd show them the reasoning for why it is not

[willow plover]

One big problem with trying to teach your child the reasoning behind why it is truth is that there is no reasoning behind any religion that makes it true. It is all false. Christianity is what I know about the most and it is supposedly based, at least in part, on the bible. However the bible is evidence against christianity, it contradicts everything we have learnt about the earth and the universe and if the god of the bible existed he would be an evil god because he is shown to be a mass murdering homicidal maniac. Killing everyone on earth but 8 people is not the act of a loving god and that is one example of many.

[coral valley]

truth generally implies that something can be proven (or disproven). there are no theistic religions which offer proof - instead they rely on faith which is the opposite of truth. faith necessarily cannot be proven, thus it cannot be true. if i had faith that there was a giant crab living in space waiting to pass judgement on us, you would not call this belief "truth". this is how any faith based belief appears to an outsider that lacks that faith.

that being said i have no idea how i would approach that subject if i had kids and i was religious. i wouldnt want to indoctrinate them into something that they have no ability to decide if they want to be a part of or not, but i also understand that if you truly believed in some religious ideas then you would want to save the soul of your child or whatever. its a tricky situation.

[gray kettle]

there is much to say about this. Because for a person to say something or someone is evil they have to have a basis for this outside of their own opinion (you can have your opinion ofc course) but it does not make it a fact. As I have said in the past I would be happy to jump into a VC and hear the context behind your claim in this part if you would like and offer my thoughts. If not thats totally okay but a lot has been claimed here and I do not wanna type for years haha

[gray kettle]

why is faith the "opposite" of truth? That is an interesting claim.

[gray kettle]

also if the crab revealed itself to people and then spoke to many people about itself then some (not all/nor most probably) would agree with it even if it appeared to real life people

[coral valley]

I look at it like this: truth is something that is real and provable. Belief is something that might be real but you cannot prove. Faith is something that you believe is real without proof. If there was a hard proof for any religious belief, it would no longer require faith - but there are no provable theistic religions.

As for your second question, my issue wouldnt be with people believing in the unprovable thing, it would br with believing that your possible explanation of the unprovable thing should be considered true. I would grant thr crab people as much credit for their belief system as i would a follower of any religion, but i would not be convinced of the sky crab because someone else told me that they talked to it.

[gray kettle]

If i may ask, what would you call the act of turning a key in an ignition and then when it starts would you say the process of "hoping" or having "faith" that it would start a relevant feeling or expectation?

[coral valley]

i would call that a belief

[gray kettle]

And when you say "cannot" do you mean "not yet been proven" or you literally mean cannot?

[gray kettle]

a belief and faith would be synonymous in that example, no?

[coral valley]

well no, you have the assumption that the car would start - but no one thinks that they know for sure that the car will start. everyone accepts random chance or parts breaking down etc. faith would be like "i know my car will work - that old beauty never lets me down" where your belief in something is no longer based on provable reality but some esoteric faith based individualized belief system

[gray kettle]

Because without a basis, or standard to measure from, the ability to find out what is true is subjective (which i believe it is not) For example: when a person goes outside and experiences the cold weather, sure we assign the meaning "cold" however the fact that something hot and something cold are not complimentary. So then when someone steps outside into the cold they realize that feeling they have leaves them feeling wanting to "warm" up (or however you want to assign that) but the fact stands that it is definitely cold outside and not hot.

[coral valley]

objective from a subjectively human perspective yes, i follow you

[gray kettle]

right so my point in stating this is that, theist or atheist, some form of "faith" exists in our lives, we just choose to place our faiths in different departments.

[gray kettle]

right so if one objective truth exists, EVEN ONE, and it is discoverable (even without books, doctrine, or revelation) we can view that truth can and does exist and should be sought out. Then a person finding this out would either be pressed to find the "objective truth maker and or giver" and see who or what that thing/being is.

[coral valley]

ultimately faith is required in order to function in our reality - we have no way of proving or disproving many fundamental aspects of our existence. for example i have faith that i am a human being living in objective reality, but in truth i could just as easily be a crazy person creating an imaginary world, or someone engaging in a really wild vivid dream, or there could be a person in a higher dimension who pilots my life and i am just an avatar in a video game. i have no way of proving or disproving any of these versions of reality - but i would argue that this application of faith is beneficial to society as a whole because it wouldnt be very productive to have everyone staring into the abyss trying to ascertain the truth of something that cannot be proven true or untrue. i feel the same way about god.

when i say cannot i mean within the limits of current human understanding - i dont like to make claims about our abilities in the future because i feel like we live in very uncertain times. in 100 years we could be living in a space-age utopia where we uncover the secrets of reality or we could just as easily have nuked ourselves back to the stone age

[gray kettle]

this is a fair point to an extent. then if this "matrix program" or "alien" or "higher power" does exists AND they made themselves known, then it would behoove someone (i argue everyone) to decide if the claims made by one of these beings is true or not. If the being or hallucination has not clued us in on the ruse then we are stuck in the "simulation" or "cycle" and nothing really matters outside of what we perceive. For me I choose to look at a benevolent, loving, merciful God and hope on this man named Jesus, and not place my faith on "randomness" "chaos" nor "a being who does not care to reveal itself".

[gray kettle]

if our sun doesnt burn out or our ozone crack and we get dunked on by nature lol but i see your point for sure

[coral valley]

i see what youre saying and for this reason i dont try to convince people out of their religious beliefs, but i will caveat with this: if someone today realized they could gain control over the narrative of reality by telling a story that appealed to fundamental elements of humanity (i will use the example of advertisers utilizing psychological manipulation on children because they know it is the most effective way to get adults to spend money) then i would be very hesitant to believe that they did not have alterior motives to presenting this worldview (like the advertisers want to make money)

[gray kettle]

i COMPLETELY agree with this. Because people can use anything (during the child rearing process) to manipulate and/or alter the beliefs of a gullible child. But if the information is "tough" or "difficult to swallow" then i believe context, context, context behind anything you believe is paramount. But if the beliefs of a religion seemed nice on the surface, and then after realization of this falsehood I would encourage a person to move on and "seek other pastures" if you will. But I find most people talking about religion just super impose there own morality into the text or take one text out of context and without understanding 1) the cultural milieu 2) The context to the readers/hearers of the day 3) the reason it was said and what was happening in the known world, let alone a specific culture 4) and finally what is the ultimate claim of the religion/God or gods/and what does it or the thing want for/from me.

[willow plover]

When I say the god portrayed in the bible is evil, that is me expressing my own subjective viewpoint, I am not claiming I am expressing an objective truth. I do my best to understand the world around me but I am a very limited being so I might get it totally wrong. However I am confident all religions and religious concepts of god are false.

[sonic field]

In this context, according to bean this should actually be truth, not belief. It is real and provable whether a car will start or not, as it is just the combination of parts that have to work together to start the car. Heck, even from looking at all parts individually, you can make a good prediction on whether it will start or not.

[sonic field]

The existence of any god or higher power is unprovable pretty much by definition

[sonic field]

This is really based upon human subjectivity. Temperature is a measure for the kinetic energy within the bonds between atoms. So the more kinetic energy within those bonds, the higher the temperature. Whenever we say ''it is cold'' we think of temperatures of lets say below freezing (32F, 0C), which is 273K. When we say it is warm we tend to think of temperatures (at least i do) of lets say above 20C (68F). The absolute temperature difference between these temps is 273 vs 293K and is only about 7%.

The reason you experience something as ''cold'' or 'hot'' is because either there is an energy flux entering or leaving the body, which happens whenever there is an equilibrium boundary between the skin and the air

The point being, human experience is very very very subjective and we are pretty bad in understanding absolute things as a species

everything in human experience is subjective by definition

[willow plover]

20C is most definitely not warm. At 25C it is starting to be a little warm. At 30C there is truly warmth in the air

[sonic field]

Guess that depends on where you're from

but i mean, that already shows you the subjectivity

[willow plover]

Yes, experiencing the weather is most definitely highly subjective. It also changes over time

[sonic field]

in myu country on average there are 2 to 8 days above 30C in a year

to me 30C feels boiling hot lol

[willow plover]

We would probably get about that many days as a minimum above 40C

[sonic field]

However, the point was that although we can feel a large difference between lets say 0C and 20 or 30C the actual difference in temp is not that high

the amount of kinetic energy that is present within the bonds between atoms is not that much higher when temp raises by 30C

[willow plover]

That is true

[sonic field]

so ''hot'' and ''cold'' are very subjectiv

So it is not 'definately cold' outside, it all depends on the reference frame

if you compare it to 30C, yeah it can be cold

if you compare it to the average temp in the universe it is crazy hot even when we experience it to be ''cold

So saying it is ''cold'' is not a truth, it is merely a way for humans to communicate an idea

[coral valley]

i would push back on that just a little, in that humans are warmblooded creatures without much natural protection from the elements so the way we experience temperature would fall within a certain range if we compared ourselves to say a manitee

or a lizard

[sonic field]

Sure, but the concept of ''hot'' or ''cold'' are still subjective

[coral valley]

as a canadian i can vouch for this

[sonic field]

Let me give an example. When it is 20C in summer in my country, many people walk around in shorts and tshirts. However, there are a lot of migrants from countries with warmer climates who still walk around in winter jackets

They would say it is cold

I would say it is hot

so you can't say that ''but the fact stands that it is definitely cold outside and not hot.''

[coral valley]

20C would certainly be a warm day by my standards as well, especially in the spring which further proves your point about subjectivity. 5C in the fall feels cold, 5C in the spring could be tshirt weather

[sonic field]

I would even go as far as claiming that ANY human experience is subjective

[coral valley]

how do we know that our sensory tools are effective

[sonic field]

But i just hooked on the temperature example as it was coined before

[coral valley]

ill put it this way, we know that some animals can perceive the infrared spectrum or sonar visually. it stands to reason that there are more sensory inputs that our biological tools do not have the ability to interface with. this is why i am very skeptical of any claims about the truth of reality be they religious or scientific

we do not know what we do not know, it would be naive to assume that any new level of understanding represents anything more than access to the next layer of the mystery

[sonic field]

Oh i fully agree

I believe that some things exist out there that can be seen as ''truth'' but we will never be able to fully experience or even understand it

as humans (and all other organisms we know of) are very limited

like, we only experience 3 dimensions

it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for us to experience more

so even if there were, we would never be able to know for sure

as there is no way for us to interact with them

[coral valley]

this is why im more agnostic than atheistic, i think there could be a god and there could even be value in believing in a religion regardless of whether a god exists or can be interacted with - i just havent found a belief system that im fully on board with nor have i experienced a personal faith affirming moment

i do think there is an evolutionary component of spiritual practices which is lacking in a lot of nonreligious peoples lives though, i think evolutionarily we have developed mechanisms which reward and seek communal worship. i just think we need to develop a way to scratch that itch without the bad parts that come with organized religion

[sonic field]

personally i believe that this was useful when humans (not necessarily homo sapiens but any homo species) lived in smaller groups (<100/150 people) but it has lost most of the evolutionairy advantage after we started living in larger societies

I think cultural identity replaced the need for ''religion''

[coral valley]

i dont know how well that replacement has worked for us given decreasing birth rates and increasing rates of mental illness. i see value in the social aspects, maybe even value in giving up some of the perceived agency over your own life in order to better cope with hardships.

[sonic field]

'' dont know how well that replacement has worked for us given decreasing birth rates and increasing rates of mental illness''

-> This is assuming those are correlated with decreasing amount of religious beliefs

but i can give you 1000 other possible factors that contribute aswel

so i don't think you can make this claim tbh

ALso, it seems like you're saying decreasing birth rates are something negative?

[coral valley]

theres this concept called structural functionalism where you kind of view society as an individual entity made up of constituent parts. each of these constituent parts being out of alignment with others causes social upheaval. many elements of life which were previously accounted for through ritualistic communal worship have not been adequately replaced within modern western society

each constituent part effects many others, so no its not just lack of religion that leads to these outcomes, but it is undoubtedly a factor - perhaps even a larger one than is immediately obvious

[sonic field]

Yeah but my point is that religion is not the only ''method'' for allignment

in modern society, there is not a need for religion the same way there was 50k years ago

''but it is undoubtedly a factor - perhaps even a larger one than is immediately obvious''
Or perhaps way smaller than you are imagining right now

we can't possibly know as dynamic systems are too complex to fully understand

[coral valley]

i agree, structural functionalism argues that these changes require adaptation. so for a modern example that is non-religious i usually point to the introduction of industrial machinery allowing for women to enter the workforce - and this increase in economic freedom contributing to an increase in divorce rates which in turn leads to an increase in mental illness among children of broken families

you can see how a small "good" thing if left unchecked can have widespread consequences

[sonic field]

ermm, i dont think you can make those claims of causality

i understand the argument

[coral valley]

i mean, thats the entire field of sociology 😛

[sonic field]

Wdym?

[coral valley]

sociology is based on implied causality

[sonic field]

Sociology supports the claim that mental health increase in children is the causal result of women entering the workforce?

Yeah but that doesn't mean that everything that is correlated is has a causal relation

thats the point

if you want to assert a claim of causation you have to statistically show it

[coral valley]

you cannot prove that being the child of a criminal will make you more likely to be a criminal, we can only gather data and draw our own conculsions

[sonic field]

which in this case is not really possible

nope you can perform statistical analyses to test this hypothesis and confirm or dismiss the hypothesis based on the confidence of statistical causation

that is not the same as ''draw our own conclusions''

[coral valley]

that is included in the data gathering process

social sciences are not based on observable facts, but there is data which supports each of the causal claims i made

[sonic field]

and even than you can only conclude it is A factor, not THE factor

[sonic field]

please show me where these claims are supported

because I am really sceptical

[sonic field]

I know, but again, it doesnt mean that a relation implies causality

and that is what you are arguing

or at least the way you phrase things argues this

maybe thats not what you meant to say

but that is what is implied

[coral valley]

yeah, to be clear: each constituent part effects MANY constituent parts. a change in one will necessitate a change in many. in this way each constituent part is interconnected - you could never identify THE cause of an issue, only a set of causal reactions within the system

this set of causal reactions could be occurring simultaneously to other changes within the system

[sonic field]

''yeah, to be clear: each constituent part effects MANY constituent parts. a change in one will necessitate a change in many. in this way each constituent part is interconnected''
-Agreed

''you could never identify THE cause of an issue, only a set of causal reactions within the system''
-They don't HAVE to be causal though

[coral valley]

the increase in mental illness has many, many causes. you could never pinpoint the one issue which causes it. but you could pinpoint one of many issues and reverse engineer where this problem originated and through that come up with possible solutions

[sonic field]

a causal relation is only present when a change in one variable directly influences a change in another variable

[coral valley]

i think youre misinterpreting directly as solely

[sonic field]

?

[coral valley]

they are directly influencing other aspects of society, but there are other forces as well

which are also directly influencing that aspect of society

[sonic field]

well not if it is indirect

if you say:

women enter workforce
this increases the rate of divorce
which in turn increases the prevalence of mental illnes in children

then women entering the workforce and prevalence of mentall ilness in children have no causal relation

or at least

not neccesarily

they could have

[coral valley]

no they would be connected through causal relationships though

[sonic field]

If A implies B
and B implies C
A does NOT HAVE TO imply C

[coral valley]

yes thats true

[sonic field]

thats my whole point

so we agree

[coral valley]

i think so 😛

[sonic field]

and whether you ascribe significance to such a relation is up for debate

In some cases you can, in some cases you cant, and in some cases you just dont have enough information to know for sure

[coral valley]

we only ever connect one thing to another, because in this example A implies B. but B is also influenced by A2 and A3 and A4 and A5, A representing a direct causal link between another element of society

maybe causal is the wrong word

[sonic field]

correlation is definately there

causation not

women entering workforce and increase in mental illness is 100% correlated

[coral valley]

yeah i youre right about that

[sonic field]

in your example that is

[coral valley]

mhm, so my point would be that there are correlations between a loss of religious life and other elements of society which may not be immediately obvious

[sonic field]

sure

i agree haha

I also don't want to be a dick about definitions of statistics but I do it just to prevent confusion. I have a scientific background, but I know not everyone does, so if you talk about e.g. causality, to me this means one very specific thing, whereas you may use it more loosely (as an example)

[coral valley]

yes absolutely - my background is in history and english so im pretty liberal with the way i use scientific terms sometimes

[sonic field]

and then we will not really be arguing about anything if we dont mean the same thing with the same words

[coral valley]

no offense taken, if anything i appreciate you teaching me something 🙂

[sonic field]

yeah like the example I always like to give is that in summer the sales of ice creams goes up, but also the rate of skin cancer development

so from just that data you could assume that eating ice cream increases skin cancer development

whereas the actual causal relation is between ice cream and the power of the sun and the power of the sun and skin cancer development

so although ice cream consumption and skin cancer development are correlated, there is no causal relation

And of course that is a very easy example which may be really obvious

but it is nice to think about these examples when things are not so obvious anymore

when you are for example researching two variables that are unknown

[coral valley]

i think thats where sociology falls more into the soft sciences, and why i brought up that idea of implied causation. we can likely never deduce direct causes for sociological phenomena because they are interconnected in extremely complex ways

[sonic field]

yeah those relations generally fall in the category: ''we don't have enough information to make definitive statements''

[coral valley]

there may in fact not be a single direct cause for a given sociol phenomena, there may be 5 or 6 causes which cannot be measurably compared against eachother to determine influence, so some level of interpretation and justification is required

[sonic field]

and so you build theories about the relations you find in order to explain certain phenomena

but 20 years later another sociologists comes up with a different explanation that works equally welll

[coral valley]

hahah

too true

[sonic field]

and not only in sociology

[coral valley]

thats human knowledge 😛

[sonic field]

this is also present in ''hard'' sciences like maths and physics

[coral valley]

even in history

we find new information all the time that disproves our previous "truths"

[sonic field]

no but the mere fact that two different explanations for 1 phenomenon work equally well means that no one really knows and there is not enough information available to make a real ''truthful'' statement

take quantum mechanics and string theory for example> both work equally well in explaining pretty much everything we have ever observed in the universe

so you must think they are true

turns out they are mutually exclusive theories

yet we use both theories on a daily basis to design and built things that exactly work the way we expect them to

[coral valley]

very interesting

[sonic field]

so there is probably even more behind the workings of the universe that we have either never observed yet, or are unable to ever observe

so there are limits to the amount of knowledge we can have

[coral valley]

but would that hard limit mean that you stop looking for answers that you could ascertain?

one could make the same argument about religious beliefs 🤔

[sonic field]

Nope, not for me at least

but i guess thats more of a personal thing

for some people it does

[coral valley]

we know what we cant know, but we dont yet know what we CAN know

[sonic field]

I mean, it applies to any knowledge

so religion is only a subset of all knowledge

it is not treated differently with regards to information availability

[sonic field]

yeah its like on one side there is all information we already know, on the other side is all information we KNOW we will never know, but in between is a vast stretching grey area

[coral valley]

and that grey area could be not much, but it could be endless. very interesting

i have a good friend who is a prof of QM and some of the things he talks about are truly mind blowing, but sometimes it comes off the same way religious talk comes off

[sonic field]

If you want to understand a tiny bit more, check out this website where they try to provide correlations between unrelated things to show the difference between causation and correlation https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

one example:

[coral valley]

i look at this and what ive learned about sociology tells me: there is a relationship between each of these seemingly unrelated things

lol

but i also see what you mean, that is maybe a fault in the human brain to look for patterns

[sonic field]

''but sometimes it comes off the same way religious talk comes off'' yeah i mean it also depends how involved you are into the subject matter. Sometimes things are too complicated to understand without proper prior knowledge, especially in highly specialized fields such as QM

[sonic field]

this is exactly the explanation brought up by most people

we are hardwired to recognise patterns, even if they are not there

You know, if you eat a mushroom and the next day you get sick, you blame it on the mushroom

next time you wont eat these mushrooms anymore

seems like a good evolutionary advantage

even though maybe you were already infected with something and these events are totally unrelated

[coral valley]

mmm but there are downsides to heuristics like that: they say a cat will never touch a hot stove twice, but once it touches a hot stove it will never touch a cold stove

[sonic field]

no exactly, it is the same in my example

it will just never touch the stove again because it is scared of the stove

but evolutionary speaking

it is probably better to avoid a lot of harmless things because you perceive them as harmful

than to act on one harmful thing because you perceive it as harmless

[coral valley]

true enough

[sonic field]

and i guess that is the main explanation for correlative thinking

but it is also observed in other animals, maybe most famously in crows

who also have a very high degree of correlative thinking

which in turn improves their problem solving skills

[gray kettle]

sure but unprovable shouldnt stop us from seeking out to find if it is true or not is all im saying. Because unprovable could just mean "right now with what we have access to" and not forever.

[gray kettle]

sure but the verifiable definition of its cold outside is "subjective" sure but not in actuality. Because if its raining outside that would not be able to be argued (whether you like the rain or mind being wet).

[gray kettle]

sure but someone usually isnt making a truth claim if they tell you its cold outside. they are trying to signal that you might want warmer clothes or else deal with it haha

[gray kettle]

what feels hot and feels cold is objective to each person. however the fact that the actual temperature outside (to which we identify broadly as hot or cold) is "cold" lets say is mute because beyond a certain degree a person would die if out in this cold for too long.

[sonic field]

With unprovable I mean unprovable, not unprovable for now

because then it would be provible...

[sonic field]

sure

[sonic field]

I thought that you made a truth claim in that example, but if thats not what you meant then idk what you meant with the example xd

[sonic field]

sure so we have a selective pressure to feel temperature in order to act in a way we will not die of outside climate

but i dont understand the point

''what feels hot and feels cold is objective to each person''

And also i just fundamentally disagree on this statement.

Because it is an experience, it cannot be objective

thats my argument

as experiences are subjective in nature

[gray kettle]

Experiences are yes but to have a defined set of rules then, those rules would not be subjective. So the examples of certain temperatures and so forth, are there any real perceivable things a person can have or is it all subjective hallucinations.

[inner shale]

I believe something should require good evidence to be accepted as a true model of reality

So if u can find good evidence I’d would love to talk 😉

[verbal knot]

Better do a Jordan here and teach your children the deeper meaning behind the literal myths. That way, you can stay true to your insights, truthful to your children and become a masterful pedagogue as well👍

Now that the reply vanished from my last comment and some dozen more comments appeared, I can only add that it was in regard to what one should teach one's children in regard to religion

[gray kettle]

Everything this far has just been a claim on both sides. And even if evidence is presented how can I know if it’s not just some flaw in my own perception? Or even if 2 people or hundreds come to the same conclusion, we all could just have been deceived equally. So exactly what kind of evidence? That would not equate to a possible hallucination or “subjective view”. Most models of reality only appear in the eye of the beholder, no? So I don’t believe anyone could ever “convince” you of the truth or of the evidence based on your own claims. You have to accept it as a fact or true to you. Which per our conversation is still only equal to your personal “belief” or “faith” that what you know is accurate or true. So then it sounds like the “evidence” I have presented should be thoroughly combed through (beyond the book of Leviticus) or there really isn’t much more (from a Christian standpoint) to discuss. You believe how you believe, and that is okay, but a person cannot be convinced by someone else (they must see it for themself and then still choose to accept the truth of the claim, or the lie as well)

[gray kettle]

I agree. Teaching your children (intentionally) something false or malicious is foul and wrong. Making sure to separate “Santa” from “Jesus” as an example, is very necessary. Both can be okay to teach but both should not be accepted as “real” if that makes sense

[inner shale]

I have made no claim you have made the claim and I’m asking you to prove it

Because I only believe believe things on good evidence

[gray kettle]

well not a straight out claim sure but then what is your official clam then? Atheist? Agnostic? Etc. You have stated a position on here i believe unless im mistaken?

[inner shale]

I have no position

That makes me an atheist

[gray kettle]

Atheism IS a position.

[inner shale]

No it’s not

Do I lack belief in the existence of god
Yes
Do I lack belief that god doesn’t exist
Yes

Call me agnostic if that helps

But technically it makes me an atheist too

[gray kettle]

You cant be both agnostic AND atheist good sir

[inner shale]

Ok man…

[gray kettle]

one says "god" exists but I dont know him and it is not personal. Atheist means there is no "god" or higher power.

[gray kettle]

Again, if you wanna play the "everything is subjective" game then the conversation is mute. Whether someone gave you "evidence" or not then you could still claim that the "evidence" is subjective and only relevant to the person with the evidence. BUT of we agree on basic facts and definitions and set a basis for understanding (which would be as much as humans have found out up to today) im game.

[inner shale]

Ngl man it is hella frustrating when u can’t look at a simple definition and understand what falls under that

I’m giving you the main definition and you are sitting here denying it like that even matters

[gray kettle]

i see the definition. But in basic communicating it is frustrating talking to someone who doesnt know there official stance on something such as a "higher power". My request would be to find a camp and establish your camp. Then once you have done this then we can have a discussion about both parties camps.

[inner shale]

Why do I need to pretend I know something I that I dont

That is ridiculously ignorant

[gray kettle]

"denying" it. I didnt deny it. I said you can't logically and rationally be a athesit which = NO GOD, and an agnostic = A GOD MIGHT EXIST BUT WE CANT KNOW. <---- this is the two simplified meanings.

[inner shale]

Even or odd gum balls?

You better pick one

[gray kettle]

so then you are neither an agnostic nor a atheist then.

[inner shale]

You need to pick your camp

Even or odd

[inner shale]

Both of these definitions are wrong

🤦‍♂️

[gray kettle]

i can pick one but the truth is that if we had this jar of gumballs if i picked even and it was not even I would be wrong.....unless we want to talk semantics about "wHaT iS eVeN aNd WhAt Is OdD?"

[gray kettle]

they were simplifications.

one of the most common atheist statements is: "There is no such thing as god"

[inner shale]

And very wrong
An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god/gods
And agnostic is someone who doesn’t take any position on god/gods

So I am both

[inner shale]

I really don’t give af

What matters is what I am saying

[gray kettle]

lacks belief does not mean that could be convinced. It means its not there. It means 0 belief so then belief that god/gods are not real in the slightest.

[gray kettle]

not at all.

[inner shale]

Then I am done

👋

[gray kettle]

you should care if you really want to discuss/debate if god exists?

What you say is not "all" that matters by a long shot

[inner shale]

If you want to debate hard atheists go do it stop tryna act like I have to defend someone else saying that what I believe is irrelevant to the conversation

Good bye

[gray kettle]

So do yourself a favor and research someone who claims to be an atheist (try hitchens for one example) and see if that changes your perspective on "atheist"

[gray kettle]

cya youngling

[gray kettle]

cool so dont start a forum when you dont even know what you believe logically. i mean you can say i believe im "both a crab and a unicorn" but i will not engage with that. I will engage if your a theist, atheist, or agnostic, however, not some weird unfounded combination of one or two or all three.

[inner shale]

I said bye stop pinging me please

[gray kettle]

Seems like you made this forum to not find any real headway....seems like you made it to hear peoples perspectives on their own beliefs and then poke holes in it and hide behind "subjective thought" which is not what I am interested in engaging in.

I heard you

But unless there is a rule to stop I dont have to?

You an leave the thread or the forum if ya like.

[sonic field]

agnosts think there may be or there may not b

they don't ''say ''god'' exists''

their position is they dont know

[sonic field]

Actually I am an agnostic atheist, it's a pretty common position... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[inner shale]

thank you. 🙄

doubt he will understand though

[gray kettle]

If not anything g else it doesn’t disprove what I said. One of the statements said that they are believing the same thing “that no god exists and that it’s not possible to to find out at the time.” Which people can be this in claim, however, it comes off as nonsense. So be it. So you both believe god or higher power doesn’t exist and that if it did we can’t or havnt found that out yet?

[gray kettle]

Passive aggression? I thought you where done talking to me?

[gray kettle]

Right. God could exist but we don’t have a way to verify. Correct

[gray kettle]

It sounds like from that wiki source that the position offered by some is something close to ignosticism or even theological noncognitivism,no?

[inner shale]

@sonic field told ya

[civic helm]

It's Confusionism: I don't know, and neither do you.

[gray kettle]

I have not shown I don’t understand @inner shale but depending on what you claim (which in the definition it states it’s based in agnosticism) rational thinking would lead to a belief that god is unknown if he exists and there is not sufficient evidence for him. That line of thinking leads to skepticism which leads to the thinking that nothing can be known for certain. That it indeed is impossible to know anything with certainty (according to Hume) however he is disputed for that cause it could just mean that the means to know has not been found out. In the end some settle with a proverbial “I don’t know and I claim you don’t either” which itself is fine but not by definition a ending point answer and just a placeholder until man “finds out”. So then the theist believes that per his/her religion he has the means to “find out” and the skeptic can either explore that or not. Seems simple enough, no?

[gray kettle]

Right!

[gray kettle]

From a skeptic point of view

[dense flicker]

Okay but I can say just as easily that raising your child as an atheist and teaching them skewed perspectives about Christianity will greatly increase their chance of being sent to Hell after they die.

Parents should be allowed to raise their own kids. Obviously you should teach your child to be somewhat skeptical, and use reason when you explain aspects of whatever you're teaching them. There is a vast difference between telling your kid "believe this because I say so" (perhaps because whatever belief the kid is questioning actually doesn't have any good reason) and teaching your kid reasoning behind beliefs.

God the Father is infinitely just, not infinitely merciful. We are saved through Jesus, who acts as a mediator between humanity and God "forgive them, they know not what they do." I've said many times that you shouldn't take an English translation of Genesis literally. Bash one protestant sect or whatever but "Christianity" is way too broad to apply your arguments to in general

[sonic field]

No, I believe god doesnt exist and at the same time I believe we will never truly find out whether he exists or not

I dont understand why its so hard for you to see agnostism and atheism combined

Being an agnost says nothing about your position on the existence of god, I think that that is what you are confused with

it only says: we cannot know whether he exists or not

and then some people say: alright we cannot know, but I still believe he does

other people say: alright we cannot know, so i don't believe he does

both are agnost

one believes in god, the other doesnt

[sonic field]

no i have no idea what your point is here

maybe im stupid, but at least it is not simple xD

[sonic field]

''will greatly increase their chance of being sent to Hell after they die. ''

Wait do you believe in hell? Where are you from

Christians I know personally (in my country) they don't believe in hell, only in heaven

I thought hell was a catholic thing

[sonic field]

''Okay but I can say just as easily that raising your child as an atheist and teaching them skewed perspectives about Christianity will greatly increase their chance of being sent to Hell after they die. ''
Also, mathematically it makes no sense as a chance of 0 times any number is still 0 ;). No but with all due respect, this is exactly the problem I have with raising people with any religion

this is how yuou scare children into never questioning their beliefs

because if they question they believe they will go to hell

thats not a healthy way of discussing religion or own beliefs

[gray kettle]

Right you personally believe he doesn’t exist. And apart from personal belief you believe scientifically or literally, no evidence will be found that supports a being beyond our reality. Right?

[sonic field]

I guess

[gray kettle]

Right but I believe we can know based on communication from God to us is all I’m saying.

[sonic field]

sure so you are not agnost

But being an agnost or not says nothing about your position on whether you believe in god or not

that was my point

[gray kettle]

Catholics don’t believe in hell they believe in purgatory. And “Gehenna” or “Sheol” or “hell” are a different matter.

[sonic field]

what is the ''general'' or ''common'' christian movement in the US/Canada?

[gray kettle]

Why would religion make sense mathematically when mathematically the data supports a beginning to the universe (ie the universe is not infinite) and if the universe had a beginning then the data that it began from “nothing” is mathematically flawed, no? The only thing that comes from nothing is nothing I thought?

[sonic field]

'' and if the universe had a beginning then the data that it began from “nothing” is mathematically flawed, no?''
No, there are models that predict a start of the universe (as we know it today) from ''nothing''

not actually nothing

but nothing like the way our universe is right now

Its called something like inflation theroy

or inflaton theory

also, we don't know whether the universe had a beginning, so that is an assumption you just made

we know time had a beginning, but that says nothing about the universe itself

but its weird to talk about the universe without time

[gray kettle]

Summed up: Jesus came to this earth born of a virgin and lived a sinless (broke no laws or did no wrong) life. Before he left he spoke of hell to people who claimed to believe and said that the lake of fire is where death, satan and his demons etc would be thrown for eternity. He said salvation (forgiveness from sin) is through faith in him alone. Sin requires a blood price which Jesus paid in full. To be in heaven with him and the rest of the faith family you must believe on his word and on his actions. It is not forced upon anyone and each individual would need to choose.

[sonic field]

alright that's not quite the same as the common way of christianity i am used to

[gray kettle]

We do know it did because prominent physicist’s have stated that time, space, and matter all came into existence at the same time. We know this because the universe is expanding rapidly. So through said expansion we know if we backtrack the expansion from a origin of expansion then we have a “first even” that started everything (which right now is theorized to be the Big Bang)

[sonic field]

ermmm

yeah you are not quite right there

for one, the big bang says nothing about how the universe started

[gray kettle]

This is why when someone says “I know Christianity” or “I know the Bible” I stay curious as to whether this is actually true or not.

[sonic field]

thats also why i asked haha

[gray kettle]

For sure. Which is why before I go too in depth with someone who “knows” Christianity I engage them as to what they “actually know” there have been MANY people to pervert religion and Christianity is no different. So then it is paramount that even though people have “first hand experience” it is necessary to find out if they where taught by someone who was a heretic and leading them to a false idea of the religion (adding to the text or leaving some of the text out). That is wrong and a grave mistake made by that person. So then the one taught this “bad theology” would need to correct there understanding of the Bible by someone who is teaching an unadulterated gospel set forth by Jesus himself and verified by the Bible itself.

[gray kettle]

I didn’t say it said anything about how it started. I said we theorize that “boom” space time and matter began” <——big bang….and scientifically they have not discovered how.

[sonic field]

i mean not with an actual boom

and yes, space time and matter started at the same time

doesnt mean that the universe didnt exist prior to that

''prior''

[sonic field]

also, i dont think ''your'' form of christianity is any better or worse than any other form of christianity

they are just different

the focus in US is more on Jesus than god

here its the other way around

generally

I dont think my understanding of religion is ''bad'' per se

i mean i went to church for like 14 years of my life

but it is different

[willow plover]

As far as I am aware there is NO evidence that the christian god exists. As there is no evidence you cannot reason. If you try to reason it will be based on falsehood so is invalid. This applies to any and all christianity not just one protestant sect. As I explained you cannot use the bible because it contradicts reality and presents a very different god to the way the christian god is presented. The christian god is claimed to be a god of love, the god of the bible is certainly not a god of love.

And the chances of me ever having children are insignificantly greater than zero so please do not bring that into discussion again.

[rare rivet]

If a god does not exist then why is the belief in a soul and a higher power so engrained in the human brain.

[willow plover]

People without the scientific knowledge we have now sought an explanation for what was happening to them and around them and they had no explanation so they thought powerful beings where doing those things. Some of these beings got a popular following and continue to be followed today even though the evidence for their existence is lacking. Parents teaching their children is the major way these religions continue today. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true

[rare rivet]

You can’t disprove modern religious ideas with science. Even atheists act instinctually based on the existence of the supernatural.

[willow plover]

Can you please be more specific which modern religious ideas you are talking about? And expanding on the second sentence would be useful for me to understand what you mean.

[gray kettle]

I didn’t mean literally haha but yes I agree

[gray kettle]

If nothing existed before time space and matter? You think something existed before time, space and matter???

[gray kettle]

That’s fine. Arguably you inly know a fraction of “my” form of Christianity. So whether or not you look empirically at “my” form or just assume it’s like all the others is up to you.

[gray kettle]

Right because I would assert that to be a “Christian” is to follow Jesus. And unless a person believes Jesus was not who he said he was then that is a form of “Jewish Orthodoxy” but Christianity in its true form is only one and ONE ONLY belief and no other (otherwise it is a false belief made up by someone) just a little insight

[gray kettle]

I would be interested in some detail behind these many claims? If you do not want to that is fine but a lot is assumed from this sentence if I were to believe you.

[coral valley]

so which flavour of the millions of belief systems is right? if you think this higher truth is engrained in us why are there so many different versions of religious belief? if there is a god, why would he intentionally sew doubt within the people he wants to have faith?

if i want you to eat, i wouldnt take away all your food

i think the fact that there are so many different versions of god is stronger evidence against any divine interaction with humans than for it, but im open to having my mind changed

[willow plover]

I am not sure what you want from me. I can start listing the myriad of things which are wrong with the bible, with the god presented in the bible. It is extremely easy to show the god of the bible is not a god of love. If the god of the bible was a god who loved humans he would not kill humans, yet we see in many cases that is exactly what he did. The flood killing all but 8 people, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing Korah, Dathan and Abiram, killing of Egypt's firstborn, sending snakes into the Israelites to kill them, destruction of Jericho, giving Samson strength to kill the Philistines, killing Ananias and Sapphira, killing Herod. That is just off the top of my head, there are many more examples of god killing or commanding killing.

There is also the huge problem of god apparently punishing us for doing something it is impossible for us not to do, sinning. Also we apparently are mortal because someone else sinned, that is not exactly fair

The whole human sacrifice things is not great either. I mean god is apparently the father but does not have the normal love of a father towards a son because he causes him to be killed. Ultimate bad parenting there, definitely not showing love, should get a lengthy jail sentence for that.

You need anything else from me?

[coral valley]

on the other hand, taken as a culturally relevant work of fiction the story of jesus is a pretty dope story. his father dooms him to suffering by giving him a physical body, there are some deeper implications there than a lot of religious people want to explore. but that is a much older story than the bible itself and has been retold many times with different names and places.

[willow plover]

I am sure you are right but I don't think I will ever be in a position to appreciate the story of Jesus as fiction.

[coral valley]

^ and thats why i would never try to indoctrinate my children into my own beliefs, regardless of how right i think i am. no one in history has done a bad thing and not felt justified in doing it. we humans are flawed creatures. i would not want to presuppose that i understand reality so well that i should impose my own beliefs on someone who lacks the ability to determine whether or not my reasoning resonates with them.

[gray kettle]

So one at a time. Not kill which humans? And which humans did God himself kill and why?

And when I say which I mean him “specifically” vs nature or someone else. Also per the edict he gave “the wages of sin is death” or in the garden he spoke of eating of the tree would lead to death. The law or command he gave specifically when properly researched is “do not murder” as an example: if a society deems a person unfit for human society they may subject that person to the death penalty. The problem would be, then, if the God of the Bible reveled or enjoyed said taking of life (which by the way he gave) so that is the stance on killing.

[gray kettle]

The wages of sim is death. So then “punish us” yes but not unjustly. And “can’t do” is not accurate unless we are being controlled. And fair is a mute point imo. One person sinned and one person will bring salvation and perfect permanent atonement. The atonement he gave to each human was the example of perfect love. “No greater love is seen than someone who will give up there life for another.” And in this case we sad, decrepit, broken human beings who have needed a savior since the garden FINALLY has a messiah and savior who willing gave himself up and died and paid the price that not a single person could have paid. Again our free will was utilized to decide to kill Jesus on the cross.

[willow plover]

Of the list I wrote off the top of my head God specifically killed all of them apart from the people Samson killed.

[gray kettle]

Not sure of your reference and according to the Bible he took on flesh willingly and was not forced unlike what you may be referencing

[willow plover]

As to why he killed them that will take some time to answer.

[gray kettle]

Sending elements to take someone’s life would not be uncalled for if the holy God deemed it necessary and Just.

[willow plover]

Lets start with the flood. genesis 6:6 NIV " The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." So god killed all but 8 people on the earth because he regretted doing something that he knew the result of but still did anyway. He put Adam and Eve in the garden where he knew they would fail the test of temptation. He knew that this would lead to people being mortal and not being able to live without sin, but he did it anyway. Then when what he knew would happen happened he regretted what he had done and was troubled. He then took that out on the population of the earth by killing them. This is not justice. He created humans knowing they would fail and had no other option than to fail and then punished them for something they could not help doing. He punished them for what he did.

[coral valley]

Actually the scripture says that the trinity was created when jesus was created. Do you remember that part where jesus calls to his father and asks him why he has forsaken him?

[willow plover]

It is a bit like pushing someone knowing they would fall down some stairs, then when they fall down the stairs regretting pushing someone and blaming them for falling down the stairs and then killing them for falling down the stairs.

[coral valley]

Gigachad god moves. Programs little meat robots to not believe in him. Punishes those meat robots when they dont believe in him.

[willow plover]

Is it possible for a baby born today to live for 90 years and live a sinless life?

[sonic field]

But things existed, but not space, time or matter

Not trying to come across like a dick, but maybe you should not try to argue on basis on physics 😉

Just because you cannot imagine what it is like without space or time, doesnt mean it cannot exist

this is the trap that i hear often, within but also outside of religious debate

but the start of the universe really has nothing to do with it

because we dont know whether our universe even had a start at all

[sonic field]

But who is to say that YOUR form of christianity is true

The beliefs thought in the church I went to are based upon Maarten Luthers problems with church dating back to the 1500s

People who went to the americas brought (among others) this exact form of belief with them

where in America it gruadually diverged from its European counterpart

so then how would yours be the ''one and only one true belief''

[gray kettle]

The Bible doesn’t specifically use the word Trinity. Also it does not speak of “creating” Jesus. John 1 says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. (Paraphrased; not all of John 1) also it says all things where made through him and nothing that was made was made without him.

[gray kettle]

Live 90 years sinless it is not. From the moment you emerge in the womb you come into a world of sin.

[gray kettle]

Free will stipulates we are not robots. If so then Adam and Eve did not “choose” to eat of the tree when told not to. God said don’t eat it then forced them to disobey? Is this the context you understand?

[coral valley]

im not sure what the argument youre making is. the bible speaks of a seperation and union between the holy spirit, the father, and the son. christ is a manifestation of god who was born as a mortal being. there was no TRINITY before the seperation and union. im not even a christian and i know this 😛