poikilotherm
New Member
Smoke_Eater: consider it erased.
[ March 04, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: poikilotherm ]
[ March 04, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: poikilotherm ]
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Surely it won't surprise you if I point out that you're not the first to feel that way. I've already stated that God doesn't need anything, including our worship. So you ask, why do I feel the need to worship Him. Let me try to answer.Originally posted by chekmate:
Let's assume for a moment that God does exist.
OK. I believe He does. But we'll assume that anyway.
Does God need to be worshiped?
No. He doesn't need anything.
If the answer is yes, what does this say about God?
So the answer was no, then this really doesn't matter.
If not, why do people feel the need to worship God?
Getting ready to address this, but first...
I am of the opinion that a God that needs to be worshiped has an ego problem. That scares the heck out of me, as I would not want my fate in the hands of an omnipotent egomaniac.
Poikilotherm,Originally posted by poikilotherm:
Created any universes lately?
I agree! You have made the assertion you exist. Prove it. Use empirical non-subjective means. Until other wise, I don't believe you. I say you don't exist.Originally posted by brighid:
poik -
"Give me one piece of empirical unbiased proof to demonstrate that you are not a figment of my imagination, and I'll beleive you are real. In the meantime, you are clearly an hallucination"
Ah - now YOU finally understand!!
Brighid
Also, let's not use any logical fallacies here - no argumentum ad ignorantum or shifting the burden of proof -
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Example - ""OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"
Taken from the Logic and Fallacies section of Infidels.org
It varies with the environmentOriginally posted by lyra:
(By the way, I just wanted to tell you I find you quite hot-blooded sometimes - for a poikilotherm.)
Invalid argument (Non Sequitur):Originally posted by brighid:
Yes, once I believed in God because from the time of my birth I was indoctrinated to believe in such things. So, with the innocent and impressionable mind of a child I believed what my parents and society taught me. They also taught me things like blacks are all lazy and that the Nazi’s had it right (even though my grandfather was a prisoner in Dachau and Auschwitz), and that all homosexuals are pedophiles and only Catholics and whites are “truly” good people. And for a time, I believed that too. Thankfully, in the growth of the human brain there comes a point where one is able to think independently and when that time came I began questioning those things that my parents, society and the Church told me were true. And as I began to question I began finding answers, often times contrary to what I was taught. I tested those findings in every situation I could imagine, attempting to disprove those things so I could, once again be in line with my family, Church and community. I got out of my comfort zone, where everyone thought and believed as I did and challenged those long held beliefs and they crumbled. It’s too easy to believe one is right when there has been little or no attempt to put those ideas through a rigorous testing. After years of attempting and searching I could not believe as they told me and found myself on a different path.
Invalid argument again, (Non Sequitur)The realms of possibility are practically limitless, but in order that I believe in your particular version of a God I would first have to loose my ability to think independently or find empirical and unbiased evidence that was indisputable for the existence of your version of God. I certainly hope one day that I find such evidence, but until then I will base my conclusions about the evidence at hand , fully accepting the fact that I don’t yet know ALL that there is to know, leaving the possibility for change open, to not be lead by others in my manner of thinking and believing but using the best light of reason to evaluate all things, thereby doing my best to honor the moral ground I have set for myself as a human being.
Morality is a relative term. Appeal to reason is defined by "whom" you are speaking to about doctrine, not a religion, its beliefs and doctrine in and of themselves. Therefore, Gandhi's quote is extremely limited in any practical use for religious debate.“I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality.” Mahatma Gandhi.
Brighid
Oh yes. I think I hallucinate quite vividly. How would you demonstrate to me (say you wanted to)using objective empirical proof, that I hallucinate? One problem with the "burden of proof" argument is that a statement can almost always be phrased in either a positive or a negative way.Originally posted by brighid:
Poik – I have made no ascertation that I exist. If I have made one, would you kindly post verbatim where I made a statement or an argument for my ACTUAL existence. Or are you simply replying to one of your personal hallucinations?
Brighid
Can you be a bit more clear? I'm not sure what point of mine you are addressing. In general, I'd say a critical approach is very important, provided you you are critical of everything. I'm not sure where I might have advocated otherwise.Originally posted by brighid:
Poik - Is it a non sequitur to come to the conclusion that if my parents, society and Church were wrong on these issues (and others) that they could also be wrong on others, therefore I should investigate other claims and come to my own conclusions? Is that an illogical connection? Perhaps I am missing something here? I think it is a non sequitur to believe something simply because one is told it is true and then to adhere to that belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Brighid
Ah, I see. You were not addressing my posts. You misnamed post-it. No problem. As I said above, I think critical appraisal of just about everything is extremely important. . That being said, I'm well familiar with the atheist arguments contra the existence of G-d. Many, in fact most, though not all, seem to me to be rhetorical, because they evade the central issue: how do you come up with "empirical" evidence for or against an omnipotent eternal and omniscient being? What does it say to you that many atheists demand "evidence" for an entity for which everything is evidence? Like I say: be critical, but be critical of everything. Merely saying:"Oh, I'd believe, but first you have to show me proof, or (my favorite) "evidence!" is quite meaningless.Originally posted by brighid:
Invalid argument (Non Sequitur):
Premises
1. Parents, society, and church taught me X, Y, Z
2. Parents, society, and church were wrong about x, and Y
Conclusion
3. Parents, society, and church must be wrong about Z
X= Nazi are right, Y=Homosexuals are Pedophiles. Z=God exists
-----------------------------------------------
I have changed this to read as follows -
Premises
1. Parents, society, and church taught me X, Y, Z
2. Parents, society, and church were wrong about x, and Y
Conclusion
3. P, S and C were wrong about X and Y and COULD be wrong about Z
X= Nazi are right, Y=Homosexuals are Pedophiles. Z=God exists
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they could also be wrong about other ideas as well (not exclusive to the existence of a God, or their God in particular, but other things as well) and it would be logical, prudent and reasonable to be skeptical and investigate all claims maid by P, S, and C to determine the truth or falsehood of all claims – A thru Z!
I use the same skepticism with all institutions, especially ones that have made false claims in the past and I think this a healthy way to approach all subjects, but particularly something as important as the potential existence of an omnimax deity.
Atheism can be defined as weak, moderate or strong. A weak atheist tends to believe in the possibility that a god or gods can exist, not unlike the agnostic, but that the current versions of said being are not accurate. Whereas the strong atheist may disbelieve in the existence of any god(s) whatsoever until the point credible and verifiable (falsifiable) evidence is presented to the contrary – or may disbelieve in the possibility all together. My experience, even with the strongest atheists is that they leave open the possibility in something that can be defined as god existing, but as in all things they demand a standard of proof that is “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The atheist generally believes that the evidence presented thus far for the existence of the JC God is lacking in credibility for a number of reasons – too numerous to discuss in this particular post. If you are interested in such discussions then I can recommend some sites to go to!
Brighid
Who was all that addressed to, and to what end? The problem with quoting scripture is that its hard to interpret without context. So far you seem to be asserting that you are a Christian capable of typing. Beyond that, I'm having a hard time interpreting your message.Originally posted by tulpje:
Something for you to gnaw on...
(edited by poikilotherm for sake of brevity quotes from
Revelation, Luke, Matthew, John and Isaiah)