Humans aren't animals.

[Ipecac Drano]

Originally Posted by Ghel
Oh, well, that must be part of the Bible that you think isn't true. How do you know?

How does that follow? I can't see any connection between my belief in reincarnation and how I behave in this life.

It's just ironic that you believe in God but reject what he says in his holy book.

[Ghel]

How does that follow? I can't see any connection between my belief in reincarnation and how I behave in this life.

I had assumed (wrongly, apparently) that you were Christian because you claimed that the Bible was at least partially true. Plus you gave an apologetic that seemed to be trying to reconcile the Biblical account of "creation" with how science tells us it happened.

Let's set aside these (apparently false) assumptions. What do you believe and why? Do you think others should agree with you? If not, why are you making supernatural claims on a debate board?

I was either three or four at the time, and I knew nothing of religion.

Then how do you know it was God you were talking to? Particularly if you stopped within a few years, how is that any different from talking to an imaginary friend?

[Ghel]

It's just ironic that you believe in God but reject what he says in his holy book.

Well, not all gods have holy books written about them. Based on Andara's posts on this thread and others, it appears that she has a sort of buffet-style religion. That's where a person takes the portions they like out of various different religions, forming their own conglomerate religion, without regard for whether those beliefs are true.

And that's the fundamental question: are the claims true? Does this being exist that theists wish for us to believe in?

[Ipecac Drano]

Well, not all gods have holy books written about them.

No, but Yahweh (or, יהוה) does, and it tries to be specific about what to believe about him and how to worship him.

Based on Andara's posts on this thread and others, it appears that she has a sort of buffet-style religion. That's where a person takes the portions they like out of various different religions, forming their own conglomerate religion, without regard for whether those beliefs are true.

Exactly. A lot of people are that way. If one doesn't like the way a religion treats them, they run off and start a new one based on "other teachings". If there aren't any teachings in the "old texts" that conform to the mindset of the "prophet" (read: Guy Who Is Going to Ring in a New Era), then a new holy book is in order.

And that's the fundamental question: are the claims true? Does this being exist that theists wish for us to believe in?

That doesn't matter to them. People worship their gods (and goddesses) for the sake of credo consolans, or, "I believe, therefore I am consoled". They get nervous when bits and pieces of their deity disappears via investigation.

My thing is that if a person claims to believe in the Judeo-Xtian God, how can they reject outright what he says and still say that they believe in him? Why not either create another god (or goddess) and worship them or just move on to another existing deity?

[Ghel]

My thing is that if a person claims to believe in the Judeo-Xtian God, how can they reject outright what he says and still say that they believe in him? Why not either create another god (or goddess) and worship them or just move on to another existing deity?

I don't get it, either. I've even heard people say they were Christian, not because they believe in the Christian God, but because they agree with some of the things that Jesus is reported to have said.

It seems that there are as many gods as there are believers. Each believer seems to believe something slightly different about their god than the next believer. Which isn't a problem as long as they keep it to themselves. It's only when they go around claiming their beliefs are true and that others should believe them, too, that it's a problem.

Claims that haven't been demonstrated to be true don't deserve our respect.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

seemed to be trying to reconcile the Biblical account of "creation" with how science tells us it happened.

The fact is that no human beings were around to witness the creation of the universe or our planet. We will likely never be 100% certain of how it happened. Although there is scientific evidence to support certain timelines, do not forget that even the most convincing evidence can be flawed or incorrect or misinterpreted. Certainly many a murder trial has taught us this.

I'm not saying any creation account is right and another wrong, I'm simply saying there can be flaws found in all of them so there's no way to really know for sure how it all went down.

[Ipecac Drano]

The fact is that no human beings were around to witness the creation of the universe or our planet. We will likely never be 100% certain of how it happened. Although there is scientific evidence to support certain timelines, do not forget that even the most convincing evidence can be flawed or incorrect or misinterpreted. Certainly many a murder trial has taught us this.

Which is no excuse to derail scientific inquiry. If you saw feline paw prints in your garden soil are you going to be quick to dismiss the notion of a cat passing through your property overnight just because you didn't witness it? Even if something couldn't be witnessed upfront you have to (as Gil Grissom says) "follow the evidence".

I'm not saying any creation account is right and another wrong, I'm simply saying there can be flaws found in all of them so there's no way to really know for sure how it all went down.

As long as one dwells only on the flaws and not on the whole of the methods, they never will know.

[Talon]

We will likely never be 100% certain of how it happened.

You're right, except for the "likely" part. We can never be 100% certain of anything, because there is no such thing as absolute certainty or proof. 100% certainty means there's nothing left to learn. Truth is only true as far as we know, and only under certain circumstances.

[Ghel]

The fact is that no human beings were around to witness the creation of the universe or our planet. We will likely never be 100% certain of how it happened.

This sounds like the kind of thing people say when they want us to agree with what is said in some ancient book rather than following where the evidence leads. While it's true that science isn't 100% sure of anything, neither is religion. At least with science, there are good reasons to think that its findings are correct. With religion, the "truth" is dogmatically asserted, and to question their "truth" or to disagree with it is labeled heresy (or bullying).

[jackfaire]

Though I've made alot of religion people heads go spin, and then they promptly ignore me when I bring up the old "Can God make an item so heavly he/she cannot lift?".

If she can, then she isn't all powerful based on strength.

If She can't, then she isn't all powerful.

Yes she can because she can then create a being whose sole purpose is to lift said object.

[Adeikov]

Claims that haven't been demonstrated to be true don't deserve our respect.

If the ones claiming are bad at investigating, and you are good at investigating; is it not your duty help them or do you admit to holding a preferential bias, a reverse confirmation bias where you filter out any arguments that could hold a case, but for which, none but you, are capable of defending?


To the main argument...

I say, categorically, we are animals, although inventive animals; however, does necessarily suggest we are animals?

Why would the association with the rest of the life’s mechanism disgust? Maybe, it is that we do not wish to return to that level of existence; we wish intelligence, refinement in the cycle of our lives; a richness, a security, that fully meets the criteria set by our sensibilities and ability to appreciate that we possess.

Then, we do look back, we see beauty also, we see something that needs to be preserved.

We love quality in all it's forms; but we also avoid the things that reduce it for us.


If you (anyone responding) has other ideas to the contrary or otherwise, please share them.

[Adeikov]

Can an all-doing do all? By definition, it can.
Can an all-doing not do all? By definition, it can.

[Ghel]

Adeikov, please forgive me if I am misinterpreting your meaning. I'm guessing that English is not your first language?

If the ones claiming are bad at investigating, and you are good at investigating; is it not your duty help them...

Most of the things I talk about on this site are grade school logic or junior high school science. It's not my job to teach these subjects. I simply point out where people have got the science or logic wrong, or I point out where not everybody agrees with their "facts."

... or do you admit to holding a preferential bias, a reverse confirmation bias where you filter out any arguments that could hold a case, but for which, none but you, are capable of defending?

This actually sounds like something many theists, especially creationists, tend to do. They ignore all evidence that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions. If there were evidence for the existence of a god, or evidence that the Biblical account is accurate, I would have to agree with it. But no sufficient evidence has been brought forth.

Why would the association with the rest of the life’s mechanism disgust?

I think it is mostly ego. The idea that we were specially created by a god in his likeness feeds a superiority complex. It gives humans an excuse to treat other animals as, well, animals.

[Adeikov]

Adeikov, please forgive me if I am misinterpreting your meaning. I'm guessing that English is not your first language?

English is my first language.

Please specify, where you can, the parts that confuse you, so I can adapt my style with your need. I appreciate any feedback I receive.

Most of the things I talk about on this site are grade school logic or junior high school science. It's not my job to teach these subjects. I simply point out where people have got the science or logic wrong, or I point out where not everybody agrees with their "facts."

If it were so simple, why has it taken all these posts to communicate it?
Simple to memorise, but understanding the depth and context of these things must require further study and people often misunderstand each other in person (as a person, motives and desires) and point (their argument and meaning).

This actually sounds like something many theists, especially creationists, tend to do. They ignore all evidence that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions. If there were evidence for the existence of a god, or evidence that the Biblical account is accurate, I would have to agree with it. But no sufficient evidence has been brought forth.

The point is:

If you are more capable and you know your own standard (they may not); you are the person more suited to the task of investigating claims and being logical and scientific.

You are declining to be unbiased, because you are presuming you have nothing to prove yourself; there may be things on which you have no evidence. If that is so, then under your standard you must prove and present the evidence, right? (You are not excluding yourself from that rule.)

(when I say 'you' I may also be referring to: atheists, scientists or sceptics; and when I say 'they' I may be referring to: theists, creationists or dogmatists)

I think it is mostly ego. The idea that we were specially created by a god in his likeness feeds a superiority complex. It gives humans an excuse to treat other animals as, well, animals.

Is this something that is backed by investigation OR is this the culmination of your experiences, your interaction with these people OR is it what the media has suggested to you OR is it the few famous individuals throughout history, on which, you have read or studied; and at the sum, where do you derive this conclusion?

[Ghel]

Please specify, where you can, the parts that confuse you, so I can adapt my style with your need. I appreciate any feedback I receive.

I think the main reason I'm having a difficult time parsing your statements is the run-on sentences, the overuse of semicolons, and inconsistent use of commas.

If it were so simple, why has it taken all these posts to communicate it?

Every time I (or another non-believer) rebuts an argument made by a theist, the theist changes the argument, forcing us to analyze and rebut the new argument.

You are declining to be unbiased, because you are presuming you have nothing to prove yourself; there may be things on which you have no evidence. If that is so, then under your standard you must prove and present the evidence, right?

If I were making a claim, yes, I would provide evidence to support the claim. In threads like this one, though, I am simply looking at theistic claims and saying "I disagree" or "please support your claims."

Is this ... [speaking of run-on sentences...]

It is speculation, as indicated by "I think".