Humans aren't animals.

[Ipecac Drano]

I don't know, this thread is 14 pages long. =p

I'll make it easy for you. If it were directed at anyone on this forum, I would have mentioned their name.

[Andara Bledin]

That doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is false.

But you have no idea whether it's true or false.

I thought that was the reason you were an atheist but don't believe there are no gods; because you don't have proof.

And yet, without any shred of proof at all, you've declared such things to be false.

It appears to me that you have made a determination.

Its impossible to understand the Bible without understanding what it is, how it came to be, how its been altered over the years for the purposes of different people, what was left out of it, how it was translated, etc.

Precisely.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

Well as for humans not being animals .. I can see that .. sometimes we are worse

[Ghel]

That doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is false.

But you have no idea whether it's true or false.

I thought that was the reason you were an atheist but don't believe there are no gods; because you don't have proof.

And yet, without any shred of proof at all, you've declared such things to be false.

In the snippet that you quoted, I was referring to ANY conversation, not necessarily a conversation regarding religion or gods. If it were a conversation about gods or creation or any other unsubstantiated claim, I could still point out that their claim doesn't make sense, is unverifiable, is without evidence, or what-have-you. And in that sense, it is still false. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him."

[Andara Bledin]

And in that sense, it is still false. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him."

In any sense, it remains unproven: Neither true nor false and to claim that either is the case is folly.

The interesting thing about truth is that it is affected by perception.

As an example, I have an uncle who is colorblind. He can't see the color red. If you gave him two shirts, one pink and one beige, he would see two shirts that are both beige. He would tell you that the shirts are the same color.

Would you call him a liar because he was unable to determine the difference in the color of the shirts? No reasonable person would. However, since the color of the shirts can be determined through scientific means, that difference can be shown to him despite his vision.

You and I have vastly different references of perception. Hell, we barely speak the same language when dealing with the topic of religion. Our respective "truths" are altered by our perceptions. However, in this case, neither side can be proven either true or false. I take a positive position as regards the existence of gods (not just my own, mind you), and you claim a neutral stance. In matters of faith, we can both be correct; nobody has to be "wrong."

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

The interesting thing about truth is that it is affected by perception.

It depends on what kind of "truth".

As an example, I have an uncle who is colorblind. He can't see the color red. If you gave him two shirts, one pink and one beige, he would see two shirts that are both beige. He would tell you that the shirts are the same color.

Which doesn't make the pink shirt a beige shirt. When a child plays peek-a-boo with you and covers their eyes, you don't disappear.

Would you call him a liar because he was unable to determine the difference in the color of the shirts? No reasonable person would.

Knowing ahead of time that he was colorblind, I wouldn't determine that he was lying, but nevertheless mistaken.

You and I have vastly different references of perception. Hell, we barely speak the same language when dealing with the topic of religion. Our respective "truths" are altered by our perceptions. However, in this case, neither side can be proven either true or false. I take a positive position as regards the existence of gods (not just my own, mind you), and you claim a neutral stance. In matters of faith, we can both be correct; nobody has to be "wrong."

That works fine in philosophy and religion, but it doesn't work in the empirical realm.

[Andara Bledin]

That works fine in philosophy and religion, but it doesn't work in the empirical realm.

Well, then, it's a good thing we're discussing religion, isn't it?

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Well, then, it's a good thing we're discussing religion, isn't it?

With a stopover into Empirica, via mention of your uncle's pink shirt.

[Ghel]

As an example, I have an uncle who is colorblind. He can't see the color red. If you gave him two shirts, one pink and one beige, he would see two shirts that are both beige. He would tell you that the shirts are the same color.

Would you call him a liar because he was unable to determine the difference in the color of the shirts? No reasonable person would. However, since the color of the shirts can be determined through scientific means, that difference can be shown to him despite his vision.

Your uncle would be mistaken and (technically) telling a falsehood. It seems more likely to me that someone who knows they're colorblind would say "they look the same to me." In either case, I would have no problem with correcting him: "no, they're actually different colors." And he, knowing he is colorblind, should have no problem with being corrected about something's color.

You and I have vastly different references of perception. Hell, we barely speak the same language when dealing with the topic of religion. Our respective "truths" are altered by our perceptions.

I'm glad you put "truths" in quotes, since many of the "truths" claimed by religion can be demonstrated to be false. And if we can't trust the religion regarding simple claims, how can we trust it regarding claims of gods? After all, the more outrageous the claim, the more evidence there needs to be to support it.

However, in this case, neither side can be proven either true or false.

You're shifting the burden of proof again. If a claim that a thing exists (such as a god) cannot be demonstrated to be true, than we have no business agreeing with that claim.

I take a positive position as regards the existence of gods (not just my own, mind you), and you claim a neutral stance.

Are you saying that multiple gods exist, but yours is the only one you worship?

In matters of faith, we can both be correct; nobody has to be "wrong."

But I have no faith - not in the way you mean it.

[Andara Bledin]

Are you saying that multiple gods exist, but yours is the only one you worship?

Yes.

But I have no faith - not in the way you mean it.

9.9 Would you stop putting words into my mouth.

I didn't say you had faith.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I didn't say you had faith.

You said "In matters of faith, we can both be correct..." How can that be true if I have no faith? (Just to clarify - when I said "not in the way you mean it", I could just as easily have said "not in the way you define "faith.")

BTW, I'm curious which gods you believe in, and which one you worship.

[Andara Bledin]

A lack of faith is still a decision regarding faith.

As I am Christian, I worship the God of the Bible.

As for other gods... While I do believe that there are (or were) others, which they might have been is irrelevant to my existence, so I don't really put much thought into it.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

A lack of faith is still a decision regarding faith.

For me, that is true. However, it is not necessarily true of all atheists.

Back to your original statement, "In matters of faith, we can both be correct..." I'll give provisional agreement with that statement, as long as the matter is only subject to faith. That is, as long as the believer(s) admit that their claims are only true inside their own heads, then I have no problem with their statements of faith. If they want others to agree with them, then I may have a problem with it (depending on what their statement of faith is).

As I am Christian, I worship the God of the Bible.

As for other gods... While I do believe that there are (or were) others, which they might have been is irrelevant to my existence, so I don't really put much thought into it.

Don't you ever worry that maybe you picked the wrong god out of the thousands that humans have worshiped over our history? What makes you think the God of the Bible is the correct one? And if your only reason is faith, then why should anyone agree with you?

I'm still wondering how you reconcile your belief in reincarnation (as mentioned on a different thread) with your belief in the God of the Bible.

[Andara Bledin]

Don't you ever worry that maybe you picked the wrong god out of the thousands that humans have worshiped over our history? What makes you think the God of the Bible is the correct one? And if your only reason is faith, then why should anyone agree with you?

In order:
No, I never have such worries.
To me, being Christian is like being heterosexual. It's just what I am.
Agree with me about what? That my beliefs are the right beliefs for me? I can't see that anyone else could possibly know better than I do. If that's not what you're asking, then you'll have to elaborate.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Ghel, I don't think anybody here as said "You should agree with us." What we've said is "This is how we feel." The only thing I ask for anyone to agree to is that I have my faith, and it doesn't make me an inferior being.