Battleground God
This is kind of an interesting exercise. If you want to play, take the test, then you can click through here to see my results.
[THX: Brian at Daedalnexus.]
This is kind of an interesting exercise. If you want to play, take the test, then you can click through here to see my results.
[THX: Brian at Daedalnexus.]
lullaby pit 
That bloody mess you see on the floor is the carnage resulting from my single hit and two bullets …
That bloody mess you see on the floor is the carnage resulting from my single hit and two bullets …
Obviously you need to elaborate.
Obviously you need to elaborate.
That was a cheap hit
Hey this is Tom Shortell.
Played the game and took one hit and bit one bullet. The hit came from the thought it’s ok to believe that there’s no Loch Ness monster but there can be god despite not having proof. Never mind the fact that one would be a physical and the other a supreme being.
Also, just thought I’d pop in and say hello.
That was a cheap hit
Hey this is Tom Shortell.
Played the game and took one hit and bit one bullet. The hit came from the thought it’s ok to believe that there’s no Loch Ness monster but there can be god despite not having proof. Never mind the fact that one would be a physical and the other a supreme being.
Also, just thought I’d pop in and say hello.
Re: That was a cheap hit
Heh – so what are you going to DO about the hit and the bullet?
Re: That was a cheap hit
Heh – so what are you going to DO about the hit and the bullet?
Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
So, I bit one bullet. “You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.
There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?”
And actually, yes. I’m inclined to think that unless something is proven not to exist, then there’s a chance it could, and you may go right ahead and believe that it does. Belief in the non-existence is just as much faith as belief in the existence. We’re fallible creatures, so failing to ‘prove’ does not mean something has been disproved. I don’t believe god is all-knowing, but neither is humanity. It goes against my gut to say because I can’t prove that ‘x’ exists, that I should believe it doesn’t.
Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
So, I bit one bullet. “You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.
There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?”
And actually, yes. I’m inclined to think that unless something is proven not to exist, then there’s a chance it could, and you may go right ahead and believe that it does. Belief in the non-existence is just as much faith as belief in the existence. We’re fallible creatures, so failing to ‘prove’ does not mean something has been disproved. I don’t believe god is all-knowing, but neither is humanity. It goes against my gut to say because I can’t prove that ‘x’ exists, that I should believe it doesn’t.
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
>>I’m inclined to think that unless something is proven not to exist, then there’s a chance it could, and you may go right ahead and believe that it does.<<
You realize how much fun I could have with this if I were so inclined?
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
>>I’m inclined to think that unless something is proven not to exist, then there’s a chance it could, and you may go right ahead and believe that it does.<<
You realize how much fun I could have with this if I were so inclined?
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
Yes, yes I do.
I have fun with that idea almost every day.
Just a bit ago, I was wondering if anyone has looked into the possibility of aliens living in our oceans with the giant squids.
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
Yes, yes I do.
I have fun with that idea almost every day.
Just a bit ago, I was wondering if anyone has looked into the possibility of aliens living in our oceans with the giant squids.
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
Yes. NBC, CBS, and FOX all have new shows on that exact theme this season.
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
Yes. NBC, CBS, and FOX all have new shows on that exact theme this season.
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
I really should watch a bit more tv…
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
I really should watch a bit more tv…
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
Yes you should. Tell Dr. Foerst I said it was okay.
Re: Well, when don’t people find what I think bizarre?
Yes you should. Tell Dr. Foerst I said it was okay.
One hit, zero bullets.
Apparently if I think that if god existed “he” couldn’t be expected to do everything, I shouldn’t also think that if he existed in the way people seem to believe he could make round squares.
Sure.
One hit, zero bullets.
Apparently if I think that if god existed “he” couldn’t be expected to do everything, I shouldn’t also think that if he existed in the way people seem to believe he could make round squares.
Sure.
Re: That was a cheap hit
I’m sticking to my guns. Personally, I think my theory/belief still fits. As I said, I think that proof is needed for anything physical, like Nessy. God, being a supreme being, doesn’t necassarilly exist on this plane. Therefore, you may not find evidence of God, though lack of evidence doesn’t prove He/She’s not there.
As for the bullet, that came from saying that God allows suffering, therefore a rapist claiming that he’s doing what God told him is justified.
I don’t like the fact, but it fits. Doesn’t mean we’re wrong to fry his ass for his crimes either, since we believe the exact opposite. God supposedly takes care of martyrs, which is what the rapist would be if God told him to do it. There’s a difference between man’s law and God’s law.
Granted, I’m just some dumb 19-year-old kid and most of my thoughts have been formed in the past 4 years. I don’t expect my reasoning to stay the same, but it’s good to see it’s working.
A side note for anyone who had trouble with the additition example: I can mathimatically proove 2+2=5. A high school teacher taught me a fun little method for that one. I should hope that if I can prove it, God can too.
Re: That was a cheap hit
I’m sticking to my guns. Personally, I think my theory/belief still fits. As I said, I think that proof is needed for anything physical, like Nessy. God, being a supreme being, doesn’t necassarilly exist on this plane. Therefore, you may not find evidence of God, though lack of evidence doesn’t prove He/She’s not there.
As for the bullet, that came from saying that God allows suffering, therefore a rapist claiming that he’s doing what God told him is justified.
I don’t like the fact, but it fits. Doesn’t mean we’re wrong to fry his ass for his crimes either, since we believe the exact opposite. God supposedly takes care of martyrs, which is what the rapist would be if God told him to do it. There’s a difference between man’s law and God’s law.
Granted, I’m just some dumb 19-year-old kid and most of my thoughts have been formed in the past 4 years. I don’t expect my reasoning to stay the same, but it’s good to see it’s working.
A side note for anyone who had trouble with the additition example: I can mathimatically proove 2+2=5. A high school teacher taught me a fun little method for that one. I should hope that if I can prove it, God can too.
Re: That was a cheap hit
Okay, you need proof for physical things. But since the dominant view of god in America is that of the Christian Creator God, that means we ARE talking about physical. This spirit entity that you can take without proof created the very existence of all things physical, right?
If so, that makes it kinda hard to waffle on a physical vs spirit basis. Or maybe I’m miscontruing what you think?
Re: That was a cheap hit
Okay, you need proof for physical things. But since the dominant view of god in America is that of the Christian Creator God, that means we ARE talking about physical. This spirit entity that you can take without proof created the very existence of all things physical, right?
If so, that makes it kinda hard to waffle on a physical vs spirit basis. Or maybe I’m miscontruing what you think?
Re: That was a cheap hit
Well, if you believe god is all-knowing, then yeah, if you can use that math trick, god can too. If not, then maybe god’s math teacher didn’t teach her the trick…
Re: That was a cheap hit
Well, if you believe god is all-knowing, then yeah, if you can use that math trick, god can too. If not, then maybe god’s math teacher didn’t teach her the trick…
Re: That was a cheap hit
I’m operating from the Christian belief that God is transcendant. If you want to look at it from a scientific point of view, you could say God is a being from a higher dimension (operating on a plane other than height, width, depth and time). After putting a lot of thought into it, I’ve come to the conclusion that there will never be proof that God exists. While I can’t prove that He/She exists, my own existance (following Cartesian thought) needs explaination. You can point to sound scientific theory like the Big Bang, but what, or who, caused the Big Bang then? I’ve illustrated my point bellow.
If I make a doodle in a notebook, I may appear as a god to that doodle. As long as I don’t leave any biological evidence (hair, finger print, oil) behind, that doodle will not be able to prove that “a greater hand” (sorry, but I couldn’t resist) drew it, provided the doodle doesn’t remember me drawing it in the first place. That doesn’t mean I’m not there.
Re: That was a cheap hit
I’m operating from the Christian belief that God is transcendant. If you want to look at it from a scientific point of view, you could say God is a being from a higher dimension (operating on a plane other than height, width, depth and time). After putting a lot of thought into it, I’ve come to the conclusion that there will never be proof that God exists. While I can’t prove that He/She exists, my own existance (following Cartesian thought) needs explaination. You can point to sound scientific theory like the Big Bang, but what, or who, caused the Big Bang then? I’ve illustrated my point bellow.
If I make a doodle in a notebook, I may appear as a god to that doodle. As long as I don’t leave any biological evidence (hair, finger print, oil) behind, that doodle will not be able to prove that “a greater hand” (sorry, but I couldn’t resist) drew it, provided the doodle doesn’t remember me drawing it in the first place. That doesn’t mean I’m not there.
Re: That was a cheap hit
You’re still dodging the physical-as-manifestation-of-spirit argument. I’m examining a dichotomy that you set up, and I don’t know that it holds by your own reasoning.
Re: That was a cheap hit
You’re still dodging the physical-as-manifestation-of-spirit argument. I’m examining a dichotomy that you set up, and I don’t know that it holds by your own reasoning.
Re: That was a cheap hit
Well, it took a while, but I think I just got what you are getting at. And I haven’t the faintest clue. So back to the drawing board on this one.
Re: That was a cheap hit
Well, it took a while, but I think I just got what you are getting at. And I haven’t the faintest clue. So back to the drawing board on this one.
Re: That was a cheap hit
Right. If I buy your line of reasoning, there’s really no distinction between spirit and physical, as the physical is a manifest expression of the will of the spiritual. So that takes out your ability to make distinctions based on the two concepts.
Re: That was a cheap hit
Right. If I buy your line of reasoning, there’s really no distinction between spirit and physical, as the physical is a manifest expression of the will of the spiritual. So that takes out your ability to make distinctions based on the two concepts.
Oi Vey!
One hit and two bullets.
Apparently, right now, at this very moment, as you’re reading this, I am hobbling about, losing strength as my blood seeps out onto the ground!
Nice knowing you (cough cough, sputter, cough, cough)…
Oi Vey!
One hit and two bullets.
Apparently, right now, at this very moment, as you’re reading this, I am hobbling about, losing strength as my blood seeps out onto the ground!
Nice knowing you (cough cough, sputter, cough, cough)…
Re: Oi Vey!
Please, elaborate.
Re: Oi Vey!
Please, elaborate.