Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

[Slowvehicle]

Wait, are there two of you?

Is this the holy duality (father, son or holy ghost, pick two) or are you just a duety.

The server hates me.

Unlike 'god', I can demonstrate that the server exists; further, its animosity has consequences.

 

[RickM]

The title says it all. Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord.

If you like, you can try to start with some objective evidence. Conclusive data of any kind.

Failing that, you may wish to use reasoned arguments to convince me that believing in this being is the right thing to do.

Good luck.

Inflationist now believe our universe was the size of a marble before it popped into existence, and they have the scientific evidence of a fuzzy picture to support this theory. If this is the best we can come up with for the origins of man, how about if I just stick with a “because I said so” response for sufficient proof of God.

It worked for my kids when they were little.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Inflationist now believe our universe was the size of a marble before it popped into existence, and they have the scientific evidence of a fuzzy picture to support this theory. If this is the best we can come up with for the origins of man, how about if I just stick with a “because I said so” response for sufficient proof of God.

It worked for my kids when they were little.

It works for the tooth fairy and unicorns, so I don't see a problem.

Unless you expect anyone to take your god any more seriously than the tooth fairy and unicorns. Then there may be a problem.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Inflationist now believe our universe was the size of a marble before it popped into existence, and they have the scientific evidence of a fuzzy picture to support this theory. If this is the best we can come up with for the origins of man, how about if I just stick with a “because I said so” response for sufficient proof of God.

It worked for my kids when they were little.

It is customary to include a smiley in posts intended to be funny, so that you do not look like a Poe...

 

[RickM]

It is customary to include a smiley in posts intended to be funny, so that you do not look like a Poe...

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[tsig]

The server hates me.

.

Prayer works.

Mwahahhaaahhaaaahaaaaa!

 

[Slowvehicle]

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Wait

Are you seriously claiming that the evidence for the Singularity at the nominal beginning of this universe consists of a "fuzzy picture"?

Or that the theories and ideas about the end of the Planck Epoch can be conflated with, or are part of, theories about biopoesis, not to mention theories about the evolution of human beings?

Or that the evidence for the evolution of human beings consists of "Because I (or scientists) said so"?

You appear to have brought superstitions to a fact fight.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Built like the Buddha?

My father tended to be hypercritical.

I once joked, "If I had been born a Greek God, you would have complained that I had an accent!"

 

[Stone]

The mere claim that the concept of 'god' is in the smallest bit reasonable makes a mockery of serious discussion.

So you have just disallowed this entire thread. If you feel such a claim makes a mockery of serious discussion, then why are you participating in this thread at all?

Stone

 

[Stone]

Your core argument sounds suspiciously like the fundie Christian assertion that "Science is a Christian method of thought, because pioneering scientist 'X' was a Christian" (usually followed by a long list of scientists who were also Christians). Showing that scientists were usually Christians in a time when almost everyone was (when, in fact, it could be dangerous to be anything else) doesn't establish that science is either a Christian invention or proof of its truth.

Beside the point: Obviously, showing that such scientists are Christians just shows that such scientists are copycats -- which is a big YAWN. No news there -- dog bites man. But I'm not talking here about copycats. I'm talking about =========>

Same thing here- establishing a propinquity (which is really all you have) between "pioneering theists" and advances in morality, ethics, or altruism doesn't establish theism as a cause, much less the truth at its core.

========> the difference between one who pioneers some new deitic paradigm that tweaks a culture's nose versus a copycat like a 21st-century scientist who's just a sheeple Christian. There is a huge difference there, which should be obvious.

Moreover, I'm not here to "establish" or prove anything. I'm only providing circumstantial evidence to show that the supposition that there is a deity has distinctly more weight behind it than any supposition that there are unicorns. Circumstantial evidence does not establish proof. This contention of mine concerning "nose-tweaking pioneers" still involves c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e only. And c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e is still pertinent to this very topic, since this e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e provides more of a "reason" (the exact word in the Subj.-Head.) than anyone else has offered.

Stone

 

[Stone]

Your core argument has some traction in my eyes, but demonstrating it would be virtually impossible. As we don't know how civilisation would have developed in the absence of theists, or we don't know to what extent humanity would have arrived here in the absence of religion.

Showing the degree to which the argument is or is not plausible is the job of the 12-part study that has been temporarily(?) halted in this thread. The halted survey does address both the nuts and bolts of the history behind the counter-cultural deists and also the extent to which humanity MIGHT have arrived at the same point in theism's absence. The latter is dealt with in sections yet to come.

While anyone has the right to say "Demonstrating all this is impossible", it's still a bit silly to say that so peremptorily at this point in the thread, before judging the whole study for oneself. No one here is in a position to do that yet. Of course, it is quite possible that someone might also say that after reading the whole study as well. But the thing is, such a pronouncement would then have more integrity to it, because of its being after rather than before reading the whole study.

(BTW, note that I say "theism's absence", not "religion's absence", since religion is a sick joke [IMO] and any viability in the deity idea is only ascertainable through studying individuals' experiences and autonomous beliefs, not the power-hungry institutions spawned by sick power-mongers.)

Stone

 

[Slowvehicle]

So you have just disallowed this entire thread. If you feel such a claim makes a mockery of serious discussion, then why are you participating in this thread at all?

Stone

As an antidote to the kind of pap that gets presented as "sophisticated theology".

As an antidote to the kind of waffling that claims that advances in social justice and altruism are brought about by "pioneering theists" (such as the xian pioneers that founded the Women's Temperance Societies, or the Promise Keepers; or the muslim pioneers using electronic media to teach children whom 'god' wants them to kill).

As an antidote to the frankly silly idea that no evidence is needed for the claim that any 'god' exists.

For the same reasons that I participate in the 'Squatch threads (If there were a giant undiscovered primate in the Pacific NW, by now at least one would have been hit by a car; or someone would have sold weed to it...); or the Tablecloth of Turin threads (even if the ¹⁴C dating were not a slam dunk, the "image" on the linen is a non-representational, non-anatomical, posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, byzantine-styled icon); or the bad physics threads. I participate in this thread to continue to point out that the first step in supporting any claim is providing evidence (concrete, empirical, practical, objective evidence). The "E" in JREF, and all that.

The idea that one, and only one, of the thousands upon thousands of mutually exclusive 'gods' invented by the superstitious is the "one real 'god' " is ludicrous. The 'gods' (any 'god') are as imaginary as fairies; as unsupported by evidence as the results of a seance.

I am here to continue to point that out, so that misstatements of science, and statements of superstition, do not go unchallenged.

 

[tsig]

Beside the point: Obviously, showing that such scientists are Christians just shows that such scientists are copycats -- which is a big YAWN. No news there -- dog bites man. But I'm not talking here about copycats. I'm talking about =========>



========> the difference between one who pioneers some new deitic paradigm that tweaks a culture's nose versus a copycat like a 21st-century scientist who's just a sheeple Christian. There is a huge difference there, which should be obvious.

Moreover, I'm not here to "establish" or prove anything. I'm only providing circumstantial evidence to show that the supposition that there is a deity has distinctly more weight behind it than any supposition that there are unicorns. Circumstantial evidence does not establish proof. This contention of mine concerning "nose-tweaking pioneers" still involves c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e only. And c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e is still pertinent to this very topic, since this e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e provides more of a "reason" (the exact word in the Subj.-Head.) than anyone else has offered.

Stone

Spelling "making -it-up" as " e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e " doesn't make it a f-a-c-t.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Beside the point: Obviously, showing that such scientists are Christians just shows that such scientists are copycats -- which is a big YAWN. No news there -- dog bites man. But I'm not talking here about copycats. I'm talking about =========>



========> the difference between one who pioneers some new deitic paradigm that tweaks a culture's nose versus a copycat like a 21st-century scientist who's just a sheeple Christian. There is a huge difference there, which should be obvious.

Moreover, I'm not here to "establish" or prove anything. I'm only providing circumstantial evidence to show that the supposition that there is a deity has distinctly more weight behind it than any supposition that there are unicorns. Circumstantial evidence does not establish proof. This contention of mine concerning "nose-tweaking pioneers" still involves c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e only. And c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e is still pertinent to this very topic, since this e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e provides more of a "reason" (the exact word in the Subj.-Head.) than anyone else has offered.

Stone

...so THAT's why it is "pioneering theists" who are behind the push for marriage equality?

(BTW: your "pioneering theists" all seem to be xians. Is that a bias of yours, or more c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e? If you mean "pioneering xians of which you approve", why not say so?)

 

[Stone]

...so THAT's why it is "pioneering theists" who are behind the push for marriage equality?

(BTW: your "pioneering theists" all seem to be xians.

I'd like to know where the hell you get that idea. My pioneering theists were already submitted in this thread: figures like Urukagina, Hesiod, Gotama, Confucius, Socrates, Bahaullah -- show me which one here is a Christian in the whole bloody lot. The only "christian" I have in the list is Jesus, and he's really a Jewish rabbi!

Candidly,

Stone

 

[turingtest]

Beside the point: Obviously, showing that such scientists are Christians just shows that such scientists are copycats -- which is a big YAWN. No news there -- dog bites man. But I'm not talking here about copycats. I'm talking about =========>



========> the difference between one who pioneers some new deitic paradigm that tweaks a culture's nose versus a copycat like a 21st-century scientist who's just a sheeple Christian. There is a huge difference there, which should be obvious.

Really? That's what you thought the point of the analogy was? Okely-dokely, then- I can't make it any more obvious than I already have (hint- it wasn't actually about the scientists).

Moreover, I'm not here to "establish" or prove anything. I'm only providing circumstantial evidence to show that the supposition that there is a deity has distinctly more weight behind it than any supposition that there are unicorns. Circumstantial evidence does not establish proof. This contention of mine concerning "nose-tweaking pioneers" still involves c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e only. And c-i-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e is still pertinent to this very topic, since this e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e provides more of a "reason" (the exact word in the Subj.-Head.) than anyone else has offered.

Stone

Well, I have to admit "god is more likely than unicorns (as a basis for morality?)" is, to me, a new "reason" for belief in god; still, as far as actual reason goes, it's not much use, even just as circumstantial evidence, is it? Reason is a continuum, and you're still waaaay down on the low end.

But don't mind me- please, do carry on with your p-r-e-t-e-n-t-i-o-u-s, "s-o-p-h-i-s-t-i-c-a-t-e-d" theology.

 

[Vortigern99]

Actually, that's not my core argument. My core argument is that the "progenitors of social justice and altruism" are pioneering theists who always introduce some new take on deity that makes the priests of their day nervous. Naturally, theism in and of itself is never news. Instead, it's the counter-cultural theisms that these progenitors always introduce that's the real story here. If their theisms matched their culture, there'd be no story at all. But there is a story because they don't match.

Stone

Okay. Once again i find your musings on the history of religious thought intriguing. And once again, I ask you: In what way does this support belief in a god or gods? Even if we take your premise as a given -- that "progenitors of social justice and altruism are pioneering theists who always introduce some new take on deity that makes the priests of their day nervous" -- what does this have specifically to do with the thread question? I can't help but notice you keep avoiding that question, despite your evident intelligence.

Also, everything everyone else said.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'd like to know where the hell you get that idea. My pioneering theists were already submitted in this thread: figures like Urukagina, Hesiod, Gotama, Confucius, Socrates, Bahaullah -- show me which one here is a Christian in the whole bloody lot. The only "christian" I have in the list is Jesus, and he's really a Jewish rabbi!

Candidly,

Stone

I'd like to know where the hell you get that idea. My pioneering theists were already submitted in this thread: figures like Urukagina, Hesiod, Gotama, Confucius, Socrates, Bahaullah -- show me which one here is a Christian in the whole bloody lot. The only "christian" I have in the list is Jesus, and he's really a Jewish rabbi!

Candidly,

Stone

Do you often find such manly, grown-up assertions to further communications?

You must have mentioned "Urukagina, Hesiod, Gotama, Confucius, Socrates, Bahaullah" in your tl:dr musings. I apologize for my assumption. That donkey does not belong between me and umption.

(I do find it odd to find the Gautama lumped in with "theists"...)

Is it your claim than, that since 1892, the fires of "pioneering theism" have died out? You do not appear to have addressed the actions of the "pioneering theists" I asked you about.

I also notice that you seem not to have seen the sally about "pioneering theists" and marriage equality...

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Moreover, I'm not here to "establish" or prove anything. I'm only providing circumstantial evidence to show that the supposition that there is a deity has distinctly more weight behind it than any supposition that there are unicorns.

Unicorns were believed to be quite real in the natural history studies of many cultures, from the ancient Greeks up through the 18th century. In fact, there has been considerable overlap between unicorns and Christianity, as unicorns are mentioned in the Bible and appear in religious iconography from the middle ages. Horned ungulates certainly exist, as do single-horned herbivores, and a rare genetic mutation can result in deer with a single central horn.

Also, unicorns are a far better basis for morality than God. Especially the purple talking kind.

 

[RickM]

I am here to continue to point that out, so that misstatements of science, and statements of superstition, do not go unchallenged.

Is this a summation of your 6,600 posts? Thank you for being such a diligent watchdog for humanity; however, I humbly submit that your time may have been better spent focusing on your job, family, or real friends.