Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

You are missing the point.

It's not a question of whether pink unicorns can exist but whether there is any evidence they do. If someone showed me evidence of a pink unicorn (or put one in front of me) my views would change. Why would I change my views, why would I believe, without any evidence?

I predict your views would NOT change because you know there is no such thing as unicorns, pink or otherwise. You would reject any evidence of such because of that. You would say, "Oh that's just a horse someone painted pink and stuck a horn on!" or maybe you'd argue that it was some kind of freak anomoly. You would not accept evidence for something you did not believe could exist. Now... IF you believed that it was actually a possibility that unicorns MAY exist... different story! But you first have to believe it is possible before you can accept anything as evidence.

Even for those who believe in something spiritual, they think they have evidence. It's almost always subjective, but there is some kind of evidence first. If a person didn't require any evidence first, they'd believe everything anyone ever told them.

The part you're not getting is, ALL evidence is subjective! It doesn't matter what it's for or what it pertains to, anything that is "evidence" is subject to the personal perception of it as such. I never said that people don't require evidence before something is proven to them. You are distorting my words and meaning. Before anything can be proven or any evidence can be presented to prove, a person has to first be willing to accept the possibility exists.

And how's this for an example? Germs. Before someone was able to discover them, I doubt many people believed that microscopic organisms were responsible for sickness. Yet, once evidence became available, people changed their minds. No one needed to believe in germs before evidence was provided, the evidence is what brought about the belief.

Well, yes... actually they DID have to believe it was possible before they could accept the evidence. Louis Pasteur presented his evidence to people and they rejected it on that very basis. Before anyone could change their minds and accept the evidence, they had to rationalize that maybe he is right, maybe there can be these microscopic organisms. Once they accepted that possibility, the evidence convinced them.

It's no different with human spirituality. You have to first accept the possibility it exists before ANY evience evaluation happens. You cannot evaluate evidence of something you don't accept the possibility of. This is why you continue to come up empty with any example.

People don't need to believe before they will accept evidence. They merely need evidence they find convincing, reliable, confirmed, etc. Of course, there are times a person may simply refuse to accept something. I think you assume it happens far more frequently than it does when it comes to atheists.

Again, read what you are saying. You can't convince someone until they are willing to accept the possibility of what you are trying to convince them of. It's not possible. You have not presented a single example to support this, and you can't. Just come up with ONE thing! Just ONE! Give me an example of something you believe in not possible or does not exist, that you accept the evidence of as valid and legitimate?

So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?
He has given several perfectly adequate examples.
Your response, reduced to its essence, is...
"No way. No you wouldn't! You would never believe!"
There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"

 

[holston]

Dawsy's sig: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." ~Carl Sagan


Oh my.

If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.

Sagan quotes:

"If ‘fulfilled prophecy’ is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.”

Or;
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

Sagan was equally dissatisfied with the notion that Jesus Christ was his son, as are ALL Jews.

 

[Boss]

So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?

I've never said any evidence is going to take you over the top and put you on your knees... (is that even physically possible to do at the same time?) What I said is, you cannot accept any evidence of something you don't accept exists. It's a logical dichotomy.

He has given several perfectly adequate examples.

Uhm, no... he hasn't given ANY examples and neither have you. Pretending you have is not going to work on a public forum where people can read what is posted.

Your response, reduced to its essence, is...
"No way. No you wouldn't! You would never believe!"

Again... logical dichotomy. You cannot accept something as evidence if you don't believe in the possibility of whatever the evidence is for. You have to first believe there is a possibility, then you can accept evidence of it. This is why you (and he) continue to come up empty with any example.

There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"

This is true, and it proves my point. Until you can believe something to be possible, no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling it is, will ever be able to convince you. "Evidence" is subjective, as I said earlier. It depends totally on the perception of the individual and whether they accept the evidence as such. Anyone can claim they have "evidence" of anything... I could say I have "evidence" aliens visited me last night... If you don't believe in aliens, my "evidence" is meaningless to you.

Again... Challenge is on the table... Present something that you absolutely do not believe in, that you accept there is valid evidence to support. Just ONE thing, that's all I ask.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?

I've never said any evidence is going to take you over the top and put you on your knees... (is that even physically possible to do at the same time?) What I said is, you cannot accept any evidence of something you don't accept exists. It's a logical dichotomy.

He has given several perfectly adequate examples.

Uhm, no... he hasn't given ANY examples and neither have you. Pretending you have is not going to work on a public forum where people can read what is posted.

Your response, reduced to its essence, is...
"No way. No you wouldn't! You would never believe!"

Again... logical dichotomy. You cannot accept something as evidence if you don't believe in the possibility of whatever the evidence is for. You have to first believe there is a possibility, then you can accept evidence of it. This is why you (and he) continue to come up empty with any example.

There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"

This is true, and it proves my point. Until you can believe something to be possible, no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling it is, will ever be able to convince you. "Evidence" is subjective, as I said earlier. It depends totally on the perception of the individual and whether they accept the evidence as such. Anyone can claim they have "evidence" of anything... I could say I have "evidence" aliens visited me last night... If you don't believe in aliens, my "evidence" is meaningless to you.

Again... Challenge is on the table... Present something that you absolutely do not believe in, that you accept there is valid evidence to support. Just ONE thing, that's all I ask.

Your challenge has been met by the last poster.
What evidence would you provide the person that says they accept the possibility that your premise is true?
Like you say, "Anyone can claim they have 'evidence' of anything". Show us you aren't one of these.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I thought you were the one that gets hysterical about you being right and everyone else wrong?

I've not argued that I am right and everyone else is wrong. That said, I am certainly not going to abandon what I believe is right on the basis that it's your opinion I am wrong. Oh sorry... what was I thinking, I must obviously be wrong because you say I am!

You repeatedly tell us that others are wrong and you are right. It's a mantra of yours.
Do you want me to post a list? Easily done.

 

[thebrucebeat]

How does your description of yourself make you an atheist?

It doesn't, and I don't call myself an Atheist. I explained it, but apparently you are having reading comprehension problems again. Atheist means A-Theist... or NOT-Theist. Since I do not subscribe to any organized theological doctrine, I am more "atheistic" than "agnostic." That's what I said.

Atheist has nothing to do to subscribing to an organized theological doctrine.
Totally unrelated.
Fail.

 

[Montrovant]

If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased? Why does it persist?

You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now. Why does Santa not follow that same guideline? Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?

Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?

Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.

You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?

Even the most skeptical believers in evolution don't try to compare the changing of a species into another with the changing of beliefs within a society or humanity in general.

Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you? Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!

There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.

You are conflating things that are not the same.

 

[Montrovant]

Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible. Let me give you a couple of quotes.

No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.

There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.

Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.

Wow, testy!
While I freely admit that I made an assumption about the Christian bent of your position, you are making the case for the belief in God, or god, and that is being supported by the vast numbers of people that believe it, which is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!

The volume of it doesn't change that. It is still anecdotal. I haven't rejected anything. You haven't provided any. Wow me.

Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!



Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.



Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.



Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.

Your argument suggests that proof is available only after you invest in the belief.

No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.

You think belief comes first. I think the proof does.

But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.

I put the relevant sections in bold with this.

Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication. However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.

I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.

I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept. That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Your fantasy of atheists being closeted believers is without support.

I also didn't say this. Closeted believers often claim to be Atheists. Just as closeted agnostics sometimes claim to be Christians. People often lie about who they are and what they believe for a variety of reasons.

You sound like an expert on the latter.
Most Christians ARE agnostics. They have the humility to know their beliefs are a faith, not a verifiable proof text. The bible says just the same.

 

[Boss]

So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?

I've never said any evidence is going to take you over the top and put you on your knees... (is that even physically possible to do at the same time?) What I said is, you cannot accept any evidence of something you don't accept exists. It's a logical dichotomy.



Uhm, no... he hasn't given ANY examples and neither have you. Pretending you have is not going to work on a public forum where people can read what is posted.



Again... logical dichotomy. You cannot accept something as evidence if you don't believe in the possibility of whatever the evidence is for. You have to first believe there is a possibility, then you can accept evidence of it. This is why you (and he) continue to come up empty with any example.

There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"

This is true, and it proves my point. Until you can believe something to be possible, no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling it is, will ever be able to convince you. "Evidence" is subjective, as I said earlier. It depends totally on the perception of the individual and whether they accept the evidence as such. Anyone can claim they have "evidence" of anything... I could say I have "evidence" aliens visited me last night... If you don't believe in aliens, my "evidence" is meaningless to you.

Again... Challenge is on the table... Present something that you absolutely do not believe in, that you accept there is valid evidence to support. Just ONE thing, that's all I ask.

Your challenge has been met by the last poster.
What evidence would you provide the person that says they accept the possibility that your premise is true?
Like you say, "Anyone can claim they have 'evidence' of anything". Show us you aren't one of these.

Well no, hard head... the challenge wasn't met. You continuing to lie and claim it has been met is not going to ever change that fact. Sorry.

Doesn't matter what evidence I would present, you and others are convinced that any evidence is invalid because you do not believe in what the evidence supports. You'll continue to find ways to rationalize why you perceive the evidence is invalid unless and until you accept the possibility of whatever the evidence is for.

Billions of people find plenty of evidence to support their spiritual beliefs, and have done so for thousands and thousands of years. That is a fact, it can't be disputed or refuted. You can only dismiss the evidence because you don't believe it is evidence for what you don't believe possible.

I can't show you anything. You are asking me to overcome your disbelief in something, and I can't do that, it's impossible for me to ever do that. Only YOU have that power.

 

[Boss]

If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased? Why does it persist?

You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now. Why does Santa not follow that same guideline? Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?

Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?

Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.

You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?

Well yes, but biological behaviors are part of biology, aren't they? YOU were the one who introduced a folk legend, not me. I simply explained why your example didn't apply to what I had said about biological behaviors and evolution. Now you want to somehow twist around your illogical example and pretend I brought it up. Dishonesty at it's best.

Even the most skeptical believers in evolution don't try to compare the changing of a species into another with the changing of beliefs within a society or humanity in general.

I haven't made such a comparisson. You are now conflating species evolution with natural selection. Spirituality is a behavioral characteristic of our species. It's not "changing beliefs" but an ever-present characteristic of our human behavior as a species, which has been present since the beginning. Religious beliefs have changed, but that isn't spirituality itself.

Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you? Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!

You're not talking about behavioral attributes anymore. Now you are talking about ideas and knowledge. Yes, those change very rapidly in our species, mostly due to inspiration derived from spirituality. This is why we are sending men to the moon and exploring our universe and not swinging from tree to tree and fighting great apes for survival.

There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.

You are conflating things that are not the same.

Well no, there's not, and I never argued there was. You twisted and distorted what I said and misinterpreted it deliberately because you think that's a clever thing to do.

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

 

[mamooth]

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.

Not so. Note the peacock's tail, as one example. Detrimental to the species, but selected for by evolution.

Evolution can be more correctly thought of as individual genes using a species as a tool to create more copies of themselves. From that standpoint, the peacock's tail becomes understandable. The meme of religiousity would be an analogue to genes, and such memes can become dominant even if detrimental to the species.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

That's not what Darwin said at all.

 

[Boss]

Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible. Let me give you a couple of quotes.

No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.

There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.

Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.

Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!



Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!



Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.



Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.



Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.



No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.

You think belief comes first. I think the proof does.

But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.

I put the relevant sections in bold with this.

Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication. However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.

I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.

I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept. That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.

Look... you can try all you like to twist and distort what I've said if you feel better about yourself for doing that. I can't do anything about it other than point it out.

What I am saying is simple basic one-brain-cell-to-comprehend logic. You can't accept ANY evidence for something you don't believe in the possibility for. It's illogical. It cannot happen in this universe, in this reality we exist in. In order for you to accept anything as "evidence" ...don't give a shit what that is... it first requires an acceptance of the possibility that whatever the evidence is for, actually is possible. If you do not believe something is possible, there can be no "evidence" you will accept. It's irrational.

As I have repeatedly challenged you to do in order to prove this point to yourself... Present for me just one example of something you absolutely do not believe in... don't believe it is possible... don't believe it exists... yet you acknowledge there is some valid evidence to support it. Anything! Just one example is all you need to give me, and I will admit I am wrong. Seems like that would be FAR easier than continuing to try and distort or pervert the things I've stated, which I am not letting you get away with.

 

[Boss]

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

That's not what Darwin said at all.

Yes he did, it's the basis of natural selection.

 

[Ronin]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Do you separate God from religion? At what point does as person steer from debate into this descriptive category you have stated here?

 

[Boss]

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.

Not so. Note the peacock's tail, as one example. Detrimental to the species, but selected for by evolution.

Evolution can be more correctly thought of as individual genes using a species as a tool to create more copies of themselves. From that standpoint, the peacock's tail becomes understandable. The meme of religiousity would be an analogue to genes, and such memes can become dominant even if detrimental to the species.

Peafowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution and sexual selection
Charles Darwin first theorized in On the Origin of Species that the peacock's plumage had evolved through sexual selection. This idea was expanded upon in his second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.
The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners.

Work concerning female behavior in many species of animals has sought to confirm Darwin's basic idea of female preference for males with certain characteristics as a major force in the evolution of species.[3] Females have often been shown to distinguish small differences among potential mates and to prefer mating with individuals bearing the most exaggerated characters.[4] In some cases, those males have been shown to be more healthy and vigorous, suggesting that the ornaments serve as markers indicating the males' abilities to survive and, thus, their genetic qualities.
The peacock is perhaps the best-known example of traits believed to have arisen through sexual selection, though in recent years this theory has become the object of some controversy.[5] It is known that male peafowl erect their trains to form a shimmering fan in their display to females. Marion Petrie tested whether or not these displays signaled a male's genetic quality by studying a feral population of peafowl in Whipsnade Wildlife Park in southern England. She showed that the number of eyespots in the train predicted a male's mating success, and this success could be manipulated by cutting the eyespots off some of the male's tails.[6] Females lost interest in pruned males and became attracted to untrimmed ones. Further testing revealed that males with fewer eyespots, and thus with lower mating success, were more likely to suffer from greater predation.[7] Even more interestingly, she allowed females to mate with males that had variable numbers of eyespots and reared the offspring in a communal incubator to control for differences in maternal care. Chicks fathered by more ornamented males weighed more than those fathered by less ornamented males, an attribute generally associated with better survival rate in birds. When these chicks were released into the park and recaptured one year later, those with heavily ornamented fathers were found to be better able to avoid predators and survive in natural conditions.[3] Thus, Petrie's work has shown correlations between tail ornamentation, mating success and increased survival ability in both the ornamented males and their offspring.
Furthermore, peafowl and their sexual characteristics have been used in the discussion of the causes for sexual traits. Amotz Zahavi used the excessive tail plumes of male peafowls as evidence for his “Handicap Principle”.[8] Considering that these trains are obviously deleterious to the survival of an individual (due to the more brilliant plumes being highly visible to predators and the longer plumes making escape from danger more difficult), Zahavi argued that only the most fit males could survive the handicap of a large tail. Thus, the brilliant tail of the peacock serves as an indicator for females that highly ornamented males are good at surviving for other reasons, and are, therefore, more preferable mates. This theory may be contrasted with Fisher's theory that male sexual traits, such as the peacock's train, are the result of selection for attractive traits because these traits are considered attractive
-------------------------------------------------------------

BAM! ...Refuted!
Next?

 

[Boss]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Do you separate God from religion? At what point does as person steer from debate into this descriptive category you have stated here?

I do separate God from religion. You must understand, human spirituality predates all religion by many years. Religion is the manifestation of our spiritual connection. It's a byproduct of being spiritually aware and spiritually connected. Spirituality is God... that is who/what we are spiritually connecting to. Religion is man's attempt to better understand that connection, and because men are imperfect, our attempts to comprehend something we can't totally grasp, is enigmatic at best.

I am not understanding your second question.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

That's not what Darwin said at all.

Yes he did, it's the basis of natural selection.

You suggest species "discard unimportant attributes". They simply have genetic mutations that are accidental, and if the accident produces a benefit, it will be selected through the advantageous benefits it represents to continue. Beneficial attributes get eliminated by genetic mutation also and those individuals don't thrive and thus don't reproduce.
A very good argument can be made for how spiritual devotion can retard progress of cultures now, and is in fact doing so. 4000 churches open in the U.S. every year, but 7000 close. Maybe we are in the beginnings of discarding this behavioral attribute now.

 

[Montrovant]

Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible. Let me give you a couple of quotes.

No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.

There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.

Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.

Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!



Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!



Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.



Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.



Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.



No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.



But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.

I put the relevant sections in bold with this.

Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication. However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.

I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.

I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept. That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.

Look... you can try all you like to twist and distort what I've said if you feel better about yourself for doing that. I can't do anything about it other than point it out.

What I am saying is simple basic one-brain-cell-to-comprehend logic. You can't accept ANY evidence for something you don't believe in the possibility for. It's illogical. It cannot happen in this universe, in this reality we exist in. In order for you to accept anything as "evidence" ...don't give a shit what that is... it first requires an acceptance of the possibility that whatever the evidence is for, actually is possible. If you do not believe something is possible, there can be no "evidence" you will accept. It's irrational.

As I have repeatedly challenged you to do in order to prove this point to yourself... Present for me just one example of something you absolutely do not believe in... don't believe it is possible... don't believe it exists... yet you acknowledge there is some valid evidence to support it. Anything! Just one example is all you need to give me, and I will admit I am wrong. Seems like that would be FAR easier than continuing to try and distort or pervert the things I've stated, which I am not letting you get away with.

I'm not twisting or distorting anything. I provided quotes from you in this very thread. How is that distorting? It's your words.

When responding to the statement that proof comes before belief, you said that it does not. That is entirely different than someone being open to possibility. Belief means you think something is not just possible but accept it as real. One can be open to the possibility of something without yet accepting it as being real, as with god(s).

If you cannot see that I was pointing out how the very words you posted in this thread on multiple occasions did not say merely that a person must believe a thing is possible before they accept any evidence, you are intentionally ignoring what's been put in front of you. Sort of an example of just what you are talking about.