‹ First  < 2 3 4
 
   
 

I believe in . . .  (+BM)

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
03 July 2014 22:35
Huxley4ever
 
Avatar
 
 
Huxley4ever
Total Posts:  151
Joined  26-05-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2014 09:58
 
BigNose - 03 July 2014 07:45 PM
Huxley4ever - 03 July 2014 09:19 AM

Hi BigNose,

I reread your OP snd i think that the challenge is that there is not an alternate competing foundational flapdoodle., if it is foundational.  What you are really denying is that there is some deity or other that orders the universe.  You can assert that your are sceptical of any such belief until there is evidence for it and that until then you live your life by your own moral compass and using your senses to determine the most rational course.

I don’t know if this helps at all?  Just my 2 cents

No. At this stage I’m not “denying” anything.
All I’m saying/asking is, if I take the set of “All Possible Things” and apply a filter to form the subset “All Things Reliably Indicated”, can I confine my beliefs here? And if I can, are there any theists in here with me?

Ahh, sorry, i misunderstood.  It is the reliable indicator thst is somewhat confusing, but this could be just me.  I think EN had a good point about that.  If your definition of a reliable indicator and the reliable indicator of others do not exactly align, then you will have thiests in the definition.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument that a city of people felt an earthquake.  No damage, no loss of life, a few injuries.  Let us also assume that we cannot measure thst there ever was an earthquake and earthquakes are unheard of in that region.  Is the testimony of the whole city a reliable indicator for the earthquake?

Now let’s apply the same reasoning to the weeping statues in south america.

iMO you have to define the reliable indicator.

Btw, sorry for hijack of your post, i was really mad about the jerking off comment.

 
 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
04 July 2014 13:57
 

Huxley, my post was quite clear that I was talking about the “evidence” that skeptics claim does not prove the existence of God. For you to talk about computers and such makes it quite clear that you have a difficult time at comprehension. And, for you to judge the “holy spirit” on the deeds of certain people is really stupid.

Why don’t you judge “governments” on the deeds of certain governments?

Society on the deeds of certain societies?

People in general on the deeds of certain people?

And on and on?

The answer: you are a limited thinker being brainwashed by the anti-religious skeptics who have come out of the woodwork since 9/11.

Today, this very day, millions of people experiencing the power of the “holy spirit” will give of themselves serving others.

What are you gonna do today for your fellow man? And, do you feel a power of goodness running through you making your selfish desires distasteful?

After you answer these questions in your head, make sure you begin to understand how your judgement against the “holy spirit” is not only full of shit but also an evil act of a puppet of the demon. Yes, the demon.

 
 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
04 July 2014 14:09
 
Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 07:58 AM

If your definition of a reliable indicator and the reliable indicator of others do not exactly align, then you will have thiests in the definition.

Surely an indicator is either “reliable” or “not reliable”, within an agreed tolerance. How can definitions of reliability not align? You can’t define an unreliable indicator as reliable if you can not show it to be reliable. Or am I misinformed?

Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 07:58 AM

Let’s say, for the sake of argument that a city of people felt an earthquake.  No damage, no loss of life, a few injuries.  Let us also assume that we cannot measure thst there ever was an earthquake and earthquakes are unheard of in that region.  Is the testimony of the whole city a reliable indicator for the earthquake?

1. An earthquake occurred.
2. There are no reliable indicators available at this time to explain the alleged phenomenon.
3. Withhold judgement: I don’t believe an earthquake occurred and I don’t believe an earthquake didn’t occur: An earthquake may, or may not, have occurred.

Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 07:58 AM

iMO you have to define the reliable indicator.

A reliable indicator is that which indicates a thing, reliably.
I realise you may view this as a little petulant, but I think this forces us to compare what a theist will claim as a reliable indicator with the demonstrably unreliable results produced by that indicator.

 
Huxley4ever
 
Avatar
 
 
Huxley4ever
Total Posts:  151
Joined  26-05-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2014 15:12
 
BigNose - 04 July 2014 12:09 PM
Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 07:58 AM

If your definition of a reliable indicator and the reliable indicator of others do not exactly align, then you will have thiests in the definition.

Surely an indicator is either “reliable” or “not reliable”, within an agreed tolerance. How can definitions of reliability not align? You can’t define an unreliable indicator as reliable if you can not show it to be reliable. Or am I misinformed?

Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 07:58 AM

Let’s say, for the sake of argument that a city of people felt an earthquake.  No damage, no loss of life, a few injuries.  Let us also assume that we cannot measure thst there ever was an earthquake and earthquakes are unheard of in that region.  Is the testimony of the whole city a reliable indicator for the earthquake?

1. An earthquake occurred.
2. There are no reliable indicators available at this time to explain the alleged phenomenon.
3. Withhold judgement: I don’t believe an earthquake occurred and I don’t believe an earthquake didn’t occur: An earthquake may, or may not, have occurred.

Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 07:58 AM

iMO you have to define the reliable indicator.

A reliable indicator is that which indicates a thing, reliably.
I realise you may view this as a little petulant, but I think this forces us to compare what a theist will claim as a reliable indicator with the demonstrably unreliable results produced by that indicator.

It seems me that what you sre saying is that reliability is only iimportant if you know what it applies to.  A car might be judged reliable if it breaks down 3 times in it’s lifetime, that kind of measure cannot be applied to nuclear power plants.  My father was a nuclear engineer working in reliability so i had to listen when he talked.  That is why i am saying, in my bumbling way that you need to define your reliability metric.  And by the way, thiests, it seems to me, are slippery, they will define reliability as anything that will prove the existance of god.

[ Edited: 04 July 2014 16:28 by Huxley4ever]
 
 
Huxley4ever
 
Avatar
 
 
Huxley4ever
Total Posts:  151
Joined  26-05-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2014 16:27
 
TheBrotherMario - 04 July 2014 11:57 AM

Huxley, my post was quite clear that I was talking about the “evidence” that skeptics claim does not prove the existence of God. For you to talk about computers and such makes it quite clear that you have a difficult time at comprehension. And, for you to judge the “holy spirit” on the deeds of certain people is really stupid.

Why don’t you judge “governments” on the deeds of certain governments?

Society on the deeds of certain societies?

People in general on the deeds of certain people?

And on and on?

The answer: you are a limited thinker being brainwashed by the anti-religious skeptics who have come out of the woodwork since 9/11.

Today, this very day, millions of people experiencing the power of the “holy spirit” will give of themselves serving others.

What are you gonna do today for your fellow man? And, do you feel a power of goodness running through you making your selfish desires distasteful?

After you answer these questions in your head, make sure you begin to understand how your judgement against the “holy spirit” is not only full of shit but also an evil act of a puppet of the demon. Yes, the demon.

Hi BM,

I am glad that i see no masterbation or dog analogies, and that we can speak as civilized people.

You seem to be one of those believers that truly believes, so grant me the same courtesy, if you don’t mind and accept me as one of those who truly does not believe, nor ever has believed.  I will not insult you by claiming that you are brainwashed, again, please do me the same courtesy.

To you points.

Have you actually seen people speak in tongues?  What, as an unbeliever, am i to make of that exactly.  How am i supposed to approach that.  They look like maniacs.  You may call it the holy spirit, i call it mass delusion.  They look anything but holy.  You speak of love and watching squirrels, all i see is frenzy.  Adults regressing to the infant stage in their pursuit of what you call the holy spirit.  Am i to respect that, or fear that for myself and my children.

Am i judging all people, yes, in the sense that we can all be like that.  But I will oppose any force on earth, including myself to never be that.

Now, what are we to make of the current set of American politicians or preachers, who talk of Jesus in that highpitched annoying way, as if they were having an orgasm every time they say the word.  One after another found to be taking money, being corrupt, fleecing anyone stupid and naive enough to give them money or vote for them because they were persons of “faith”.  Then they go on TV and cry and “repent”.  Do you have any idea, any concept how repulsive that is?  Grown men crying and carrying on.  What has become of us?

I could say, this is not my problem, this is the problem of the religious.  Certainly the religious are doing a great job of forcing people to loose their faith.  But it is not.  To any compassionate human being this is a problem.  The people who were fleeced, who were lied to, who were mentally abused by someone they trusted, they deserve better.  And that these assholes are using something as sacred to these people as their faith is a crime beyond their moneytaking and corruption.

BrotherMario, you have nothing to fear from the athiests.  We tend to ignore you and laugh at you, we sre even sometimes mean.  But your problem is from within and we, no matter how compassionate have no tools to help you solve it except to pull as many people as possible out of the moneymaking and people stupifying racket that faith has become.  The demons, if they exist are among your own and i wish you all the luck in the world to redeem your faith from them.

 
 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
04 July 2014 17:37
 

Huxley, I am not religious, nor have I ever been.

You equate religion with God because you are ignorant of both.

I am not a “believer” either, for I know that God exists through God himself revealing to me that he exists. You can look up these revelations if you wish.

And, I claim you are a puppet for the demon because I have fought the demon on three consecutive nights many years ago.

So, it is you who is making up things as you go along, as does all atheists, for inexperience of a thing is another word for ignorance of a thing.

And, for you to condescend to me about not fearing atheists is ridiculous for two reasons—first, I am far more educated than most of you; and, second, there is not a “believer” in the world who does not think most atheists are basically ignoramuses.

Please show me a single example of a believer in God fearing a loud-mouth atheist.

And, your long cliche post above did not contain a single original thought. So, stop regurgitating what you’ve read from other ignoramuses. I am also far too sophisticated a “believer” for the likes of that approach.

That you actually “believe” that you have written above a profound and decisive rebuttal to my previous post does make me “fear” your ability to function among your family and friends. So, maybe I do fear atheist ignoramuses after all.

 
 
Huxley4ever
 
Avatar
 
 
Huxley4ever
Total Posts:  151
Joined  26-05-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2014 17:56
 
TheBrotherMario - 04 July 2014 03:37 PM

Huxley, I am not religious, nor have I ever been.

You equate religion with God because you are ignorant of both.

I am not a “believer” either, for I know that God exists through God himself revealing to me that he exists. You can look up these revelations if you wish.

And, I claim you are a puppet for the demon because I have fought the demon on three consecutive nights many years ago.

So, it is you who is making up things as you go along, as does all atheists, for inexperience of a thing is another word for ignorance of a thing.

And, for you to condescend to me about not fearing atheists is ridiculous for two reasons—first, I am far more educated than most of you; and, second, there is not a “believer” in the world who does not think most atheists are basically ignoramuses.

Please show me a single example of a believer in God fearing a loud-mouth atheist.

And, your long cliche post above did not contain a single original thought. So, stop regurgitating what you’ve read from other ignoramuses. I am also far too sophisticated a “believer” for the likes of that approach.

That you actually “believe” that you have written above a profound and decisive rebuttal to my previous post does make me “fear” your ability to function among your family and friends. So, maybe I do fear atheist ignoramuses after all.

The above post is exactly why athiests laugh and ridicule you

 
 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
04 July 2014 18:26
 
Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 01:12 PM

. . .  you need to define your reliability metric.  And by the way, thiests, it seems to me, are slippery, they will define reliability as anything that will prove the existance of god.

Agreed. I need metrics. But I don’t need them, until I need them:
LittleNose is a theist, because she views the existence of trees as a reliable indicator for a divine creator. Despite her “certitude”, she is unable to demonstrate an indicative relationship between trees and a divine creator.
BigNose is agnostic, because he views the existence of trees as a reliable indicator for books.

Surely, in this case, there’s no need to define any metrics until either Biggy or Little demonstrate an indicative relationship between their alleged indicator and the indicated. Until theists can demonstrate any indicative link, they haven’t even identified an indicator. Back to school or, to remain a theist, they must admit that they believe in things that are NOT reliably indicated and vacate the PoATRI subset.
And that’s a shame, because everyone’s nice in here. It turns out, if you believe in PoATRI, there’s no bigotry, misogyny or genocide. No honour kilings, no martyrs, no mayhem.

(From the outside, however, it may look to some, like a load of guys all whacking off together. But then, by their own admission, it doesn’t need to be indicated for them to believe it.) tongue laugh

[ Edited: 04 July 2014 18:28 by BigNose]
 
Huxley4ever
 
Avatar
 
 
Huxley4ever
Total Posts:  151
Joined  26-05-2014
 
 
 
04 July 2014 19:04
 
BigNose - 04 July 2014 04:26 PM
Huxley4ever - 04 July 2014 01:12 PM

. . .  you need to define your reliability metric.  And by the way, thiests, it seems to me, are slippery, they will define reliability as anything that will prove the existance of god.

Agreed. I need metrics. But I don’t need them, until I need them:
LittleNose is a theist, because she views the existence of trees as a reliable indicator for a divine creator. Despite her “certitude”, she is unable to demonstrate an indicative relationship between trees and a divine creator.
BigNose is agnostic, because he views the existence of trees as a reliable indicator for books.

Surely, in this case, there’s no need to define any metrics until either Biggy or Little demonstrate an indicative relationship between their alleged indicator and the indicated. Until theists can demonstrate any indicative link, they haven’t even identified an indicator. Back to school or, to remain a theist, they must admit that they believe in things that are NOT reliably indicated and vacate the PoATRI subset.
And that’s a shame, because everyone’s nice in here. It turns out, if you believe in PoATRI, there’s no bigotry, misogyny or genocide. No honour kilings, no martyrs, no mayhem.

(From the outside, however, it may look to some, like a load of guys all whacking off together. But then, by their own admission, it doesn’t need to be indicated for them to believe it.) tongue laugh

If you are comfortable, then, more power to you. And the big nose, little nose thing is cute grin

 
 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
15 October 2014 22:55
 

I’m resurrecting this thread.
Stand by.

Image Attachments
 
Untitled.jpg
 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  4840
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
16 October 2014 04:34
 

grin...

Image Attachments
 
batman.jpg
 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4