Didn't grow up in church. Go now and raising kids. Presbyterian. Got God and community. I get some folks had bad childhoods in imposing climates, but it's not everyone, by far. Find peace and love however you need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why is this even controversial? Seems so obviously correct to me. I'd seriously like to hear the opposing viewpoint.

I agree with you, but having a lot of experience with religious people, I think they would say that religion is not about logic, it's about faith. i.e.,, "I don't know, but I believe."

It doesn't make sense to me, but seems to work for people who really want to believe.

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why is this even controversial? Seems so obviously correct to me. I'd seriously like to hear the opposing viewpoint.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

Do you afford the same leeway to people who believe in cults, Xenu (Scientology), or others modern things that have their own scripture? Is that “perfectly logical”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

And billions don't and still believe in God or that there's "something" out there. They can feel it, but they can't prove it, but they don't care. The idea of a force watching over them and possibly offering them an eternal life after this one is very compelling, albeit unreasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Why cant every reasonable person see this? I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.

Anonymous wrote:Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

or atheism -- which means not believing in god. It's not the opposite (knowing there is not a god) of agnostism (not knowing if there is a god). No one knows, which is what an atheist would tell you. Some believers would say they "know" there's a god. But they don't know the same way they know other things. They feel so strongly in their hearts that there is a god, that it feels like knowing to them.

For many people who don't believe, 'agnosticism" seems like a less harsh word. Could be because atheism got a bad rap because some atheisms spoke out freely about their lack of belief and their negative opinion about religious beliefs. Not all feel that way. The only thing one atheist is sure to have in common with another is that they do not believe in God.

Some people call themselves "agnostic atheists" - they don't know and they don't believe.

Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ I have no way to take this seriously, nor a way to intelligently respond.

Nor do I wish to engage in a strawman involving handicapped children for in lieu of a perfectly acceptable and easy to understand hypothetical.

I've spoken my piece and pointed out the position I believe you have despite your unwillingness to admit it. It's all I can do if you won't answer a simple question.




ps If I was god there would be no handicapped children. I bet if you were god there wouldn't be any either.

Oddly enough, gods are appearing in India, and you aren’t changing your mind.

You are absolutely wasting your time trying to change mine.

Not trying to change your mind, mr giant gif no one needs to see and adds nothing poster.

Just asking you a question, which you consciously avoid answering honestly, for reasons we both understand. Strawman points are all ya got.

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ I have no way to take this seriously, nor a way to intelligently respond.

Nor do I wish to engage in a strawman involving handicapped children for in lieu of a perfectly acceptable and easy to understand hypothetical.

I've spoken my piece and pointed out the position I believe you have despite your unwillingness to admit it. It's all I can do if you won't answer a simple question.




ps If I was god there would be no handicapped children. I bet if you were god there wouldn't be any either.

Oddly enough, gods are appearing in India, and you aren’t changing your mind.

You are absolutely wasting your time trying to change mine.

^^^^ I have no way to take this seriously, nor a way to intelligently respond.

Nor do I wish to engage in a strawman involving handicapped children for in lieu of a perfectly acceptable and easy to understand hypothetical.

I've spoken my piece and pointed out the position I believe you have despite your unwillingness to admit it. It's all I can do if you won't answer a simple question.




ps If I was god there would be no handicapped children. I bet if you were god there wouldn't be any either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would be very hard to do/take a lot of something- IDK what. If you want me to seriously consider your question please be more specific.

I’ve been plenty specific , and your (non) answers are very telling.

Your faith is more important to you than truth or facts. You’re doing everything you can to avoid saying it, but it’s obvious. That’s fine with me, it is your right and prerogative. But I care more about what is true, as do most atheists.

That’s a major difference.

You are an atheist who wants a god to appear and prove there is no Christian God.

How is that based on truth or facts?

I am an atheist who would immediately change my belief if a god appeared.

How is that not based on truth or facts?

Baby born with three hands worshipped as a god

This baby girl is being worshipped in India because she was born with three hands.

The infant was born on Nov. 2 to mother Radhika Sahu with a small additional arm and hand growing out of her chest.

She has quickly become the talk of her village in the Bilaspur district of Chhattisgarh, India, with some even worshipping the toddler as a god.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/12/27/baby-born-with-three-hands-worshipped-as-a-god/amp/

Indian boy with swollen head who cannot walk is worshipped as a HINDU GOD

Every Thursday, Pranshu meets worshippers outside a mosque near his village, as his father has decided not to let devotees enter the family home due to their ever-increasing numbers.

Jaswinder, a local villager who comes to see Pranshu, said: "People come to see Pranshu as they believe he is the reincarnation of the Ganesha. "People bow down their heads in from of him, I also do the same."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/730037/Pranshu-India-Hindu-Ganesh/amp

Boy born with seven-inch TAIL worshipped as a god

it removed - despite being worshipped as a God.


Arshid Ali Khan, 13, may lose the growth even though it made him a divine symbol in the state of Punjab, India.

The teen, who is bound to a wheelchair, has been hailed by locals as an incarnation of the Hindu monkey god Hanuman - and refer to him as Balaji.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/boy-born-seven-inch-tail-worshipped-3709260.amp

These children are worshiped as gods. So are you going to believe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would be very hard to do/take a lot of something- IDK what. If you want me to seriously consider your question please be more specific.

I’ve been plenty specific , and your (non) answers are very telling.

Your faith is more important to you than truth or facts. You’re doing everything you can to avoid saying it, but it’s obvious. That’s fine with me, it is your right and prerogative. But I care more about what is true, as do most atheists.

That’s a major difference.

You are an atheist who wants a god to appear and prove there is no Christian God.

How is that based on truth or facts?

I am an atheist who would immediately change my belief if a god appeared.

How is that not based on truth or facts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would be very hard to do/take a lot of something- IDK what. If you want me to seriously consider your question please be more specific.

I’ve been plenty specific , and your (non) answers are very telling.

Your faith is more important to you than truth or facts. You’re doing everything you can to avoid saying it, but it’s obvious. That’s fine with me, it is your right and prerogative. But I care more about what is true, as do most atheists.

That’s a major difference.

You are an atheist who wants a god to appear and prove there is no Christian God.

How is that based on truth or facts?