Why I believe in God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

It's more arrogant to claim to know the actions, intentions, and the mind of a god or "creator." In doing so people make themselves into little gods, or spokesmen for their deity and, recognizing that the deity is invisible and unproven in reality, "believers" are anything but "grown up and sensible." Whimsy and mythology have nothing to do with making sense. You say people aren't in sociocultural bondage, but I'll bet you wear clothes from time to time. Clothing and religion are man-made habits. There isn't a logical argument against what I just said. Please don't tell me people simply wear clothes and worship nonsensical sky men because they are adults. Having matured beyond that point, that argument can only be considered preposterous and a waste of time.

Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion?

---

Nothing convincing from your side...just arguing for the sake of argument.

I live in an apartment for years and don't know who my neighbors are. I haven't even seen or met any!! Does that mean there are no neighbors in my block?? Similarly, God is known through His signs....manifestations. No one has seen Him yet His existence is felt. You therefore got no reason not to believe His existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Hang on. Run the grammatical logic of that past me.

If it's a noun, why can't it take the indefinite (or indeed, definite) article. Why is he not an atheist?

---

Varenne had posted "ECurb isn't atheist" and juniper seems to be suggesting that "ECurb isn't an atheist" would be better. Varenne then defends her usage of it as a modifier (an "attributive noun", that is, which is different than an adjective, so everyone here is at least a little right in the end).

EDIT: to be fair to Varenne, I was just now able to find one online dictionary that listed "atheist" as an adjective as well, so it looks like the bleeding of an attributive noun convention into the category of full-blown adjective is underway.

let alone semantics. get to the point.:)

Thanks, Billl. I love opportunities to improve my English. Your input is much appreciated. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!

---

That was very funny, mazHur. Ridiculously funny.
And Ecurb, you are a fountain of disinformation. But I wouldn't get entangled with you if I were her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

We are talking about Humans......
'survival' and 'fitness' are not the same as Natural Selection which is mainly concerned with adaptation and changes in physique. "Survival of the fittest"
as I get is,. is females looking for Alpha males for good propagation of genes.

The analogy drawn by you is fallacious in that it relates more to 'economic factors' than evolution. An ant can reproduce more than an elephant and even fell it!!

---

I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes -- an ant can reproduce more than an elephant, if it's the right kind of ant. Some ants can't reproduce at all (or is that Bees?). What does that have to do with anything I've ever written?

mazHur, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm not the one with something to prove. You're asserting that there is a god and clear evidence of a god, so the burden of proof lies with you, sugarplum. I'm not worried about it either way. I'm aware of reality and what humans are capable and incapable of knowing about the history of the universe at this point. I'm aware that additional evidence could present itself in the future. As of now I have never met a deity. No one I know has met a deity. Deities don't seem able to interact with the physical world, if they do exist. That makes me reasonably certain that you haven't met deities either, and can't truthfully assert that they factually exist. I agree with you on one point, however, there's nothing worth arguing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes -- an ant can reproduce more than an elephant, if it's the right kind of ant. Some ants can't reproduce at all (or is that Bees?). What does that have to do with anything I've ever written?

---

I was pointing out to the fallacious analogy given by you concerning reproduction rate between the rich Americans and the poor Asians.

As the Arabian Nights says: A poor man sleeps peacefully all night while a rich man cannot because the former has nothing to lose but................reproduce more and more and that too speedily!!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

At times it is. Obviously, that does not detract from its enjoyment, a point I made.

Again, who did I insult? It's not an insult to say that taking mythology seriously is naive. By your thinking, all naive beings should feel insulted simply because they are naive.

---

Yes, it is an insult to say someone who "takes mythology seriously" is naive. I'll grant that it is not an EFFECTIVE insult, because I'm sure that almost every serious poster on these boards (including me) "takes mythology seriously".

To return your insult, I'll only say that anyone who DOESN'T take mythology seriously is naive. I prefer the sophisticated approach, and take not only mythology, but also fairy tales, novels, and epic poems seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [QUOTE

cafolini;1091674]That was very funny, mazHur. Ridiculously funny.

---

Funny for the Lady lioness (or lion) sad for the poor dead deer!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!

---

Oh, get a grip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

mazHur, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm not the one with something to prove. You're asserting that there is a god and clear evidence of a god, so the burden of proof lies with you, sugarplum. I'm not worried about it either way. I'm aware of reality and what humans are capable and incapable of knowing about the history of the universe at this point. I'm aware that additional evidence could present itself in the future. As of now I have never met a deity. No one I know has met a deity. Deities don't seem able to interact with the physical world, if they do exist. That makes me reasonably certain that you haven't met deities either, and can't truthfully assert that they factually exist. I agree with you on one point, however, there's nothing worth arguing here.

---

The only way to meet a deity is first to taste the flavor of Death!
BTW deities are not interested in meeting anyone...they don't need to.they are too busy-just as all and sundry like me cannot meet even the human President of a country!!

We can only visualize 'deity' through'' His manifestations and signs just as you can predict a storm by looking at the sky or racing wind!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

I was pointing out to the fallacious analogy given by you concerning reproduction rate between the rich Americans and the poor Asians.

As the Arabian Nights says: A poor man sleeps peacefully all night while a rich man cannot because the former has nothing to lose but................reproduce more and more and that too speedily!!:)

---

"Fallacious analogy"? My observation wasn't "fallacious" and it wasn't an "analogy". Other thant that, you're probably right. "Fitness" has a special meaning in evolutionary biology:

Fitness
Definition

noun

(1) (biology) A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.

(2) A relative measure of reproductive success of an organism in passing its genes to the next generation.

(3) The relative ability of an individual (or population) to survive, reproduce and propagate genes in an environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Yes, it is an insult to say someone who "takes mythology seriously" is naive. I'll grant that it is not an EFFECTIVE insult, because I'm sure that almost every serious poster on these boards (including me) "takes mythology seriously".

To return your insult, I'll only say that anyone who DOESN'T take mythology seriously is naive. I prefer the sophisticated approach, and take not only mythology, but also fairy tales, novels, and epic poems seriously.

---

I meant, and I think this was clear, that it is either naive or insane to take mythology so seriously that it becomes a person's perceived reality. I can safely say that a lot of the posters here do not seriously believe we are ruled by Greek gods. They don't think centaurs are roaming the woods near their houses. They aren't out on quests to kill dragons and ogres. I love the Dark Tower series, but I don't think I'll stumble upon magical doors into other dimensions, or be held prisoner by a talking psychotic train, or have mystical sex with a shape-shifting demonic apparition. Sure, it sounds thrilling, but I would never expect anyone to respect those crazy ideas if I thought they were real and wanted to act them out. I would expect them to laugh and think me a weirdo.

The steam has gone out of my argument though. I've been cooking and talking about delicious veggie feasts over on the vegetarian holiday manners thread. Now all I can think about is the fantastic dinner I have planned for family and friends tomorrow. I forfeit all of my remaining battle points for this round to you, Ecurb. Many happy returns. :D

Have a good Thanksgiving!