There is as much evidence for Fairies, Unicorns, Giants, and elves

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I agree. Proof is subjective in that you have to be intelligent enough to recognize it when it comes along.
Not all do.

Uh... No... Proof is ALWAYS objective. When proof is subjective it is thrown out.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I agree. Proof is subjective in that you have to be intelligent enough to recognize it when it comes along.
Not all do.

Uh... No... Proof is ALWAYS objective. When proof is subjective it is thrown out.

Haha, what? Proof is proof.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I don't expect you to get this. It's not for you at all. SOME who believe have had things happen that prove to THEM that what they believe is real. Since it didn't happen to you, it's not proof, it's hearsay. I truly get that. I fully support your right to not believe in anything that doesn't' bite you in the ass.

But to call folks stupid for something that you don't understand is,....well....stupid.

Nothing on this Earth requires you to believe in it for it to be real. But things you haven't seen, nor will ever see are just as real as the chip on your shoulder.

If your goal is to win the argument that no proof of God exists, then POOF! You win. Congratulations. Your prize is you get to not look forward to anything other than terrestrial pleasures. Enjoy that. Drink it up.

I am content in knowing that something greater than I can comprehend created all that I see. And amazingly enough, I didn't require your approval.

Smile, even though you don't think he's there, God loves you.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I don't expect you to get this. It's not for you at all. SOME who believe have had things happen that prove to THEM that what they believe is real. Since it didn't happen to you, it's not proof, it's hearsay. I truly get that. I fully support your right to not believe in anything that doesn't' bite you in the ass.

But to call folks stupid for something that you don't understand is,....well....stupid.

Nothing on this Earth requires you to believe in it for it to be real. But things you haven't seen, nor will ever see are just as real as the chip on your shoulder.

If your goal is to win the argument that no proof of God exists, then POOF! You win. Congratulations. Your prize is you get to not look forward to anything other than terrestrial pleasures. Enjoy that. Drink it up.

I am content in knowing that something greater than I can comprehend created all that I see. And amazingly enough, I didn't require your approval.

Smile, even though you don't think he's there, God loves you.

I have no doubt there is probably more to this reality and I'm more than certain there are billions of things we are yet to understand, if at all.

Your prize is you get to not look forward to anything other than terrestrial pleasures

That's not for you to say.

And amazingly enough, I didn't require your approval.

Haha, good.

Smile, even though you don't think he's there, God loves you

I don't need the love of an idea which is a fallacy and I smile a lot as is

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Yes, proof is proof, but subjective evidence isn't proof. All proof is objective. If proof is left to interpretation then it isn't proving anything. It is just confirmation bias.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Zcustosmorum
A:
Your prize is you get to not look forward to anything other than terrestrial pleasures...

B:
I am content in knowing that something greater than I can comprehend created all that I see.

C:
Smile, even though you don't think he's there, God loves you.

A: I don't subscribe to any God idea, but I despise the Terrestrial existence (& "pleasures") Am I just totally f#?

B: I wish I got contentment out of something so simple that really has no actual effect on my day to day life.

C: This type of condescension always makes me nauseous. I see the need for love from a supreme being as a rather pathetic human desire.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TzarChasm

The bible again. And see those accounts are what make the bible untrustworthy. I always enjoy the Christian cop out, "If you can't trust the Jesus account then you can't trust any other history as well." No... Other historical sources tend not to speak of magical events in their summaries of events.

The Bible, insofar as Jesus is concerned is not a historical source, so it's not correct to say "Other historical sources...."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me with this post. I'm not really looking to start a "did Jesus exist" discussion with you, because frankly I'm not sure he existed either. There is a possibility that Jesus is an amalgamation of several cult leaders or just one person who developed a cult of personality around his actions. This isn't surprising since cult leaders tend to be charismatic and very influential. Then they perform fake miracles to make it look like they healed people. It's easy to believe that someone is healed in the moment and you don't check up on them a day or two later.

You have referred to the Bible as documentation of miracles by saying, "there is no documentation of miracles outside of the Bible." There is no documentation of miracles Inside the Bible, either. Claims are not contemporaneous documentation. That was my point.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I agree. Proof is subjective in that you have to be intelligent enough to recognize it when it comes along.
Not all do.

Uh... No... Proof is ALWAYS objective. When proof is subjective it is thrown out.

Proof is a mathematical term. I think you mean testable evidence. You are correct that testable evidence is always objective.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I don't expect you to get this. It's not for you at all. SOME who believe have had things happen that prove to THEM that what they believe is real. Since it didn't happen to you, it's not proof, it's hearsay. I truly get that. I fully support your right to not believe in anything that doesn't' bite you in the ass.

You are confusing being convinced with having testable evidence. They are not the same thing. Only testable evidence makes something fact. People can be convinced of anything without regard to whether it is fact.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I agree. Proof is subjective in that you have to be intelligent enough to recognize it when it comes along.
Not all do.

Uh... No... Proof is ALWAYS objective. When proof is subjective it is thrown out.

Proof is a mathematical term. I think you mean testable evidence. You are correct that testable evidence is always objective.

Well then proof in a mathematical sense would still be objective since numbers aren't subjective either.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me with this post. I'm not really looking to start a "did Jesus exist" discussion with you, because frankly I'm not sure he existed either. There is a possibility that Jesus is an amalgamation of several cult leaders or just one person who developed a cult of personality around his actions. This isn't surprising since cult leaders tend to be charismatic and very influential. Then they perform fake miracles to make it look like they healed people. It's easy to believe that someone is healed in the moment and you don't check up on them a day or two later.

You have referred to the Bible as documentation of miracles by saying, "there is no documentation of miracles outside of the Bible." There is no documentation of miracles Inside the Bible, either. Claims are not contemporaneous documentation. That was my point.

Ok fair enough. You are correct, the bible IS just a bunch of wild claims. I was more using the word "documentation" in that sense as a way to just say that they are written down in the bible.

" I do however think believing in something without proof is the height of stupidity, no matter how quietly you do about your beliefs "

So basically, with the above statement, you just called 90% of the entire worlds population idiots?
And I suppose this would include those who are no longer living today as well.
I assume people like Isaac Newton, Galileo (was Catholic even though the church originally did care much for him),Copernicus and even to a certain extent Einstein were all just stupid believers?

I am by no means a science expert, but are most theories (basically) still unproved?
Going by the fact that to believe in something it has to be proved it would mean believing in evolution makes half of us here also idiots then?

I do get what you were trying to put across, and did not intend to offend, I am propably overreacting with this post.
I do however agree with Network Dude's questions, how does it affect YOU personally?

If I had enough witnesses or stories about experiences with fairies or unicorns or any thing like that, I might be inclined to keep an open mind, especially if those witnesses and stories came from many different cultures across many different periods of time and many different parts of the world.

What's silly is demanding objective proof of the concept of a supernatural being, when measures of proof like that deal with science and the natural world, and the subject of a God or gods is, by its very nature, somewhat subjective, outside the realm of the natural world, and more properly the realm of philosophical discussion.

We can argue all day long about subjective proof not being good enough, but the truth is that we as human lives our lives based upon subjective information. If you needed objective information all the time, then you wouldn't be able to function. Something as simple as whether to wear a jacket on a 70 degree day would foul us up, because 70 is a bit cool to some people and quite warm to others.

a reply to: AnIntellectualRedneck

What's silly is demanding objective proof of the concept of a supernatural being

what is silly is presenting a hypothesis as fact, using it to lay the framework for a socio-political structure that pervades schools and homes and congressional offices, and then objecting when you are asked to substantiate it. lowering the bar to make up for methodology is poor practice, especially if the results are then pumped into an already lopsided institution like the american government.