Evidence for God from Science

I saw some sense in the article without anything really causing problems with my belief.
Could be used as an argument against atheism. Not understanding probability. Not sure how to explain it, kinda like if our brains dont understand then how can we discount it?

As secure as I am in my faith, I would never discount the possibility I could be wrong. I love debating with atheists who think the same.

Then why would you believe what you wrote here isn't flawed?

I don't know whether it is flawed or not! That's the whole point; we don't know anything since our brain manipulates us into believing that we're right and into thinking others are wrong! Is that so hard to accept? Because accepting this could lead to much better debates. With few insults, few manipulation from the other, etc...

Ever heard of the saying, "Hoist by one's own petard"?

Huh...no. Like I said (not here, though), English is not my mother language.

I think sometimes we have different ideas of what it means to show disrespect. Sometimes people imagine offense and sometimes people give genuine offense in ignorance. I think this is a good reason for "turning the other cheek" even in discussions and debates.

I know, right? And I agree. As for people imagining offenses, that's close to unavoidable. We see that when it comes to humour; people keep feeling offended by jokes that weren't even meant for them...

My take on the article:

Another justification to strengthen unbelief to make one wise in his or her own eyes...to remain enlightened with darkness (as in another form justification of Nihilism)

Then I presume you don't believe what's written in the article. Because, if you did, it would be kinda difficult for you not to think that your brain tricked you thinking that, due to the Fundamental Atribution Error.

RickD wrote:
Then why would you believe what you wrote here isn't flawed?

MBPrata wrote:
I don't know whether it is flawed or not! That's the whole point; we don't know anything since our brain manipulates us into believing that we're right and into thinking others are wrong! Is that so hard to accept? Because accepting this could lead to much better debates. With few insults, few manipulation from the other, etc...

RickD wrote:
Ever heard of the saying, "Hoist by one's own petard"?

MBPrata wrote:
Huh...no. Like I said (not here, though), English is not my mother language.

The whole thing is a self-defeating argument! Can't you understand that?

Hi MBPrata, are you really being impartial to all sides here?

It seems like you are making a challenge to Christians only, really...
I mean I know you probably wanted and desired to be impartial -- actually I'm not too sure there.
Nonetheless, the way your words were written was in a manner that pointed the finger one way at Christians.

Perhaps that is because you felt treated harshly on this board at some point.
Can you point out the exchanges where you felt inappropriately treated?
I'd like to read them.

Perhaps it is also because you are agreeable with a post-modern nihilistic epistemology
-- that no one's beliefs are is as good (each are as pathetic) as each others.
Which contradicts Christianity wherein Christ claims to be the way, the truth and the life.
Such lends itself more to non-Christian and secular beliefs imo.

Furthermore, not to just point the finger the other way, but in my experience many (not all) vocal Atheists appear to have very large chips on their shoulders. Often they're very emotional, their language is really personally insulting, they have an air of arrogance and really don't deserve the ear of the person they're often berating. Respect is best commanded, not demanded. And many do act like spoilt children and then cry foul when either put in their place, or if a Christian thinks "game on!" and starts poking and prodding back.

MBPrata wrote:

B. W. wrote:My take on the article:

Another justification to strengthen unbelief to make one wise in his or her own eyes...to remain enlightened with darkness (as in another form justification of Nihilism)

Then I presume you don't believe what's written in the article. Because, if you did, it would be kinda difficult for you not to think that your brain tricked you thinking that, due to the Fundamental Attribution Error.

I was simply responding to the article as I see it's value. Your response does not match you own words in your premise...

MBPrata wrote:I've know this website for 3 years. The forum, some 2 years I guess. And one of the things I enjoyed the most about the forum was that people writing here - maybe because of their christianity, maybe not... - were able to debate decently, with no insults, manipulation techniques or despise for the other person debating. And with some sense of humour. Yeah, this forum is still one of the few places on the Internet where I feel safe to have a sane debate instead of one of those apocaliptic discussions that happen is social networks....

I find your response to my comment in line with K's observation you maybe are not as impartial as you sound, and next, from your response you appear to be attempting to make a direct challenge to Christianity by trying to sound placating at the same time. Not sure why you cannot accept another opinion about the article you posted and leave it at that. Nihilism indeed shares the Fundamental Attribution Error as does militant atheism too...

...oh well, have a nice day
-
-
-

Hi MBPrata, are you really being impartial to all sides here?

Technically, no, because my flawed human brain hardly allows impartiality. And I know I often fall for being partial. And I apologize in advance for that, because - yes! - I would love to be impartial. But I don't know whether I can or not. Only God knows, I guess...

It seems like you are making a challenge to Christians only, really...
I mean I know you probably wanted and desired to be impartial -- actually I'm not too sure there.
Nonetheless, the way your words were written was in a manner that pointed the finger one way at Christians.

Like I said, I do want to be impartial. But I probably can't. Moving on...challenging Christians? Well, maybe. It's not because you're Christians or something; it's just that I find arrogance one of the worse traits a human can show and, yes, I have felt arrogance from some of you. The same way you felt arogance from some atheists. Also, the "fact" that I was offended made me feel like showing this article to you, as in "Where are your "certainties" now?!". I know, kind of a revenge-like attitute...but I'm not made of stone, you know? Anyway, like I said, everyone in the world should read this article. Not just Christians; everyone. And this reason to show you the article is just as good as any other reasons.

Perhaps that is because you felt treated harshly on this board at some point.
Can you point out the exchanges where you felt inappropriately treated?
I'd like to read them.

Funny thing you ask that...remember the expression "dumb yourself down"?
That, and the "indirect" that I left on my OP, concerning some certain "La La Land". And one or two times someone accused me of an "excuse" (a word that I loathe).

Perhaps it is also because you are agreeable with a post-modern nihilistic epistemology
-- that no one's beliefs are is as good (each are as pathetic) as each others.

Nihilistic or not, yes, I totally agree with that!

Furthermore, not to just point the finger the other way, but in my experience many (not all) vocal Atheists appear to have very large chips on their shoulders. Often they're very emotional, their language is really personally insulting, they have an air of arrogance and really don't deserve the ear of the person they're often berating. Respect is best commanded, not demanded. And many do act like spoilt children and then cry foul when either put in their place, or if a Christian thinks "game on!" and starts poking and prodding back.

I get what you are saying; I once thought pretty much the same. However...when I came to this forum asking questions as in help-me-I-don't-understand-God's-line-of-thought, I found some of these exact obnoxious traits in some some - I repeat: some!, not all - people writing here. It was a surprise for me; I always thought you Christians would never act wih arrogance or like a spoilt baby, because of, I don't know, the sin of pride and the "love the other as you love yourself" thing.
Also, try not to think about atheists in general in the way you wrote. You know why? Because what a lot of them think about the Christians is pretty much the same you wrote!

Maybe I'm missing something but I dont see MBPratas post as challenging Christians, more of a "have you considered this?"

It is true that some atheists are disrespectful, but so are some Christians. MBPrata? You say you expected more from us Christians? Less pride, arrogance etc. Why? Being a Christian doesnt stop us being flawed, or wrong, it doesnt make us somehow better.

We accept that there are many things we cannot know about God yet deny the possibility that there is some truth in this article? I dont see why. I thought the article was interesting (even if it was from cracked.com! )

In exchanges like this its easy to misread things, lose the intent or humour behind the words. We all want to get our point across and sometimes things get lost in translation.

The whole post and article is self defeating.

Just like someone who argues, "There is no such thing as absolute truth."

Can you see how it's self defeating?

Supposedly, we can't make a claim, or know if something is true, because our brain is flawed. But why should we believe the author who is making this claim? Maybe his flawed brain is leading him to write a flawed article.

I see it more as the possibility that we could all be wrong. Is it a bad thing to admit that all of what we think could be flawed? Doesnt mean it is, just that its possible.

I am absolutely sure of my faith but I dont see why its self defeating to admit it could all be wrong.

MBPrata wrote:Like I said, I do want to be impartial. But I probably can't.

I think this probably relates to #2 from the article ("We're hard-wired to have double-standards"). I don't think we're "hard-wired" for it, but it certainly does seem to come naturally enough. I doubt there's any person in the world who doesn't practice some kind of double standard. But if you look closely you'll see that some people seem to do it far less than others. I believe this is because it's possible to train ourselves to eliminate double standards.

I personally see this process as "discernment", where we examine ourselves first and then others. The word "hypocrite" literally translates to something like a lack or deficiency of judgment. in other words, the judgment of ourselves is lacking. The thing which is lacking in hypocritical judgment is discernment. We need discernment to know how to make fair judgment. When the judgment is fair it will not be hypocritical.

One of the best ways to learn discernment is to carefully examine ourselves when we judge others. I think if you do this you will become much better at being impartial. I'm not saying you don't already do this at least sometimes and I'm not saying it in reference to any particular comments you've already made. I'm only responding to the comment you made that you don't think you can be impartial. You can do it!

storyteller wrote:I am absolutely sure of my faith but I dont see why its self defeating to admit it could all be wrong.

I like this. It reminds me of a quote I heard before, "People who argue that God never changes are sometimes the most blind of all, because it usually means they've decided God can never reveal anything new to them".

Storyteller wrote:I see it more as the possibility that we could all be wrong. Is it a bad thing to admit that all of what we think could be flawed? Doesnt mean it is, just that its possible.

I am absolutely sure of my faith but I dont see why its self defeating to admit it could all be wrong.

Storyteller,

I'm not saying it's self defeating to admit I could be wrong. What I'm saying, is that for someone to claim our brains are faulty, as the reason why we could be wrong, is self defeating. If the author is correct, and our brains are faulty and cause us to be wrong, why can't his article be the product of his faulty brain? Thereby making his article wrong. See?

RickD wrote:...I'm not saying it's self defeating to admit I could be wrong. What I'm saying, is that for someone to claim our brains are faulty, as the reason why we could be wrong, is self defeating. If the author is correct, and our brains are faulty and cause us to be wrong, why can't his article be the product of his faulty brain? Thereby making his article wrong. See?

That pretty much encapsulates what I was attempting to point out... why can't his article be the product of his faulty brain? Thereby making his article wrong?

Nihilism at its best

Faulty brains, i.e, faulty thinking, which is the hallmark of sin, therefore, the article does nothing more than prove the bible correct! There is sin in the human race. Too bad it cannot admit that Nihilism is flawed as well as its form of reasoning, as Rick pointed out, the articles author does not permit his view to be wrong. Pointing the finger was what the article does best... another yawner... unless one wants to discuss sin in the human condition and God's cure for it.
-
-
-

RickD wrote:

Storyteller wrote:I see it more as the possibility that we could all be wrong. Is it a bad thing to admit that all of what we think could be flawed? Doesnt mean it is, just that its possible.

I am absolutely sure of my faith but I dont see why its self defeating to admit it could all be wrong.

Storyteller,

I'm not saying it's self defeating to admit I could be wrong. What I'm saying, is that for someone to claim our brains are faulty, as the reason why we could be wrong, is self defeating. If the author is correct, and our brains are faulty and cause us to be wrong, why can't his article be the product of his faulty brain? Thereby making his article wrong. See?

Kinda but not really. I swear I am not being obtuse (well, not intentionally anyway!)
Why does the article have to be wrong if its the product of a faulty brain? Isnt it possible its right anyway? Or am I missing the point?

RickD wrote:

Storyteller wrote:I see it more as the possibility that we could all be wrong. Is it a bad thing to admit that all of what we think could be flawed? Doesnt mean it is, just that its possible.

I am absolutely sure of my faith but I dont see why its self defeating to admit it could all be wrong.

Storyteller,

I'm not saying it's self defeating to admit I could be wrong. What I'm saying, is that for someone to claim our brains are faulty, as the reason why we could be wrong, is self defeating. If the author is correct, and our brains are faulty and cause us to be wrong, why can't his article be the product of his faulty brain? Thereby making his article wrong. See?

Kinda but not really. I swear I am not being obtuse (well, not intentionally anyway!)
Why does the article have to be wrong if its the product of a faulty brain? Isnt it possible its right anyway? Or am I missing the point?