Why

Originally posted by FMF
Well if you are interested in the conversation that is being had here, you will realize that the word "know" is being used in a certain way. I don't "know" there is a "God" any more or less than you do. We are both theists in as much as we believe there is a "God".

If you do not base your belief that there is a "God" on anything religious, then
all I am asking is what else could you possibly base it on?

Originally posted by FMF
Didn't the Lecter character murder people in order to eat them? Isn't that a rather different act in, terms of morality, than RJHind's "Some people have eaten other dead people to survive". Why do you seek to conflate them?

Hannibal Lector ONLY chose those who were "deserving". In other words, he let live those who he thought were worth while individuals, and killed and ate those who were beneath him. In a sense, you might say that such individuals never lived in his sight even though they had a pulse. In short, they were just unglorified monkeys.

Originally posted by whodey
Hannibal Lector ONLY chose those who were "deserving". In other words, he let live those who he thought were worth while individuals, and killed and ate those who were beneath him. In a sense, you might say that such individuals never lived in his sight even though they had a pulse. In short, they were just unglorified monkeys.

Well I do not condone homicide, if that's what you are on about with your tortured analogy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you do not base your belief that there is a "God" on anything religious, then
all I am asking is what else could you possibly base it on?

Intuition.

Do you seriously believe that codified religions are the only means of [or path to] being 'spiritual'?

Originally posted by FMF
Intuition.

Do you seriously believe that codified religions are the only means of [or path to] being 'spiritual'?

religion, not religions.
As far as I know he thinks that anyone that doesn't follow the doctrine of his religion is following the devil or satan

Originally posted by FMF
Well I do not condone homicide, if that's what you are on about with your tortured analogy.

But what if someone from an organization like the VHEMT came out and condoned or even praised a calamity that accounted for a great number of human deaths? In fact, I have read of people who wish these things to happen, just to get the human numbers down. For you see, they look upon humanity as a cancer or virus.

Not everyone shares your morality.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
religion, not religions.
As far as I know he thinks that anyone that doesn't follow the doctrine of his religion is following the devil or satan

What RJHinds asked was upon what else could one possibly base a belief that there is a "God", if not on something "religious"? So I think in this instance he was differentiating between those who subscribe to religions [plural] and those who don't.

Originally posted by whodey
Not everyone shares your morality.

Well, gosh, whodey. You will be telling me bears poo in the woods next.

Originally posted by whodey
But what if someone from an organization like the VHEMT came out and condoned or even praised a calamity that accounted for a great number of human deaths? In fact, I have read of people who wish these things to happen, just to get the human numbers down. For you see, they look upon humanity as a cancer or virus.

People can exercise their freedom of speech - and freedom of thought - to condone, praise, wish for, and look upon whatever they want in whatever way they want. I do not "look upon humanity as a cancer or virus" so I don't see what the connection is, in your mind, between me and "VHEMT" or my connection with Hannibal Lecter for that matter. Perhaps you are trying a little too hard to be funny?

Originally posted by FMF
What RJHinds asked was upon what else could one possibly base a belief that there is a "God", if not on something "religious"? So I think in this instance he was differentiating between those who subscribe to religions [plural] and those who don't.

Aye

Originally posted by FMF
Intuition.

Do you seriously believe that codified religions are the only means of [or path to] being 'spiritual'?

I had thought of intuition, but I did not want to assume anything or to influence
you by suggesting anything. The atheist claim they use reason for their belief
that there is no "God".

Originally posted by RJHinds
I had thought of intuition, but I did not want to assume anything or to influence
you by suggesting anything. The atheist claim they use reason for their belief
that there is no "God".

“...The atheist claim they use reason for their belief
that there is no "God". ...”

-and do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Not only is there no evidence that there is a god but when you make the unnecessary assumption that there is a 'God', you are not just making one assumption but many.
Exactly which assumptions you make depends on what you think 'God' is. For example, depending on your religion, the set of assumptions you may make if you believe 'your' 'God' exists may include:

1, there actually exists something supernatural.

2, there exists a supernatural conscious being X ( notice how this assumption depends on 1, )

3, this X is also immortal ( notice how this assumption depends on 2, )

4, this X is also all-knowing ( notice how this assumption depends on 2, )

5, this X is also all-powerful ( notice how this assumption depends on 2, 3, and 4, )

6, this X is also benevolent ( notice how this assumption depends on 2, )

7, this X is also the only god i.e. the only thing that is both a supernatural conscious being and all-powerful ( notice how this assumption depends on 2, and 5, )

not one of the above assumptions has any evidence to support it thus, if the above assumptions are essential for 'your God' to exist, then you should assume the probability of them all being true thus your 'God' existing to be a very small one.

-and the above is just scratching the surface of the typical assumptions made and for two reasons; firstly, some of those assumptions implicitly make two or more simpler assumptions or simply implicitly make other assumptions ( for example, 4, assumes that it is epistemologically possible to know everything ) and secondly, of course, this list is far from complete for most theists ( for example, many Christians assume what the Bible says about this 'God' is always true -each and every thing and that's a lot of assumptions without evidence! ) .
This contrasts with scientific knowledge that is entirely evidence and reason based.

Originally posted by humy
“...The atheist claim they use reason for their belief
that there is no "God". ...”

-and do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Not only is there no evidence that there is a god but when you make the unnecessary assumption that there is a 'God', you are not just making one assumption but many.
Exactly which assumptions you make depends on wh ...[text shortened]... ontrasts with scientific knowledge that is entirely evidence and reason based.

I make none of those assumptions and still believe in God. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by FMF
Well, gosh, whodey. You will be telling me bears poo in the woods next.

Bears poo in the woods FMF.

Originally posted by josephw
The only thing that will convince you that God has communicated with anyone is for you to receive a communication from God.

Why do you think that a communication from god would be at all convincing?

As it is not possible to tell a communication from god apart from a hallucination of a
communication from god and that there is no evidence of the existence of a god or
gods and plenty for hallucinations the only reasonable position to take is that any
apparent communication from god must be assumed to be a hallucination.

A 'communication' from god is not in the slightest bit convincing of gods existence.