seventwentyseven

I was driving around earlier and I realised, I really miss my early 20s. I am 41 now and even though I don't want to hang around 20 year olds and go out drinking every weekend, I still find myself missing being that age. Is it because I don't have anything going on in my life that I really lood forward to?

http://governmentdeniesknowledge.com/stockholm-syndrome-state/ All of the conditions also apply to children in relation to their parents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwf6QD-REMY

I think this is a true statement. I just don't understand why it would not be true if the word "Santa" was replaced by the word "god". Do agnostics put a significantly higher probability on the existence of god compared to Santa? Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I didn't expect them to be original. And I would imagine that over the next year, there will be new threads repeating all of this. My arguments are very common and agnostic arguments are very common. But it appears you have not dealt with them countless times since you didn't look at my posts, yawn, then say "done this already", and just post links to where you've made these same arguments (or ignored the thread all together), and go to an original thread and post there. I get the probability thing. I understand that people make choices based on probability. I understand that if I try to get someone to jump out of the window and fly because he can't prove that he can't do it, he will probably not go along with it because the probability of success is so low. I understand that adults would find it absurd if I tried to seriously argue the existence of Santa. I get all of that. What I don't understand why this type of thinking does not apply to god. What is it about god that people will overlook the low probability and say, there might be a god? If this thread was arguing that you can't prove there's no Santa, I would think it was a joke and I would not have hung around this long. Maybe this question is a topic for another thread or maybe it's just boring. So I think my real question is, if it's OK to find the pro Santa position absurd, is it also OK to find the pro God position absurd?

But will Bill Maher debate with anyone about the existence of Santa? I would agree that atheists in general would be more aggressive against religion than agnostics but that might be because of the treatment they received when trying to discuss it with religious parents and other family members and family friends. I grew up in a house with parents who did not baptize me or take me to church and the subject will not be discussed beyond god would not be mean. I couldn't imagine what would happen to a person who was raised by hyper-religious people. That seems to me to be the root of the anger more than the religion itself. And anything is not possible. I will not be able to fly unassisted and the moon will not skip phases. If the probability of something is so low that it will not happen, then for all intents and purposes, it is impossible. If no evidence can or will be provided for the existence of a god, then god does not exist. STer, do you hve any proof at all of the existence of any god? Does anyone? God is claimed to be all powerful. He could provide proof but he doesn't. I will say that it's because he can't because there is no god. No perfect knowledge, whatever that would be, is needed. I sure do wish that my mortgage company would follow the agnostic rules. They cannot prove that I did not send them a check to pay off the house so they must assume that it has been paid off.

If the absence of something can't be proven with 100% certainty, then anything is possible. There could be 1 god, there could be five hundred billion gods. Since it is infinitely easier to prove that something is than it is to prove it isn't, then I'll go with the proof that something is. If there is not one shred of evidence for a position that would be simple to provide and could be done in less than 5 minutes, then that position is ridiculous. There is no proof at all for any gods. Any statements about not having perfect knowledge can be applied to an infinite number of gods, santa claus, the easter bunny, ghosts, demons, fairies, mermaids, bigfoot, magic dust, or any of the other fantasy land things that people imagine. I have questions for you about agnostics. Do they argue like this with religious people? Do they tell the religious people that they don't have evidence for their positions so there might not be a god? Do they think there might be a santa or tooth fairy? Or is ot just in the realm of god? I don't know any people that claim to be agnostic so I don't know what they do. I only knew one when I was a teenager and we didn't understand what we were talking about. To my knowledge, he did not talk to religious people about his doubts or tell them they have no evidence.

That's not an answer to the first question. What would the methodology be for proving absence of something?

God allegedly has all eternity to do whatever it wants to do. How about scrambling the phases of the moon so a full moon occurs the night after a new moon? How about making it hot and sunny at the north pole on December 21? How about giving me six pack abs tomorrow morning? Or even write "God was here" in the clouds? Jesus proved he was Jesus on Family Guy by expanding Lois' bust at the dinner table. It took less than 5 seconds. So this god refuses to take 5 minutes out of its precious eternity to prove it exists to people it "loves" but will spend an eternity punishing the same people for not believing?

If the words god or deity were replaced by Santa Claus or The Easter Bunny, this thread would only be one comment long, not 2 pages. What would the methodology be for proving absence of something? Does anyone here wake up on Christmas surprised that Santa didn't bring any gifts? When I drive to work, I can't prove with 100% certainty that there is no brick wall across the highway, but I don't slow down. I drive with the speed of traffic as if there is no brick wall since there is no evidence of it being there.

I saw this posted on Facebook. I made a couple of edits and reposted it. I was wondering how many people would find it as funny as the original.

I don't think I understand what's going on here. I am the product of public schools and a family who wasn't too friendly to questioning why they did and said things so that may have something to do with it. Tell me if I understand your question. Why is it applauded on this board when someone intervenes in a situation where a parent is POSSIBLY harming her child, but when it comes to hundreds of children being ACTUALLY harmed, the same people say it's none of their business? Yes or no. If no, a short explanation as to why I'm wrong and a restatement of your question. I have read your posts and I am not yet sure sure what you mean so please don't answer it by asking me to read your previous posts. Also, are there or have there been any "official" plans or suggestions for intervention other than "targeted missile strikes"? If yes, what and where did you find them? I haven't been able to find any.

People are applauded here for stepping in to stop possible abuse, yes. But that is completely different than suggesting that her neighborhood should be destroyed.

But the thought of moving somewhere else without money bothers you?

It's better if Stef is forced to split a donation with Canada than if he gets 100% of no donation becasue we don't want Canada to get anything.