Alex Jones, talk radio host

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why do you feel a need to 'commit' to believing something that you cannot know is true? I don't feel that need, I'm able to accept that there are some questions for which satisfactory answers or explanations don't exist. I do not feel, as you appear to, that choosing to 'believe' an unsatisfactory and unsubstantiated explanation is in some way a bett ...[text shortened]... ism, in that while i don't currently hold such a belief, I accept that a higher power may exist.

I guess it's because of faith and conviction. It's hard to explain it to someone who lacks it. Have you never had a very strong suspicion that something is true even if you could not prove it?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I guess it's because of faith and conviction. It's hard to explain it to someone who lacks it. Have you never had a very strong suspicion that something is true even if you could not prove it?

Using loaded terms to attempt to fortify your unsubstantiated beliefs doesn't make your position appear more attractive. In fact it acts in quite the opposite way. I do not regard 'faith' in scripture to be a positive quality. Further, I am not struck by any great conviction on your part towards the tenets of the religion you purport to follow. I 'lack' your faith and conviction in much the same way that you lack typhoid.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Using loaded terms to attempt to fortify your unsubstantiated beliefs doesn't make your position appear more attractive. In fact it acts in quite the opposite way. I do not regard 'faith' in scripture to be a positive quality. Further, I am not struck by any great conviction on your part towards the tenets of the religion you purport to follow.

Have you never had a very strong suspicion that something is true even if you could not prove it? Have you never ruled out multiple possibilities and gone with one that seemed the most likely to be true even if you could not prove it? If so you lack conviction.

Originally posted by chaney3
I do understand your point regarding probability, but when you take it to an extreme, as in the complex nature of earth, moon, sun and origin of life, I feel your position weakens greatly.

Probability and patterns cannot account for such extreme complexity. Maybe for dice and coins, but not origin of life. Not gravity, not magnetic shield, not the distan ...[text shortened]... nowing exactly who that Creator is, is subject to belief and faith. But, a Creator nonetheless.

The point is sir, the universe 'is' absurdly massive, making absurd sounding probabilities actually rather likely.

Look at it this way. Life exists on a given planet due to probability (as a result of the universe being incomprehensibly big) but we as individuals are indeed lucky to reside on such a planet. (Similarly, by the laws of probability, a bus somewhere in the world will crash into a parked BMW. but it would be bad luck if it happen to the BMW you were stealing the wheels from at the time).

Originally posted by dj2becker
Have you never had a very strong suspicion that something is true even if you could not prove it? Have you never ruled out multiple possibilities and gone with one that seemed the most likely to be true even if you could not prove it? If so you lack conviction.

If I felt it was somehow necessary to do so, then I would indeed choose what I felt to be the most likely explanation for some or other thing, regardless of lack of sufficient evidence. To do so without necessity does not speak of conviction however. And to then place one's faith in what one admits to oneself is merely the most likely explanation of the limited answers available to one's meagerly informed self strikes me as intemperate, irrational and altogether unwarranted. If you have done this, you lack discernment, self-control and maturity. At least lay claim to some sort of communion with or enlightenment by your deity, lest your position seem entirely risible.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The point is sir, the universe 'is' absurdly massive, making absurd sounding probabilities actually rather likely.

Look at it this way. Life exists on a given planet due to probability (as a result of the universe being incomprehensibly big) but we as individuals are indeed lucky to reside on such a planet. (Similarly, by the laws of probability, ...[text shortened]... but it would be bad luck if it happen to the BMW you were stealing the wheels from at the time).

You believe it is possible even if you do not know that it is. Essentially you put your faith in nothing whereas I put my faith in God.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
If I felt it was somehow necessary to do so, then I would indeed choose what I felt to be the most likely explanation for some or other thing, regardless of lack of sufficient evidence. To do so without necessity does not speak of conviction however. And to then place one's faith in what one admits to oneself is merely the most likely explanation of ...[text shortened]... sort of communion with or enlightenment by your deity, lest your position seem entirely risible.

To do so without necessity does not speak of conviction however.

Aren't you claiming to know something that you don't? I.e what necessitates belief and what doesn't?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]To do so without necessity does not speak of conviction however.

Aren't you claiming to know something that you don't? I.e what necessitates belief and what doesn't?[/b]

Nope, I see no evidence suggesting a necessity to make such a choice. Are you aware of any such evidence, excepting, of course, any scriptural basis?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Nope, I see no evidence suggesting a necessity to make such a choice. Are you aware of any such evidence, excepting, of course, any scriptural basis?

But how do you know that everyone who has made such a choice has not done so in the light of what they view to be sufficient evidence? Surely for them at least it necessitates belief?

It all boils down to what you are willing to accept as evidence does it not? Don't you decide what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't?

Originally posted by dj2becker
But how do you know that everyone who has made such a choice has not done so in the light of what they view to be sufficient evidence? Surely for them at least it necessitates belief?

It all boils down to what you are willing to accept as evidence does it not? Don't you decide what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't?

I don't know if I've ever made it clear, but I'm only speaking for myself. I'm ok with other people believing whatever they like.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I don't know if I've ever made it clear, but I'm only speaking for myself. I'm ok with other people believing whatever they like.

This is totally contradictory to what you said a couple of posts ago:

And to then place one's faith in what one admits to oneself is merely the most likely explanation of the limited answers available to one's meagerly informed self strikes me as intemperate, irrational and altogether unwarranted. If you have done this, you lack discernment, self-control and maturity.

Why would you say I lack discernment, self-control and maturity if you are ok with me believing whatever I like? 🙄

I see you also dodged my question, don't you decide what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't?

Originally posted by dj2becker
This is totally contradictory to what you said a couple of posts ago:

[quote] And to then place one's faith in what one admits to oneself is merely the most likely explanation of the limited answers available to one's meagerly informed self strikes me as intemperate, irrational and altogether unwarranted. If you have done this, you lack discernment, sel ...[text shortened]... I see you also dodged my question, don't you decide what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't?

No, that was a direct insult aimed at you in response to one you had aimed at me. Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't notice, it was quite obvious.

And I didn't 'dodge' your question. I assumed your question was rhetorical, since the answer is obviously in the affirmative.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No, that was a direct insult aimed at you in response to one you had aimed at me. Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't notice, it was quite obvious.

And I didn't 'dodge' your question. I assumed your question was rhetorical, since the answer is obviously in the affirmative.

So how do you know that you are right when you reject evidence that someone else has accepted?

Don't you claim to believe only in things you know to be true?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You believe it is possible even if you do not know that it is. Essentially you put your faith in nothing whereas I put my faith in God.

As you said to avalanchethecat, I was speaking to another poster. Why are you butting in?!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As you said to avalanchethecat, I was speaking to another poster. Why are you butting in?!

In the words of catboy: It's a public forum buddy, if you don't want to talk to me, you go right ahead and don't, I promise I won't mind.😉