Sin, you forgot to say: "And anybody who disagrees with me is a brainwashed moron."

A brief response is fine.

I sympathize with GFT's feelings and understand where she is coming from.  To me though, her emotion seems to come from confusing two different things as being the same.

The first is, "some people gave me a bad experience with God and caused me a lot of pain and distress".  That's valid.

The second is the conclusion, "Therefore God is bad and can't exist".

The possibility of the existence of God and it's character/nature isn't determined by anyone's bad experience or dislike in life or how someone or some group of people presented their views of it.  God either "is" or "isn't"--independent of the press and reviews people give their own and other's ideas of it. 

So a believer will attempt to present an epistemological  logic to others--something that gives validity to questions or points to answers to the questions like, "How can we know if there is a God?", "How can we gain knowledge of it?", etc., etc.   Doing that isn't irrational or moronic (though a person's arguments may be sometimes).

I had a gentlemen years back insist he could determine what my thoughts were.  I laughed at him and called him a fool.  He got angry and said he could prove it. I told him that if he wanted to attempt to prove it I'd listen to what he had to say. He did then indeed give me convincing evidence that in that one case he had indeed done it.

Now I could say, "Well no one has ever recorded that, it's never been on CNN and no one can explain it and lots of idiots claim it all the time and are just crazy"--but those viewpoints would have nothing to do with what happened.

I could quote statistics and scientific and psychological explanations but if he did indeed know my thought those things don't explain how and don't address if it's relevant or important.  That's what an epistemology is all about.

Coming to the table with the immediate rebuttal of, "Inconceivable!" to every statement made is not a conversation--it's a Monty Python sketch.

Good mystical hearing, good night David.

You see Tess, I am happy as to how this argument turns out, because if you remember, I was telling you certain things you're being told here now, some time ago. Now, what satisfies me is not the thought that I was right, which I knew before without the need of others telling me, but that I think that the distress you might be feeling now (judging from your own words and the general tone of your discussion) might be a sign that, in a few years maybe, you might realize something as to the nature of your dislike for religion, and forgive the faults which are responsible for it and their authors, thus improving your spiritual well being. You are free not to believe me, obviously.

As to the personal attacks, the reasons why I retorted (with my mind games) in the past was to show you their nature, not to convince you that I am in a way or in another. You may think that I do not possess any knowledge or that I do not have a life as much as you wish. On the other hand, if I may venture to suggest a course of action, perhaps you might be more cautious with other people in expressing your judgements, as not everyone is capable to consider them for what they are, and you might wish to make sure that what you say is well argumented, because this improves the relationship with people in general.

As to relying on the Bible, that is not advisable. My suggestion is never to rely on anything or anyone, but to reasonably trust what is reasonably adjudicated as truthful. On the other hand, your refusal to collect knowledge is just like your refusal of religion: a form of subjectivism. You cannot like science when it says what you want to hear, and dislike it when it doesn't. That's not how it works.

Most people are incapable of adjudicating what is right and what is wrong correctly, as you can clearly see watching any news program.

You missed the (subtle) irony of what zigzag is saying. I would bet that he is truly:

1) gently making fun of you by pointing out how you dismiss arguments

2) evaluating my knowledge of statistics (De Finetti is not a Bayesian, at all: subjective probability is a state in the mind of the observer and not a more or less reliable evaluation of the objective likelihood of an event, only real experience determines the quality of probability adjudication)

3) and improving the overall fun of the conversation

With just one little comment.

I'm going to pass over the first part and let others explain for themselves, but I do want to comment on this. I agree that in many cases we shouldn't ignore the arguments that others present for beliefs that contradict ours. However, there are serious epistemic and practical problems with adopting this approach generally. Epistemic problems, because this approach might lead to our having fewer items of knowledge; and practical problems, because we can't respond to every possibility that contradicts our beliefs even if we limit those possibilities only to those of which we're aware. I don't have any good solutions to these worries. It's a problem I struggled with when I had the luxury of spending my time struggling with these kinds of problems, but never made any progress. 

You're giving me too much credit. I’m not that clever, but I do enjoy fun. And teasing Italians.

De Finetti wasn't an objective Bayesian, but he considered himself and is considered, at least within analytic philosophy, to be a Bayesian since he believed that personal probabilities should be updated in accordance with Bayes’ Theorem. His position is usually called subjective Bayesianism or Bayesian-subjectivism.

I don't feel teased at all, and neither do I feel Italian, I confess. Humanity should avoid such distinctions, they are so parochial. I do on the other hand appreciate my Italian cultural heritage, as a tool to wield.

I do appreciate your contributions, though.

Nonetheless, it's certain that we might ask ourselves if De Finetti isn't prevalently classified as such in a country where Bayes is seen as the ultimate authority on statistical verification (or more properly, falsification).

Don't worry, if you didn't notice them, others did.

Every human knowledge, more or less, is an unproven fairytale, from some point of view. This is the conundrum. On the other hand, I am confident enough in my stance, that I do not consider it impossible that you may realize its worth someday. In the meantime, feel free to think whatever you want.

Lol.

Perhaps pragmatism?  

Where you and I completely disagree (and I think the physical universe with me) is, "there are no earthly absolutes".

From a scientific viewpoint alone that's improbable to a degree that I think statistically would be considered in the realm of "impossible".

There are absolutes...and more than just physical death.

We can debate and dsiagree about what they are and whether we can or how accurately we can perceive and understand them but they exist...despite any of our ignorance.

My intent is never to play mind games but when someone responds to anyone else and rebuts them with what effectively amounts to, "I disagree because I know what you think you know can't be known because it isn't knowable."...the very mindset is just an affront to logic and thinking. 

This isn't an "Us vs. Them" viewpoint it's an issue of admitting limitations and allowing  for the possibility of, "things I don't get" to maybe be true.

Here's a simple response and examples of absolutes:

• You're absolutely sure you're right
• You're absolutely sure I am wrong
• Your absolutely sure it's impossible you're wrong
• You're absolutely sure it's impossible I'm right

Your viewpoint and arguments you've presented all require the above to be absolutely true.  I'd say that's a boatload of absolutes for a person who believes they "don't exist".

If you disagree with any of the above--point out to me which one(s) it(they) are.

If there are no absolutes, there is no "right" or "wrong", no "good" or "evil" and no truth or lies and it's absolutely pointless to consider these things or be restrained by consideration or thought of them.

If I hunger I eat. If I see food...I take it.  If you are in my way, I move you.  If you resist, I remove you.  We all do whatever we want for any reason we choose and none of it is of any signifigance.

Hypocrites who reject any real truth nod and say this is how it is--but they live lives of hypocrisy based on all sorts of truths they can't rationalize away and can't function without.

In the end, the hypocrite says, "Since I am not certain of my truth--neither can you be of yours".

They are like "Rainman" and repeat their mantras of, "We must go to K-mart" and circle back over and over to that point--angry at any thought of anything else.

If there are no absolutes, why care?

You're angry at religion--why?  Why should you care?  The fact you do shows you have decided there are certain truths that supersede others.