Believe

[Nick_i_am]

Now that was some really heated discussion and some (not mentioning the names) atheists here were today as bad as religious fanatics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That can pretty much be the general case in anything. A person who belives fanatically in one state of the universe is STILL a fanatic, it doesn't matter if they belive in a particular god or the lack of a god.

[random evil guy]

religious beliefs are per definition an irrational choice. there is no evidence to support the existence of a god/gods. that's all that matters. the lack of, expected, evidence is a very strong proof of the non existence of a god. in addition, most of the stuff in the bible has been disproved(genesis, flood, exodus etc) so it's pretty safe to say christianity is definately wrong...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, wrong. While genesis is up in the air (methinks much is symbolic), the flood and exodus haven't been disproven. And actually, there is evidence supporting Noah's flood. BTW, people can't prove aliens or ghosts. Does that mean they don't exist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, you're wrong. exodus, genesis and the flood have been proven wrong. by real science that is. creationists will still lie and tell you there is evidence supporting it, but they're wrong.

 

talkorigins has a lot of informative papers on this.

Edited January 6, 2006 by random evil guy

[random evil guy]

Strong evidence that there is no God? I have a few questions regarding that point if you don't mind. If there is strong evidence proving the non-existence of God, why would the majority of earth's population remains religious and the percentage for pure athiests stays less than 10%? Why would so many greatest minds throughout human history strongly believe in the existence of god? People like Newton, Descartes or Socrates; on top of being the greatest scientists, they are also great philosophers and made many breakthroughs in the field of religion.

 

I agree with you that there is little physical evidence for a universal god or a creator, but over 5 billion people alive today and those great names I just mentioned can easily stand as proof that a personal god exists. Of course, whether the proof is substantial is still up for debate, but you must realize that at 1:5, athiests do not have great odds here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

argumentum ad numerum. a logical fallacy...

[random evil guy]

there is no god. absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

 

btw, even if there was a god, who cares. 'it' doesn't, clearly, interact with humans so 'it' is in any case irrelevant. the bible, and every other religious text, is written by ignorant humans and ergo useless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just goes to show you that ignorance is a two-way street. Stereotypes are wonderful, aren't they? First of all, if you make generalizations like that, the only thing you'll do is make yourself look stupid. Secondly, many religious texts contain positive philosphies which many have lived by for centuries. Deny it if you wish, and I know some will, but religion has had just as many, if not much more, positive impact than negative.

 

 

you're wrong, because all humans are clueless when it comes to what happens after we're dead. no one knows, ergo those who claim they do, are ignorant.

 

btw, the bible has been proven wrong in almost every claim it makes. i think it's pretty safe to say it was written by ignorant people.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Religion is a disease that needs to be exterminated off the face of the planet. This and the human desire for material wealth is the bane of humanity.

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah! Lets destroy all that which makes us human!

[Diamond]

Just goes to show you that ignorance is a two-way street.  Stereotypes are wonderful, aren't they?

you're wrong, because all humans are clueless when it comes to what happens after we're dead. no one knows, ergo those who claim they do, are ignorant.

How does that statement make him wrong? Existence of God is not a fact, but so is non-existence.

 

P.S.

I still want to hear from you regarding my previous post.

[random evil guy]

Just goes to show you that ignorance is a two-way street.  Stereotypes are wonderful, aren't they?

you're wrong, because all humans are clueless when it comes to what happens after we're dead. no one knows, ergo those who claim they do, are ignorant.

How does that statement make him wrong? Existence of God is not a fact, but so is non-existence.

 

P.S.

I still want to hear from you regarding my previous post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

because the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim. the existance of something is not neutral; it either is or not. the 'default position' is non-existance. if you can prove the existance, then it exists.

 

in this case, the claim is: there exist god(s). however, there is no proof or even evidence to support this claim. so, the claim is rejected.

 

this is a logical fallacy. sometimes refered to as 'shifting the burden of proof' or argumentum ad ignorantiam. the fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. in comes the leprechaun argument. can you prove that leprechauns don't exist?

[random evil guy]

Now that was some really heated discussion and some (not mentioning the names) atheists here were today as bad as religious fanatics.

 

@random evil guy

Absense of evidence doesn't prove anything, it vaguely shows the statistical significance of some particular theory. Since our knowledge base is not complete, we cannot assert non-existence of God.

 

 

...and you can't assert the non-existence of leprechauns. i already explained this to you. the claim is rejected unless there is evidence supporting it. simple as that.

[Diamond]

because the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim. the existance of something is not neutral; it either is or not. the 'default position' is non-existance. if you can prove the existance, then it exists.

 

in this case, the claim is: there exist god(s). however, there is no proof or even evidence to support this claim. so, the claim is rejected.

 

this is a logical fallacy. sometimes refered to as 'shifting the burden of proof' or argumentum ad ignorantiam. the fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. in comes the leprechaun argument. can you prove that leprechauns don't exist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way of thinking is certainly interesting, however, is not the only way to think, while you say it is. Unproven is not false. It is not true either. By your logic everything that we don't know is false.

[random evil guy]

because the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim. the existance of something is not neutral; it either is or not. the 'default position' is non-existance. if you can prove the existance, then it exists.

 

in this case, the claim is: there exist god(s). however, there is no proof or even evidence to support this claim. so, the claim is rejected.

 

this is a logical fallacy. sometimes refered to as 'shifting the burden of proof' or argumentum ad ignorantiam. the fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. in comes the leprechaun argument. can you prove that leprechauns don't exist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way of thinking is certainly interesting, however, is not the only way to think, while you say it is. Unproven is not false. It is not true either. By your logic everything that we don't know is false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, anything we can't observe either directly or indirectly is irrelevant/false.

 

for example, we can observe the effects of gravity, even though we can't observe it directly.

 

as for the classic 'love argument', it has been pretty much explained by science. it is just the release of certain chemicals, such as endorphins, in the brain.

[Diamond]

no, anything we can't observe either directly or indirectly is irrelevant/false.

Why anything that is not observable is irrelevant/false?

Physicists accepted Theory of Relativity, though when it was published there was no means to test and observe its effect. Since I mentioned this, great discoveries were initially based on the assumption that something unproven exists.

[Nick_i_am]

The 'god doesn't exist because you can't prove that he does' again takes a starkly limited view of just what 'god' is.

[random evil guy]

no, anything we can't observe either directly or indirectly is irrelevant/false.

Why anything that is not observable is irrelevant/false?

Physicists accepted Theory of Relativity, though when it was published there was no means to test and observe its effect. Since I mentioned this, great discoveries were initially based on the assumption that something unproven exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

actually, it wasn't. it was highly controversial and it wasn't completely unfounded as it was derived mathimaticly and through rational analysis. not only that, already in 1919 did arthur eddington confirm much of einstein's theory. so, no. the two situatons aren't similar at all...

 

everything that can't be observed is irrelevant because there is no reason to belive it exists.

 

sure, great discoveries are initially based on that assumption, but they are worthless without evidence supporting the claim. the lack of expected evidence of a god/gods is the best evidence against the existence of god. look at it this way:

there is asket game between the san antonio spurs and a bunch of 8 year old kids. who do you 'think' will win? sure, it is *possible* the kids might win, but it is very, very unlikely. the probability is negligible.

 

it is basically the same with the existence of god. there is absolutely no evidence supporting the claim, so why on earth should one believe there is a god? not even a hint of 'its' existence.

 

in addition, you have other arguments as well. the more philosophic 'the problem of evil vs. an omnipotent and 'good' god'. as well as the more specific argument that deals with biblical errors...

Edited January 6, 2006 by random evil guy

[Judge Hades]

Actually you can "test" the theory of relativity through mathematic equations and computer models. If you are trying to test it in the "wild" funky things can start to happen. I have to agree with REG that the burdon of proof relies on those saying something exists. Then again if you prove something exists then ther would be no point in belief or faith, and with out belief and faith religion is meaningless. So if God is proven to exist then, making faith meaningless, then he would more than likely be just ignored.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Judge Hades

[julianw]

Strong evidence that there is no God? I have a few questions regarding that point if you don't mind. If there is strong evidence proving the non-existence of God, why would the majority of earth's population remains religious and the percentage for pure athiests stays less than 10%? Why would so many greatest minds throughout human history strongly believe in the existence of god? People like Newton, Descartes or Socrates; on top of being the greatest scientists, they are also great philosophers and made many breakthroughs in the field of religion.

 

I agree with you that there is little physical evidence for a universal god or a creator, but over 5 billion people alive today and those great names I just mentioned can easily stand as proof that a personal god exists. Of course, whether the proof is substantial is still up for debate, but you must realize that at 1:5, athiests do not have great odds here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

argumentum ad numerum. a logical fallacy...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I realize that perfectly well. As I said in my last post, we do not seek the logic and science behind beauty to appreciate beauty. If you want solid physical proof that God exists, then I think God will never exist. It's very much like for someone to study the mathematics behind facial features first to realize that certain faces are beautiful.

[random evil guy]

Actually you can "test" the theory of relativity through mathematic equations and computer models.  If you are trying to test it in the "wild" funky things can start to happen.  I have to agree with REG that the burdon of proof relies on those saying something exists.  Then again if you prove something exists then ther would be no point in belief or faith, and with out belief and faith religion is meaningless.  So if God is proven to exist then, making faith meaningless, then he would more than likely be just ignored.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, it's just that there aren't even the slightest hint god exists. if the question was still in up in the air with some observations suggesting there might be a supreme being somewhere, and some observations suggesting otherwise. i could understand faith. however, when there is absolutely nothing that supports this claim, i can't comprehend it.

[Judge Hades]

Faith is a belief in something that has no logic or physical evidence. Faith requires the belief of a person regardless of evidence and facts. If there are facts involved then faith isn't.

[Diamond]

Noone says you should embrace religion. But when it comes to the boundaries of human knowledge, saying something is absolute and undeniable truth (or falsehood in that case) because you can't 'see a hint of it' is extremely arrogant.

[Judge Hades]

Indeed. After all through out history Christianity has put more people to the sword for not beleiving and worshipping god in the christian way than Islam or Juadaism.

[random evil guy]

Noone says you should embrace religion. But when it comes to the boundaries of human knowledge, saying something is absolute and undeniable truth (or falsehood in that case) because you can't 'see a hint of it' is extremely arrogant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so logic, reason and facts are now arrogant? interesting...

 

btw, you're using a straw man argument now. science is never absolute, but what you can't observe is irrelevant and fantasy. if there is no proof supporting a claim, it is irrelevant.

[Diamond]

no, anything we can't observe either directly or indirectly is irrelevant/false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what you said originally.

 

Following pure logic (I hope we understand each other here) absense of evidence is not a proof. Therefore you cannot say "false" here.

 

Now to the "irrelevant" bit here.

If anyting is not directly applicable/not observable/doesn't fit current scientific dogma/"unreasonable", it is not absolute. Religion is not relevant if it is put in the context that you put it in. The problem is you don't try to switch context.

 

science is never absolute

Bingo. So you can't know, and ultimately assume. Hence my ramblings about various contexts.

 

With that said religion is "irrelevant in the context of modern science and empirical thought", but not just just plain "irrelevant". You can think as rational as you want, but it never hurts to keep an open mind and know that you may, in fact, be wrong.

[Nick_i_am]

Faith is a belief in something that has no logic or physical evidence.  Faith requires the belief of a person regardless of evidence and facts.  If there are facts involved then faith isn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can still have faith in 'half-facts'. It can be said of scientists that science is their religion, just because there are 'facts' and 'research' doesn't make their devotion to it any different than those praying in a temple. Of course, the goals are different, but the *drive* is the same.

[random evil guy]

no, anything we can't observe either directly or indirectly is irrelevant/false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what you said originally.

 

Following pure logic (I hope we understand each other here) absense of evidence is not a proof. Therefore you cannot say "false" here.

 

Now to the "irrelevant" bit here.

If anyting is not directly applicable/not observable/doesn't fit current scientific dogma/"unreasonable", it is not absolute. Religion is not relevant if it is put in the context that you put it in. The problem is you don't try to switch context.

 

science is never absolute

Bingo. So you can't know, and ultimately assume. Hence my ramblings about various contexts.

 

With that said religion is "irrelevant in the context of modern science and empirical thought", but not just just plain "irrelevant". You can think as rational as you want, but it never hurts to keep an open mind and know that you may, in fact, be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...but this only applies to what we can observe. for example, evolution is a fact. it is a phenomon we can observe. or gravity, for that matter. however, the scientific theories describing these phenomenons will never be considered to be 100% proven.

 

btw, i feel i need to clarify in what context i'm using the term 'false' here. i'm not saying that there are no god, period. i'm only saying, based on the evidence, or in this case lack of it, the claim is rejected and hence irrelevant. no one can prove there are no leprechauns, but it is pretty safe to say they don't exist. why should religion be held to different standards than the rest of the world? in every other aspect of life, a claim is considered *false* until it is supported by evidence.

 

as i said earlier, i'm a only a strong atheist christian, islamic, hindu etc theology. in general, i'm a weak atheist.

 

from wikipedia:

 

Weak atheism also called negative atheism or implicit atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God or gods, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of God or gods. Weak atheism contrasts with strong or explicit atheism, which is the belief that God or gods do not exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one god. The weak atheist generally gives a broad definition of atheism as a lack or absence of evidence justifying a belief in God or gods, which defines atheism as a range of positions that entail non-belief, disbelief, doubt, or denial of theism. A narrower definition of atheism as denial of the existence of God or gods as epistemically impossible (synonymous with strong atheism) is also in common use.

[Diamond]

i'm not saying that there are no god, period.

That's all what I wanted to know.

 

i'm only saying, based on the evidence, or in this case lack of it, the claim is rejected and hence irrelevant. no one can prove there are no leprechauns, but it is pretty safe to say they don't exist. why should religion be held to different standards than the rest of the world? in every other aspect of life, a claim is considered *false* until it is supported by evidence.

That's right, you implicitly assume a context to put a statement in. I had a different context in mind.

 

 

With that settled, I can go to sleep now, it is 5am here