Communism isn’t really a moral code. It’s just an economic idea which has some small effect on morals; they don’t actually set out a way to live your life from a moral standpoint. You can be both a Communist and hold a seperate moral code, just as you can be a Capatalist and hold a seperate moral code.
And it’s true that a moral code from a religious standpoint could seem to yield earthly results - but there’s still the part of them that involve making your god happy, and that’s something you just can’t know about. And if you’re suggesting spiritual experience, who says you can’t have a secular experience and change your life for the better? Have you never seen My Name is Earl? I’m not denying you could see results for a religious moral code - just that generally, secular moral codes, being (mostly) based on earthly concerns, are easier to support with observations than religious moral codes. So it’s not a matter of having to accept both or dismiss both.
For me it’s several personal experiences that have led me to believe there is indeed something more. My concept of what that might be has changed. I recognize that many people still want or need to see God as our Heavenly Father. I have no problem with people having awe and reverence for the marvel that is our universe. Many Non believers feel the same thing. At some point though I feel we need to see ourselves as equal parts of the whole rather than lesser parts. Rather than leave everything as God’s will let’s take responsibility and realize that it is our will that can make a difference. We can be grown up children of God or the universe can’t we rather than waiting for Daddy to make things better?
The latest Dawkins book may be inspired but the unanswered question is what is the source of inspiration? Dawkins may have an opinion but not a definitive answer.
Maybe. I hear there’s fish involved.
Well, there you go saying things I agree with again. That’s no fun. I personally don’t need any god, but I recognize that people do, and if they follow your philosophy I have no problems with it at all.
[/QUOTE]
I have come to the conclusion that each person must follow what they truly believe and we should honor their choice even when we don’t agree or understand. Seeking to understand is usually helpful to both parties.
Of course sometimes those choices bring us into conflict and the real test of our philosophy begins.
You are correct although economic models do emcompass some morals since they effect the lives of the society.
It depends on the believer. I’m a big “Be Here Now” guy myself. I recognize that many believers are very concerned about pleasing God and getting their ticket to heaven. So much so that they feel justified in imposing their beliefs on others. I’m also sure people have an epiphany that turns their life around that has nothing to do with religion. Your original statement seemed a little too all inclusive to be accurate.
Personnally it’s the actions and overall attitude of the person I pay attention to. How they got there doesn’t matter too much.
You misunderstood me; I was analogizing prayer with playing the lotto, not amalgamating the two. The specific purpose of making this analogy was to underscore the fact that a demonstrable non-1-to-1 occurence of prayer and the prayed-for consequence occuring is not indicitave of a lack of causation, any more than the demonstrable non-1-to-1 occurence of buying a lotto ticket and winning the lotto is.
As for the fact that there is no evidence that the prayer has anything to do with the result, that’s an interesting statement. There’s certainly no objective evidence, but then, the process by which the prayer supposedly works there wouldn’t be any, now would there? It supposedly operates through untraceable-by-man channels. The only way we can trace its operation, then, is by observing the results. And for each of those families who experienced a remission, they were able to observe results. Are they insane for drawing a conclusion?
If I drop a coin, closing my eyes in the process, am I insane to think there is a correlation between the drop of the coin and the appearance (when I open my eyes) of a similar coin on the ground, showing heads? It doesn’t happen all the time. (Sometimes a coin showing tails is there.)
As I said, infrequency of success is no guarantee that the suppositions feuling the attempt are false. This applies even if you can’t tell why it’s failing, or succeeding.
Since you are clearly citing anecdotal reports of previous events as evidence for the effectiveness of car mechanics, I can state definitively that there is ‘tons of evidence’ for prayer too. There is also tons of evidence of cases where each of them failed. Reporting is incomplete in all cases, though, so we can draw little from this sort of information, objectively speaking.
Of course, a given person might be told repeatedly by various sources that car mechanics are quacks and that prayer usually works; absent any other data it would be entirely sane and reasonable to conclude from this that you’re better off praying for your car than getting it serviced. Don’t you agree?
As for the prayer/medical report indicates only that prayer didn’t “work” then. The reason could equally be “God hates being studied” as “prayer never works”; both would yield the same zippo result. We have no data on the effectiveness of prayers for which data is never collected.
And your point is? We don’t know why gravitic force occurs either; we just know that it does, and with what effects, considerably more consistently than either the mechanic or prayer. Should we abandon our belief in gravity, simply because we don’t know the mechanics behind it? I’m reminded of how in cartoons ignorance of the law gravity was a defense against it. Let me know how that works out for you.
That’d be my guess too, but then, even under the God model, I wouldn’t expect prayer to work for me; I’m non-pious. So I guess it’s the mechanic or the buss for me either way.
And now for hotflungwok.
Sure you can, if that guy was making a reasonable case for being a “god authority”. Which I think most ministers, and nearly all popes, can. You don’t have to be insane to make an incorrect assessment of someone’s actual knowledge of a subject, when their official position and credentials are convincing.
And what’s this rot about subjective experiences not being a legitimate reason to believe something? You have only subjective evidence that you have a mind. Do you disbelieve it?
Why? And suppose you present the experience as being, (oh I don’t know), a personal experience? The listener is free to assume that you’re lying, or that you are deranged. (I can guess how you’d swing.) I’d say that expecting a person to produce ‘evidence’ of an event that occured at some random point during the normal course of their lives is pretty insane. What did you eat for dinner a month ago? Prove it!
False. Evidence that is weak evidence is weak evidence, for you. For them it might be very strong. After all, they were there at the time.
By the way, why do you assume that gravity is functioning in your immidiate viscinity? It might be made to be nonfunctinal by your very presence, and only the literal (though invisible) hand of god, exactly mimicking normal gravity in its effect, is keeping you from flying off into space. Can you show that it is in fact gravity, and not any of the hundreds of other implausible yet possible things that could be sticking you to the ground, that keeps you on this fine planet?
Now recognize that the fact that God isn’t the only possible explanation is not proof that God didn’t do it.
Actually I think that Gee-Dub would merely inform you of his vast faith, and move on. If you honestly think he’d sic the secret service on you or something for merely opening a theological debate, I’d have to wonder whether the opacity of your house qualified you to call other people insane.
Conceded that the total amalgam of world history, not to mention the actions of various individuals and groups in this and other cultures, have resulted in there being places where it uncomfortable or downright dangerous to announce an atheistic worldview. How you get from that to Bob the barber down the road having started a fight with you continues to elude me.
Ah, so you’re not asserting that theists you’ve never met are insane, as they haven’t asserted their beliefs to you yet. What were we debating again?
So, even if the thiest in range hasn’t actually said anything to you yet, you consider it open season? I wish you’d make up your mind. I don’t actually mind if you quietly think to yourself that all pious people are nutters, even the ones you haven’t met. You can believe any crazy stuff you want on your own time. It’s only when you open the debate on a website like this will I point out to you that, no, your strange unfounded belief in mass worldwide insanity is not true.
…and that concludes our lesson in ‘how not to prove a negative’.
I agree with everything in this. All of it. Every iota. If somebody makes a claim, and wants you to believe it, then you have no reason whatsoever to change your mind until they convince you to, with evidence that satisfies your standards of evidence.
Of course, their sanity does not hinge on their success in convincing you.
Um, no. “Delude” and “Delusion” include a “fooled” definition, as referred to definitions 1, 2, and 3 above; “Delusional” implies a chronic inability to tell truth from fantasy. That is a leap you cannot make. Heck, you haven’t even done the (impossible) work of proving that their beliefs are false yet, which would be necessary to make the good-faith use of the word “deluded” in the mere sense of ‘fooled’.
Clearly this is a word, like a grenade, is not to be put in careless hands for fear of dramatic misuse. I regred bringing such a loaded word into the discussion and therefore retract my permission for y’all to say that theists have been deluded.
You may call them wrong, if you like, or mistaken. You still can’t prove it, but at least you’re not (fallaciously) impunging on their sanity.
Yes. Does cancer go into remission without prayer? Yes. Does prayer always cause cancer to go into remission? No. Is the rate of remission higher, lower, or the same if the person is prayed over? The same. How can you rationally conclude that the prayer caused the remission?
Of course not, you dropped the coin. When you can pray for a coin, open your eyes, and theres a coin at your feet that wasn’t there before, you be sure and let us know.
Of course it doesn’t. When you play the lottery you (should) know you have a mathematically insignificant chance of winning, but a chance nonetheless. You can see that other people have won the lottery, you can talk to the organizations, see the tax records, etc. Prayer has none of this. As you said before, there is no objective evidence of prayer working.
It’s only a reasonable conclusion until it’s tested, and only then if the person who told it to you is an authority. Prayer doesn’t fix a car, ever. Mechanics can fix cars, not 100% of the time due to the nature of cars, but anything over 0% is better than prayer.
How do you make a reasonable case for being a god authority? There is no objective evidence of god. They read the books? Where did the books come from? Those were all made my man, until demonstrated otherwise. They had a subjective experience? How do they know they’re interpreting the experience in the right way? I don’t think you can have a god authority, not like a automechanic is a car authority or a teacher is a math authority. The thing ministers and popes are an authority of can’t even be shown to exist.
You think I only have subjective evidence for my mind? Wow. Thats way around the bend.
Subjective experiences, are just that, subjective. They are open to the interpretation of the individual, and have 100s of ways to be misinterpreted, twisted to fit biases, or just being made up. They can’t be used as evidence because they have no objective reference.
Who cares how it’s presented? If you make statements without backing them, of course I’m free to assume you’re lying or deranged, that’s the default assumption. Until you can prove your statement true, you’re wrong. How could it be otherwise? Just because it’s personal doesn’t mean you get let off the hook. If you want to keep it to yourself, fine, believe what you want. But once you start talking about it like it was real, you had better be prepared to show that it is in fact real.
Why? Are people allowed to spew bullplop at will if the thing they’re talking about happened in the past? What if the subjective experience just happened a few minutes ago, can I expect proof then? This argument doesn’t make any sense. I’m not expecting the person to remember what they had for dinner months ago, I’m expecting them to be able to back up a statement they made. If you make a statement about a subjective experience and expect people to believe you, then you have to provide evidence for it. I don’t care if it happened in the past, until you can show me that you’re not talking bullplop, you are.
Well then they can back up their statement with a little proof. Objectively, weak evidence is weak evidence, it doesn’t matter who’s looking at it.
I don’t have to show this, for me it behaves in exactly the way it behaves for everyone else, and for every other object in the universe. I would have to have evidence before I would even have a reason to think that one of the hundreds of implausible yet possible things is happening. If I don’t see any evidence that it is the hand of god keeping me on the ground and not gravity, say permanently messed up hair or large hand shaped holes in my roof, I will go ahead and assume gravity is still working fine.
But until you have a reason to believe that god did in fact do it, there’s no reason to invoke it, per Occam’s Razor.
Really? Try questioning other people’s faith, and tell me how many positive or neutral responses you get. I certainly haven’t gotten many. And what does the light absorbing properties of my domicile have to do with it?
Because Bob the barber down the road has started a fight with me? Only his name isn’t Bob, it’s Frank. If you’re going to try to tell me what has or hasn’t happened to me personally, please try to get the details right.
Christians believe god exists.
There are Christians I have never met.
We don’t have to have a discussion for my point to apply to them.
Oh, so I’m the one who should be quiet with my beliefs? Bwahahahaha. No, actually, I’m allowed to say what I want, especially in a forum like this. So are you. The difference is, if I make a statement, I give evidence for it. Real evidence, not subjective evidence. If you would like to proclaim that god exists, please do, but be prepared to either A) back that proclamation up with actual evidence, or B) be told you’re delusional. I’m happy with either choice.
Is that what you think I was doing?
Of course it does. If someone comes up to me and tells me that little blue pixies are eating my ears, until he can back up this statement I’m going to go ahead and assume he’s insane. I don’t care what ‘evidence’ he’s used to satisfy himself that it’s true, until he’s satisfied me he’s a nutball.
That isn’t the only definition of delusional, and it’s obviously not the one I’m referring to.
For the $integer time, I don’t have to. Their beliefs have never been proven true, so I’m under no requirement to prove them false.
I don’t need your persmission to say that.
For the $integer+1 time, I don’t have to. Their beliefs have never been proven true, so I’m under no requirement to prove them false. Believing something that has no real evidence to support it is delusional.
I know that it supposedly operates through untraceable-by-man channels. As I don’t have enough information to state definitively on the operation or not of prayers to a God that I do not have enough information to determine wether or not he/she/it exists, I don’t actually know how it operates, if at all.
No praying thiest will have the same answer to your third question (and no, you can’t prove your answer is correct). If the answer to question 3 is “higher”, then it is reasonable to suspect that prayer had something to do with the outcome.
Welcome to not getting my point, which was that the fact that the answer to question 2 above is “No” does not settle the matter. Since you included other questions, though, I think it’s reasonable to assume that you get that point, and move on.
And there is no solid objective proof that it doesn’t. (Your study is persuasive but certainly not conclusive.) Absence of knowledge about the workings of something does not make it impossible. Or even less likely, really. So the credibility of prayer suffers not at all from the fact we can’t pop the hood on it and see the gears. (It merely lacks the bonus unnecessary credibility it’d get if we could.)
You can’t prove that prayer is 0% effective in fixing cars. This repeated making of random unprovable assertions does little but make you resemble the witnessing theists you clearly love so much.
Anybody who says “I have spoken to God, and heard his answers” has just made a reasonable case for being a god authority, assuming they can’t be shown to be lying. And how can you have an automotive authority or a math authority? You 1) accept their arguments from authority, aka those degrees on their wall, and you 2) judge by the effects of their works. Which is exactly what happens when a preacher 1) steps in front of that pulpit (I gather some do more than this and actually have some official position in a church organization, but the pulpit alone grants a certain veneer of authority) and 2) they say stuff that gets your god on. I can’t say I’m a real expert in this, because I’ve never met a fellow who did 2 good enough for me not to doubt 1. Of course I’ve doubted the abilities of auto mechanics and math teachers too, so perhaps I’m just overly picky.
Not to get all Descartesian on you, but every evidence you have that you are not simply the summation of some grafitti on the back wall of God’s public restroom is subjective. But if you don’t like that, what objective evidence do you can feel pain? No personal experiences now; those are subjective.
They can so be used as evidence; at least in US courts. They’re perhaps less convincing than experiences recorded in a photograph or camera, but evidence nonetheless.
Most of this falls into the “hotflungwok won’t believe someone telling their age unless they show a driver’s liscence or birth certificate” category, except for “Until you can prove your statement true, you’re wrong. How could it be otherwise?”, which as written is just laughable. True statements are true with or without evidence; false statements are false with or without (presumably falsified or misinterpreted) evidence. The notion that truth depends on provability is bizarre; in real life, it largely works the other way 'round.
Again, truth does not depend on whether you believe it.
Oh, and since no reasonable person records themselves in action all the time, then yeah, it is unreasonable to expect proof of something that happened ten minutes ago. Try this: without preparing a recording device or otherwise cheating, say “hello there” while alone in a room, and then prove you did. (Actually, since you consider, witness testimony to be unacceptible, you don’t even have to be alone. Say “hello there” so somebody, and then prove to them that you did. Remember, neither of your subjective experiences nor witness testimonies is admissible.)
False. If I were to happen to witness the glory of God with mine own eyes, that’d be great proof to me, but mean squat to you. Good strong first-hand experiences become this flimsier thing called “hearsay” when transferred. I’m sure you already know this.
Sure, you’d want to have evidence before assuming that God is compensating for a local lapse in gravity. But you still can’t prove it isn’t happening. We sensible atheists choose not to believe in the invisible pink unicorn because the evidence for it is pretty much all anecdotal and unconvincing, and therefore we haven’t been convinced; not because there’s some magical oracle of knowledge telling us for absolute certain that there’s no invisible pink unicorn. We don’t have, nor need, proof.
Congratulations on your belief in the faith of Occamism. I think you will find that, in practice, it is a faith that will serve you well in your daily life, and that it will help you a great deal; in addition to saving you from the troubling experience of agnosticism, it will also serve to reduce-but-not-eliminate the number of instances when you say strange or silly things. However, it is not an infallible faith, for sometimes there really is a man behind the curtain, and the mere words of the Mighty Occam (wise though he may be) are not sufficient to actually eliminate all unknown factors.
I’ll be more clear: if you honestly think he’d sic the secret service on you or something for merely opening a theological debate, I’d say you shouldn’t be calling other people insane because people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
No, I wasn’t talking about Frank, I was talking about Bob, who lives a little further down the road. He’s a theist but you’ve never met or heard his beliefs, but you’re slandering him with accusations of insanity nonetheless.
Since the response is in reply to the “save your venom for theists who actually effect you in some way” part of the discussion, I’d say that whether he’s minding his own business or not is relevent.
Whou said you couldn’t post your angry anitheist junk here? I didn’t. I just said that if you did it in a place like this, you’d get people like me pointing out that attacking theists who try to take science out of schools is a much more defensible position than calling every scientist and educator who entertains unprovable beliefs a lunatic. Particularly since it’s definitely not true, and all your unsupported assertions mean nothing.
I don’t care if God exists or not; even if he doesn’t you’re wrong. incorrect != insane.
Yes. The assertion you were trying to prove was “there is no objective evidence that God is”, and whatever “is” is that’s still a negative statement, and you did crapola of a job in proving it. Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.
You can go ahead and assume he’s a wirlygig helicopter if you like. In defiance of your closing sentence though, that doesn’t make it true.
And, I will note, depending on your perception of reality, perhaps no evidence will be sufficient to convince you. This doesn’t make it his problem.
No, you’re referring to the “anyone who can’t convince me of something is automatically off his looping nut.” definition. Nonetheless, I brought the word into the discussion and I formally apologise to everyone else for introducing yet another word that can be so easily misused.
Either admit you don’t have an answer to the inconsistency of god being both omnipotent and omniscient or tell me what about my sketch of a proof you don’t understand. I said from the beginning that either by itself is not logically impossible. You just repeating rock so heavy as if that was my argument just makes it look like you don’t have the slightest clue about what the argument is.
And? The lie I was referring to was God creating the universe, last Thursday or whenever, and making it look like it was ancient. There is no inconsistency involved. Maybe the Bible saying it was created 6,000 years ago is an inconsistency (I don’t quite see how) but the Bible got everything else wrong also.
I really fail to see why you think just repeating something advances the conversation.
Here’s another try. The “stone too heavy” argument is an attempt to disguise trying to get God to do a logical absurdity. If they said “create a circle with four sides” which is basically equivalent, the problem with the request would be more obvious.
In my example, no far fetched action by god is required. Just about any action god could possibly do leads to the problem. So, if you say of course God can’t do logical absurdities, a bi-omni god basically can’t do anything. A god who can’t do anything is logically equivalent to a non-existent god as far as we’re concerned, so I again prove my point.
This is just constructing a contradiction, like the “rock so heavy”. I gave you an answer and you don’t like it because it skirts your contradiction. So you want me to accept the contradiction and then—“Uh, oh no :eek: . There’ s contradiction so there must be not be a god.” Exactly like the heavy rock contradiction that we pelted the nuns with during Sunday school. “Can God foresee an event actually happening but prevent it from happening before it does?” Serioulsy, it seems like the same stuff to me. I don’t find them interesting because if there is a god (and I believe there is) I don’t fantasize that he is bound by the same laws of the universe that man is. It’s like the character A. Square in edwin Abbott’s Flatland imposing his view of reality on the Sphere. It makes no sense to him, yet it exists. I think that God is much the same. We attempt to understand him, or the concept, with probably about 1% of the knowledge necessary to grasp it.
Again, it seems to me that you simply don’t like my answer. Maybe I am still not understanding your question. Please restate it and I will try to answer it as best I can.
Actually, I don’t have to prove my answer is correct, it’s already been done for me. Several (that I know of) actual studies of prayer effectiveness have been done. All of them, every single one, concluded that prayer was no better than chance. The answer to the third question isn’t ‘higher’, and so it is not reason to assume that prayer is effective.
What? You said in one of your earlier posts that “There’s certainly no objective evidence…”. Now it has to be solid objective evidence? Oh and, for what probably won’t be the last time, I don’t have to prove prayer doesn’t work, you have to prove it does.
The reason you have no have knowledge of the workings of prayer is because the mechanism through it suposedly works, god, hasn’t been shown to exist. Any real knowledge of how prayer works would include real knowledge of god, and hence, evidence for god.
Bonus credibility? No, um, you need credibility first before you can get bonus credibility. To get credibility, you’re going to have give some evidence, solid objective evidence, since that seems to be your new standard, that prayer works.
I don’t have to prove that prayer is ineffective in fixing cars, you have to prove that it is effective. These repeated demands to disprove something that hasn’t ben proven in the first place make you resemble, well, someone who just isn’t getting it.
Bwahahahaahahah. Really? Then I know some drug addicts who are totally the authority on god. They’re always going on about how god said this and that. And god wants money for some beer. If someone says that they not only talked to god, but that he answered, some hefty evidence had better be forthcoming for him to be taken seriously at all. I don’t have to prove that he’s lying, he has to prove that he isn’t lying.
Good.
But what does a preacher do? Fine, they can quote from a book. I might grant them historical or mythological authority. But are they really talking to god, or saving your soul, or turning the bread and wine into flesh and blood? I’m afraid I’m going to have see a bit of that old evidence thing before I can take his word on it.
That’s fine, an authority is not absolute. To me, anyone who knows more than me about cars can be called an authority, up to a certain point. I doubt the authority of preachers because they can’t show that they’re doing what they say they’re doing.
I have absolute proof that I can feel pain. I underwent a nerve induction test to see if I have nerve damage after a recent operation. A doctor shoved thin bare wires in the muscles of my feet and legs, and then applied a current, and measured the nerve’s reaction time and strength. Every measurement is recorded in my medical record at the hospital. The pain nerve’s are just chemical-electrical signals, and they can be measured.
A description of the experience can be used as evidence, not the witnesses interpretation of the experience. Unless the witness is deemed an expert in that area. Commenting on what you think, rather than what you know, while giving testimony is a good way to have you comments stricken from the record.
Wrong. You tell me you’re X age, fine, I don’t care enough about it to demand proof. Tell me there’s an invisible guy up in the sky who talks to you, and then I think I might need convincing.
Yes, true statements are true regardless of belief. But for something so huge and unlikely as god, truth isn’t immediately obvious, and proof is needed. I’m not talking about statements like 1+1=2, I’m talking about your claim that god exists. Something that is so different, that is counter to so much of our reality can’t be accepted at true on face value.
No, you’re missing the point. I don’t contest that the person had the experience. I contest their interpretation of it, that the experience involved god. I don’t care where or when or what happened. You saw a light, you heard a voice, a bush talked to you, fine. But saying that it involved god is not a normal thing to say, and such a conclusion can’t be made without evidence. ‘I just know’ is not evidence by the way.
No, I said objective proof. You witnessing something is not objective, it’s subjective. How do you know it was really the glory of god? Why did you come to that conclusion? That kind of an interpretation can’t be made lightly, and there would have to be some reason, some evidence to make you do it.
[QUOTE]
Sure, you’d want to have evidence before assuming that God is compensating for a local lapse in gravity. But you still can’t prove it isn’t happening. We sensible atheists choose not to believe in the invisible pink unicorn because the evidence for it is pretty much all anecdotal and unconvincing, and therefore we haven’t been convinced; not because there’s some magical oracle of knowledge telling us for absolute certain that there’s no invisible pink unicorn. We don’t have, nor need, proof.
Once again, I don’t need to prove it isn’t there, you need to prove it is. Of course I can’t prove the hand of god isn’t compensating for a lack of local gravity, it’s impossible to prove a negative. If you want me to think that god is doing this, you need to give me a reason. Until then, the normal explanation works just fine.
Congratulations on your misuse of the word faith. I don’t have faith in Occam’s Razor, any more than I have faith in a hammer or a pencil. It’s just a tool.
[QUOTE]
I’ll be more clear: if you honestly think he’d sic the secret service on you or something for merely opening a theological debate, I’d say you shouldn’t be calling other people insane because people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Shrug, I don’t know if he would or not. What I do think is likely is that he would not be happy about it. Very few people are happy when their basic tenets are questioned, and the more deeply held those tenets are, the more likely they are to respond negatively. Dick Cheney had Steven Howards arrested by the secret service for telling him in public that he disagreed with him. I’m not ruling it out.
Lunatic is a bit strong. Delusional works.
I’ve adaquately supported every assertion I’ve made. You still haven’t supported the one assertion that would render all of this moot: that god exists. Until then, you can’t tell me I’m wrong.
No, I’ve never said that. I have said delusional = insane though. And someone who believes something without having any evidence for it, is delusional. Really, that’s it.
No that isn’t what I was doing. I was trying to show you how silly it was for you ask me to prove a negative, yet again. I guess I failed. I’m hoping you’ll get it eventually.
So what? What makes you think I’m worried about truth at a time like that?
Of course there is. Provided it really is true, it can be proven. I will of course require actual objective evidence, and not just a belief.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. You’re a nutball if you try to tell me things that sound nuts. Stop trying to say that I demand absolute proof for every little thing anyone says to me. I’m only going to demand big evidence for big claims. And god is a very big claim.
I disagree. the subjective experience is legitimate evidence only for the individual who has the experience. IMHO that means people should not try to impose their beliefs on others. That’s why I strongly object to that kind of behavior
I see no reason to back up my claim unless I intend to prove it to someone else. I don’t. It might go something like this.
Me “I had a powerful spiritual experience and I believe I communed with a higher power”
You “I think thats a bunch of crap.”
Me “And you are free to think so, while I still believe what I believe. Have a nice day”
Again I don’t agree. The subjective experience is valid evidence for the person who has the experience. It is not valid for anyone else, so it cannot be used to prove anything to anyone else. Isn’t a subjective experience a real experience? Accurate is another question. People’s conclusions about subjective experiences can be inaccurate. Fortunatly there are more experiences to come and we can use them to refine our beliefs.
Why would you bother? There’s are lots of beliefs I disagree with. What matters is the decisions made based on those beliefs and how that translates into our actions and relationships with others. You complain of being treated as an outsider and wrong yet have no problem declaring that the majority of humanity are just delusional and perhaps insane. Interesting.
Sure. The difference is whether one person is trying to prove the other is wrong. If a person believes in God but makes no attempt to impose that belief upon you they are not required to provide evidence for their belief. You are free to deny that God exists. If you make the assertion that my belief is false then it is you who must provide evidence that is so. Otherwise we are both free to draw our own conclusions about the objective and subjective evidence available to us.
So has “There is no god” There are mysteries yet unsolved and questions unanswered.
Years before man was able to create machines that fly, flight was a part of human mythology. Was the concept of flight a delusion? Was Da Vinci’s ideas of flying machines part of a delusion? Was it the necessary seed that led to actual flight?
I’ll do that. Of course some people see the wonder of creation and our own consciousness as objective evidence but I realize that isn’t necessarily so. It seems to me that God and heaven, whatever mystery those terms refer to, exist beyond the ability of science to measure. Years ago things existed that we had no ability to measure as well, didn’t they?
You may assume whatever you like. I respect your right to choose what you believe and what you don’t believe. If you want to convince me that you’re correct then you need to provide evidence. If you can’t I request that even though you don’t agree with me you try to respect my right to choose my own beliefs. Not the beliefs themselves. If you think they’re foolish I don’t expect you to respect them. I do expect people to respect the right of others to choose their own path.
Fighting the battle against ignorance is a chore when dealing with the objective. It is even more complicated when dealing with the subjective.
Sure it can be argued. Good luck with that. Does it serve any useful purpose? You’re calling most of humanity and some of the greatest people in history delusional. Please be careful on that lofty perch.
What’s wrong with survival of the fittest? Why have we decided that isn’t best for society? Since you put forth the assertion and claim it isn’t based on religion it’s up to you to back it up.
That’s not what I said is it? Heaven and Hell denote some after life reward or punishment. Much of religion is about having a better life right here right now and trying to make our lives have a more positive effect on the world and the people we share it with.
Pretty sure about that are you? Why was it written? Check out the beginning here You’ll see it had plenty to do with religion.
In order for me to attempt to assert that your belief is false, you have to have already told it to me, asserted it. You can’t prove a negative. I don’t have prove your belief wrong, you have to prove it right. You’ve already asserted it, I’m just pointing out that you have given me to real evidence to think you’re correct.
Saying ‘there is no god’ like that is an assertion, and I would expect evidence. However, I don’t say that. I say that we have no reason at all the believe god exists, and so it’s rational to conclude that it doesn’t.
Thinking about flight wasn’t delusional, because it could be seen around them. Thinking that man could fly when he couldn’t would be delusional.
These people do not understand what objective means.
How convenient. Do you know god exists beyond the measure of human science, or are you making up a reason that would preclude god being measured in reality?
You want me to provide evidence that god doesn’t exist? Um, didn’t I just say you can’t prove a negative? You can’t put the burden of proof on me. You have made the assertion, it’s up to you to provide evidence for it. The problem isn’t that I haven’t convinced you, it’s that you have convinced yourself using evidence that wouldn’t hold up anywhere else. When other people look at that evidence and reject it, you do things like demand they prove you wrong, and that’s just not how it works.
You’re preaching to the choir here, you know that right?
Shrug, appealing to popularity doesn’t impress me. ‘Bob does X, and Bob is really good at physics, so X must be correct!’ or appeal to authority, doesn’t impress me either.
You might as well ask ‘Why eat cooked meat and wear clothes’. The answer is, it’s better. People working as a group can do more, better, faster than individuals working for themselves. Humans are social creatures, not solitary. All of the humans in a group benefit from the whole group, and are better off. Society is good. Anything that disrupts the function of the society is bad.
News to me. Much of religion is about this? Prove it.
Yes, I’ve read it. Shrug, the beginning has nothing to do with the actual laws. No where does any of the laws invoke the gods. At no point does he say ‘Marduk says…’ Its all him.
This is a silly and indefensible aphorism that is not supported by logic and is simply a way for lazy arguers to avoid doing the work required to accomplish the task. As noted earlier on this board, “Yes, dammit, one CAN prove a fucking negative.”
You are wrong, here, as well. A person who holds a belief has no obligation to prove it. The requirement to provide proof does not occur until the believer asserts the belief is true to the unbeliever. Until such time as the assertion is made, I may believe in Bob, the FSM, Bronze Age thunder gods, or whatever I wish and no obligation arises on my part. If I am living my life without impinging on yours and you demand to know what I believe, I may express that belief without any requirement that I prove it; I am simply answering a question. For that matter, I may simply make an unsolicited comment that my belief is thus and so without being required to prove it, provided that I do not assert that that which I believe is objectively true.
If, discovering my belief which I have not insisted is true, you then assert that my belief is false or in error, as the person making the assertion, it is your responsibility to prove that my belief is false.
That his assertion is news to you comes as no surprise to me, given that you seem to have a lot of odd and unsupported views about religion.
The proof that “Much of religion is about having a better life right here right now and trying to make our lives have a more positive effect on the world and the people we share it with”? Easy, every religion sets forth rules of conduct and any sociologist or anthropologist will note that the overwhelming number of rules set forth are universally those that regulate human behavior in society. (For every rule prohibiting masturbation when alone, there are dozens of rules regarding the appropriate treatment of spouses, children, parents, neighbors, and strangers.) On the othjer hand, there are religions which have no appeal to an afterlife (ancient Judaism, for example).
If you believe that, generally, religion only promotes behavior for the purpose of achieving a desired afterlife, then you really need to spend a bit more time studying the actual tenets of most religions before you wander into this sort of discussion.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is a silly and indefensible aphorism that is not supported by logic and is simply a way for lazy arguers to avoid doing the work required to accomplish the task. As noted earlier on this board, “Yes, dammit, one CAN prove a fucking negative.”
Alright, taken the way you did here, I can’t say that. What I should have said was ‘You can’t make an assertion, and then when I disagree, demand that I prove your statement wrong, when you haven’t given me anything but the statement.’ I was trying to refer to the amphorous nature of the arguments being given, like prayer is supposed to function, rather than make an all encompasing statement about logic.
You can prove that a equilateral triangle has no right angles because you have information about the claim to work with, the defintion of equilateral, triangle, right angle, etc. Some statements are contradicted by observable reality. If someone says that a table is made from wood, when it is clearly made from metal, there are objective observations that can be made to establish what the table is made from, proving the negative of the statement. But some statements don’t even have this. If the statement has no bearing in reality, no evidence, no logic, nothing at all to work from, how can you prove its negative? The person making the assertion is free to invent all kinds of rationalizations and after the fact explanations that you also have no way of disproving, because you still have nothing to work with. So I think I can make the claim that there are some statements who’s negatives can’t be proven.
Ah, I just read the article linked in your link. I’m referring what the author calls unprovables. I got sloppy, and I’ll be more specific when addressing this kind of claim.
Yes, this is true, a person who holds a belief has no obligation to prove it. It’s someone who asserts a believe that has the obligation. I have already said this. Where’s the argument?
I can see this, but the way you’ve written it sounds odd. I’m not going to walk up to random people and demand they prove their beliefs to me, that would be silly. If we’re at the stage where proof is being demanded, then assertions have already been made by someone. I honestly don’t care if people want to believe things in their own heads, I don’t bother them.
Alright, yeah, that wasn’t the way to argue that, I didn’t quite mean it the way it came out. I wanted him to talk about what made faith based ethics different from purely secular based ethics.
Ethics statements have to do with things in reality, don’t murder, don’t steal, be nice to other people, etc. Theres an action and a consequence. If you do X, Y will happen. The main difference I see is that in faith based ethics, the consequence has to do with the unreal part of the faith, and in secular based ethics, the consequence is just as real as the action. Faith based: if you steal (you’ve sinned) and will go to hell. Secular based: if you steal, you will go to jail. The consequence attached to the 10 commandments, for example, is hell. I’m not hip to ancient Judaism, so I can’t really talk about it, it might be different.
Also, the way cosmodan argues against The Code of Hammurabi suggests that there is no answer to his question, not because faith based ethics are superior, but because all ancient civilizations had religion as a large enough part of the society that everything was entrenched in it, including laws. At least, all the ones I know of.
Which natural laws am I holding God to here? If I said God cannot be omniscient because he is bound by the speed of light, then you’d be right. But I’m not arguing against ominscience, or against omnipotence. Logic is the only law I’m appealing to here - and it is generally accepted that God cannot do anything logically impossible. Like lifting a rock he made too heavy to lift, for example.
I’ve given the reason the stone objection is more invalid, which is a bit more than you’ve done. Given omnipotence, there are an infinite number of logically possible things god can do. But if God has both omnipotence and omniscience, there is nothing he can do. Did you ask about this problem in Sunday school, and what did the nuns say? In my first response I already gave the common objections and my response to them.
The best I can tell is that you are saying if a property of god leads to a logical contradiction it doesn’t matter - which I doubt is in the theological mainstream.
It’s not that I don’t like it, I don’t understand it. I’m saying that perhaps god created a universe to look exactly like it evolved naturally starting with a Big Bang 14 b.y. ago, but he actually created it 6,000 years ago. He did such a perfect job that no one would ever suspect he created it 6,000 years ago if he hadn’t told us. There are no internal inconsistencies in the universe. You said there were inconsistencies, if only apparent ones, I am just wondering what they are. If God did create the universe, I think he did a better job than you think he did.
However, you are demanding proofs from cosmosdan (note the second s in his name) when he has been pretty consistent in explaining his cosmology as a personal experience and not really making a claim for an externally objective reality. You can offer an opposing cosmology and you can offer criticisms of what he has presented, but demanding him to “prove” his when he has not claimed it to be objective reality is simply playing games to “win” an argument rather than attempting to examine each others’ perspectives.
Note the specific statement of his to which you responded:
In other words, he has laid out a system of belief that you have claimed is objectively wrong. At that point, he is within his rights to ask that you prove his belief is wrong since he is not insisting on its objective reality while you are insisting on its objective lack.
I’m not denying you could see results for a religious moral code - just that generally, secular moral codes, being (mostly) based on earthly concerns, are easier to support with observations than religious moral codes. So it’s not a matter of having to accept both or dismiss both.
Maybe. I hear there’s fish involved.