Dont worry. Im not very good at English and my spelling sux. Im trying to get everyting right but i ve always been crao @ spelling and typing. Please understand tho that I cant get beetter overnite so bear with me
Yeh i know. being religios doesnt necessarily mean u will be a bad person. however, i think that good people would be good regardless. it’s not like people are clueless about how to behave and then they read the bible and they’re like “Wow! i never knew murder was wrong” and then they start acting nice to people. And the bible tells you to do a lot of really nasty stuff as well (like stone unbelievers!!!) and so how would someone who doesnt know right from wrong be able to tell the good stuff in the bible from the bad stuff?
Nah, i reckon that without religion good peole would still do good things and bad people would still do evil things. What upsets me is that religion seems to be something that can make good people do evil things while making them think that they are actually doing good (like the Inquasition!).
Yeah. I accept that. I dont think we disagree.
Nah I know i’m not saying anything original. I just like talking about religion and wanted to get a conversation going. I guess Im really just looking for answers, because deep down I dont understand ow anyone can be religious and i want to understand people better. I guess Im not a very good communnicator (no spelling jokes lol!!)
I’m not very good at that. I mean come on the sort of person who could do that probably wouldnt take their user name from a cartoon pig on the simpsons
Why is that? If you have no reasons to believe in something ie no evidence, then it makes no sense to act ast though that thing is real.
Right, well, presumably, they don’t consider it to be a guess, or an “opinion” with the normal connotations that brings, but they would consider it to be on the same level as, say, the assertion that China is to the east of India. A superstrong belief with an extreme level of justification for holding it, even if it does fall short of the holy grail of mathematically watertight proof (a holy grail essentially available only to tautologies). Is that not good enough to set something forth as fact?
After all, I am willing to say the following in conjunction: It is a fact that China is to the east of India. But one cannot logically prove that China is to the east of India, so, yes, it is possible that China is not to the east of India.
I don’t want to appear unnecessarily argumentative, but I’d like to unpack this idea a bit.
There are lots of things we believe on scant or no evidence - there simply aren’t enough hours in the day for us to empirically evaluate every bit of information that is flung at us. We believe a lot of it just because it sounds right and reasonable, because we trust the people who said it and because lots of other people seem to be accepting it. For example, the only evidence I’ve seen for the larger portion of my science knowledge consists of printed words on paper - I haven’t done the research myself, I haven’t observed the experiments myself - I’ve just read about them, and accepted that it’s most probably a true account, and believed it.
Now, of course it can be argued that the difference here is that I could, if I wished, do the experiments for myself - and that’s true, but the plain fact is that most of us just don’t - we believe what we’re told.
It could also be argued that the difference is that extraordinary claims require substantial evidence - and again, that makes perfect sense, but take something like the wave-particle duality of photons - that’s a pretty extraordinary claim, to an ordinary man - and of course any of us could do the double-slit experiment, but few actually do - for most people, it’s sufficient that the experiment has been done and that we’ve read the write-up.
So it might make no sense to believe things without evidence, but we do it all the time -actually, I suspect that means that in some ways, it does make sense - if we were constantly challenging everything, that would be pretty counterproductive. We’re programmed with a certain degree of trust.
As several others have said or implied, this has been done before. I could post as I have posted on the previous threads where previous assertions were made, but I’d think that would be boring to the atheists, the agnostics, and the theists.
I do not agree with you, nor do I accept the explicit and implicit characterizations of me, how I think, and my mind’s relationship with rationality. How curious are you? Is that something you’d actively like me to develop and expand upon, or not so much?
If you are really, actually curious about this, try posting some specific questions in a serious and respectful manner. You are much more likely to get serious and respectful replies. Spelling and syntax problems can often be fixed beforehand with the help of a friend and/or spellchecker.
We’ve had these discussions a million times, so you could also ask someone to search for past threads for you to read.
Otherwise, people are not going to assume that you are serious about your questions.
I think I see your point but I think there are some problems. firstly, Yeh there are some things in science which are way too hard for average joes like me to understand even when there dumbed down. One time in high schoolone of my science teachers once told my class about Einstein and how time can slow down for a person if they travel at the speed of light. I dont understand that at all and even when he explained it in really simple language it didnt make sense ubt then he told me about an experiment that they did when they took too clocks and set them to the same time and put one on a flighter jet and left the other one on the ground and after a few hours of flying at mac 2 the clock on the ground was a millionth of a second faster than the clock on the plane. The point is that if Einstein was wrong someone else could come along and do this experiment and prove it was nonsnse by getting a different result. Also scientists are paid to check other peoples work and you can get money and respect as a scientist for finding something flawed in someone elses experiment just like you can get money for discovering something yourself. So theres insentive there. When it comes to science I don’t understand i dont really so much take the science on faith as much as i take the fact that science is self correcting on faith and this is a claim that doesnt need extroardinary evidence because we see examples of it all the time, like that guy from korea who was busted for faking cloning experiments.
A second point is that really complicated science might seem extroadinary to you and me but to the experts the science might actually not be so extroadinary. If youve spent your life thinking about photons then finding out that they’re slightly wierder than you once thought may not be such a big deal.
Also the claims of religion are different from the claims of science in that they are meant for ordinary people to understand and u dont need to be an expert to understand them. If the bible says that God sent down jesus as his son then u need to take that claim on faith but u don’t need to be an expert in anythig to understand the claim. However with photons and stuff u need to know a lot about science before u can even understand the claim that is being made. one final point is that the claims of religion are diffent from the claims of science because they can’t even be proved in theory. I know how to check the claims of scientists myself all I need to do is learn the science and then redo the experiments. Its hard but its not impossible. Claims like Jesus was born by a virgin are impossible to check in any way so yes I think that’s another difference.
I’ve been reading Scott Adam’s blog, and his recent entry seems germane.
He then goes on to a Pascal’s Wager calculation. The way I figure it, if religious conversion takes effect regardless of when it happens, I could hedge my bet by believing in Jesus, God, Mohammad, Vishnu, etc. when I’m old and sickly and on death’s door. So I get to live life on my terms, but still reap any potential afterlife rewards. I wouldn’t choose to spend eternity with a deity that punishes unbelievers, but it’s better than the alternative.
Scott Adams is being silly. “To be a true atheist” you have to have 100% certainty, and because humans can’t be 100% certain about anything, you can’t be a true atheist? Fine. Is it then the case that in order to be a true Xist for any value of X, you have to have 100% certainty, and because humans can’t be 100% certain about anything, you can’t be a true Xist? One can’t truly believe in anything?
That is an absurd notion of what it means to truly believe something. That isn’t at all in line with ordinary language.
I think you’ve misunderstood the thrust of my post - I was not trying to equate religion with science, I was just trying to explain that we accept things on trust, on authority, by popularity all the time - not just science (that was just a couple of random examples) - it’s everything.
It’s part of our nature. it’s not a surprising or unusual thing at all - it’s very commonplace.
Of course that makes us susceptible to being hoodwinked by false information that feels right, or is popular, or is presented with force, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. My impression is that you were presenting religion as an exceptional case wherein people believe stuff without evidence. I don’t think it is any such thing, because I think believing things without evidence is remarkably common.
Oh I think I see now. Yeah its true that we take things on faith all the time but usually we have a good reason to do that. If its something ordanary we take it on faith because we know thru experience that it is probably true. Like if I go to a resterant and order a steak I have faith that I’ll get a big plate of cow meat, but it could be donkey for all I know. HOwever, I also know that resterants have inspectors to keep tabs on them and that if I tested my steaks I would always find out that they are proper steaks and not something else. If its something extroardinary and something Im not qualafied to talk about (ie physics) then i take it on faith that the science fits all the facts as we know them and I have evidence that science is self correcting because scientists are disproven all the time and outed cuz there frauds like that korean guy i mentioned earlier.
In both cases we have reason to believe that our faith is not misplaced. However religion gives us no reason to believe that jesus was born by a virgin or that Jesus rose from the dead. Were just meant to accept it. I dont understand why people do.
Scott Adams should stick to drawing, since whenever he spouts off about anything else, he sounds like a total dope. I tried his first two books, then gave up. I think he might have doubts about evolution also.
Here is some elementary logic. The statement that there is no reason to believe in a god is different from the statement that one does not exist. One can define an almost infinite number of gods, some of whom are undetectable by definition, so you can’t go around disproving all of them.
It makes sense to not believe in any gods, it even makes sense to believe that none exist, given the poor record of human religions in making predictions and providing evidence, but it does not make sense to state that you know no gods exist.
Take a look at some religion threads in GD, and try to understand the arguments on either side. Then you should post. It has been good practice. since before I suspect you were born, to lurk before you post.
It still seems the case to me that, despite the naive tone of his writing, Sir Oinksalot has never made any claim that the nonexistence of gods is provable. If he had made such a claim, there would be reason to take issue, but he has not. All he has asserted so far is that no gods exist (and that there is good justification for believing this), but this is a perfectly acceptable assertion to make (though one would like it to come with more explanation): you yourself say it makes sense to believe that no gods exist, so why chastise the OP for declaring precisely that strong belief of his?
I don’t mean to be particularly pedantic by harping on this point, but I also don’t want to see the OP being lectured at for offenses he never actually committed.
Certainly. But if you act as if something isn’t possible when your evidence is that it isn’t* so*, then that’s a different thing. Is it possible that god/gods exist?
Certainly, if he’s able to explain his extreme level of justification, i’m fine with it. But I think you make my point - if they consider it as close to a fact as you can get, then quite possibly you’ve got different evidence than someone who’s only willing to say they believe something (or at least, you should do).
I wouldn’t be willing to say that first part, at least, not in a debate about the nature and certainty of existence of China. Unless I had proof I believe made it essentially fact, but then I wouldn’t add the last part.
In both cases, replace the trusted parties with priests and the same thing happens - I’m not trying to suggest that means they’re the same quality of event, it’s just that the mechanisms by which we accept that the restaurant is serving beef, and that the physics guys are talking sense, are the same mechanisms by which people accept religious things - the extent to which the trusted parties can back up their assertions may vary, but in both cases, there is an explicit or implied “trust me, I’m an expert about this”, and an acceptance of those terms.
If we wanted to extend it further, then consider misleading commercials for anti-aging products - where people trust that it’s effective just because some guy in a white coat babbles something about pro-tensi-oxy-somes, or, if you like, old-time snake-oil vendors - again, push the right buttons and people will believe you.
We could lump all this into three broad categories:
-You know what you’re promoting is false, but you convince people to accept it.
-You earnestly believe what you’re saying is true (though you may not be able to prove it) so you persuade others to accept it.
-You could prove what you’re saying is true if called upon to do so, but most of the time, you don’t need to because people will just take your word for it.
IMO, religion is usually mostly in the second category - although notable examples of the first are fairly easy to point out.
This seems weird to me. If you say “I have a personal God named Tribbledor who lives in the 80th dimension and cant be detected by any instruments because the 80th dimension is not accessible to humans” there’s no way I can prove you wrong but also you haven’t given me a reason to bother even trying to prove you wrong. If there is no difference between your God and no God whatsoever then why bother acting like this God of yours exists?? Chill out and forget about Tribbledor. I accept that you can’t 100% disprove the existence of any God but this seems like such a pointless thing to say that there’s no point saying it. I mean heres a list of other things that I cant prove don’t exist:
Tinkerbell.
Doctor Who.
Zeus.
Tribbledor (after all u can’t prove that there isn’t a planet full of Tribbledor monsters out there).
The planet of the apes (it could exist on a parallel earth).
Ewoks.
The tooth fairy.
But if I were to open a thread with a title like “My six year old son just told me the tooth fairy isn’t real”, I bet I wouldn’t get people having a pop at my son (i don’t have a son btw) for not acknowledging that the rules of logic forbid him from making absolute claims about the existence of anything and until someone provides one clear and simple reason why anyone should take the existence of God more seriously than the tooth fairy I think its hypocritical to treat them differently.
But do you apply that standard to anything else? I mean anything? I mean if your kids asked you “Mom/Dad is the tooth fairy real?” would you say “No” or would you say “I don’t believe that the tooth fairy exists, but having said that I cant prove that she isn’t out there somewhere”? After all by your logic it doesn’t make sense to rule out the tooth fairys existence altogether so by saying otherwise your being inconsidtent.
Yes. It is possible that god/gods exist. However. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they do. There is no more hard evidence proving that any gods exists than there is proving the tooth fairy exists. This is a fact. Theres not a thing. Given this, its clear that there is no reason why people should worship a particular God while at the same time telling their kids that the tooth fairy is just a little story. Also, it makes it logically impossible for people to judge other people for believing whatever nonsense they want.
How can we tell those people in our asylums who think aliens live in their eyeballs and want to take over the world are really crazy? Well its because they’ve got no evidence to support what they are saying. But if we should take peoples religious beliefs seriously just because there is a 0.0000000000<insert a billion zeros here lol>0001 chance that theres a god out there then we really should acknowledge that we have no good reason to keep crazy people locked up.
I wonder who told you that? Is rational thinking your God.
I know God exists because I have met Him. That is rational thinking.
There is no rejection of rational thinking in religion, and whoever told you so was badly mistaken.
A third option is to say “Yes”. Because sometimes people pretend to believe something for the sake of others or to benefit themselves. Same reason some people will tell you they believe in a god. God (the concept) does exist, even if the being does not.
