ETA: in the above post, when I said ‘correctly or not’ I was just doing the usual ‘hey we could all be wrong’ disclaimer. My personal opinion is that Der Trihs is pretty much correct on this. For all kinds of phenomena, science has repeatedly shown that supernatural explanations are not required, and has never shown anything for which they are required. Therefore by good old Occam, they are unnecessary, and we may as well say they don’t exist, unless we are given good reason to suspect otherwise.
Now admittedly “I assert X doesn’t exist until such time as a good reason may come along for believing X does exist”, isn’t the same statement as “I assert X doesn’t exist”, period. However the second is a useful and acceptable shorthand for the first, if we are not to descend into endless intellectually masturbatory obfuscation. I enjoyed typing that. In case anyone thought DT was dogmatically making the second statement, he took the trouble to point out he meant the first. At which point, instead of being thanked for his clarification, he was set upon. For shame! :mad:
If there is no evidence for something; no reason to even hypothesize it exists; and no evidence that it’s even possible; then saying that thing does not exist is perfectly reasonable, not to mention standard practicle. Unless, of course you are looking desperately for a reason to believe.
Am I supposed to add a multitude of disclaimers when I say I disbelieve in elves, fairies, magic and 5 dimensional rabbits, or is religion a special case ? Not as far as I’m concerned.
Your evidence is limited to the physical–which is perfectly acceptable from your materialist position, but does not rule out other possibilities of evidence.
There may be a reason to hypothesize an alternative explanation for the testimony of other people who believe they have experienced it, but your view that there is no reason to even hypothesize something’s existence is merely a declaration of your own lack of curiosity or your belief that you know the answer–it is not a reason against hypothesizing a situation.
“Evidence that it is even possible” reflects a purely materialist position. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is hardly a persuasive argument that you have grasped “truth,” only that you, persionally, are satisfied with purely material explanations.
So, basically, you have arrived at a belief about the world that you–in common with fundamenatlist religious types–believe that you have the right to impose on any discussion on the topic.
Mind you, I have not argued that you are mistaken on any point (other than your ludicrous misuse of the words “rational,” “rationality,” etc.). I am simply pointing out that your dogmatism differs in no discernible way from the dogmatism that you claim to oppose. For example:
Religion (or the belief in the non-material or the spiritual, which is not the same thing), may, indeed, be a dead end that does not produce the fruits that it claims for itslef. You, however, go farther, asserting a list of derogatory adjectives that you can only defend with more unsupportable assertions or with cherry-picked examples from different societies. You are entitled to your belief; and we are entitled to show that you sound very much like Jerry Falwell when you spout your platitudes.
There are many atheists on this board who see no purpose in imagining a god to set the cosmos in its place or to interact with humanity. Few of them, however, display your militant need to hurl epithets and make grandiose claims of “rationality” while diplaying little more than an emotional attachment to their world view (and a fair amouint of irrational claims) that causes them to engage in straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and simple dismissal of the human experiences of other humans.
That is your little bugaboo.
The End of Faith is definitely worth checking out; I have a copy. Have you ever read anything by John Shelby Spong? He has some very provocative ideas about how Christianity and other religions must change if they are to have any hope of survival.
Until someone comes up with actual evidence, yes it is.
It has nothing to do with materialism, just simple logic. Something that we have no evidence is possible is less plausible than something we do have evidence is possible.
Oh, really ? Have I called for the censorship of religious personages and publications ? Have I said they should be banned from this message board ? Have I even said they should be chastised for their opinions, except by me ? No, I have not. I’m not imposing anything on anyone.
This is another example of the double standard of religion; if you’re an atheist, expressing anything but respect for religion is regarded as an act of oppression, while the religious feel no need to respect me or my opinions. Despite the fact that religion is no more plausible than a belief in the reality of cartoon characters, I’m supposed to pretend it’s a view that deserves respect. Well, it’s not, and I’m not going to lie and pretend I regard religion as anything other than utter silliness.
“Cherry picked” ? Hardly. I just wrote down a few random religious evils that came to mind; there’s such a surfeit of them, there’s no need to cherry pick anything.
Maybe, maybe not. (I’d argue that its’ the investigator’s job to come up with the evidence, and then draw conclusions about where that evidence points.) Either way though, that’s beside the point. The question is whether such evidence exists – not whose responsibility it is to accumulate that evidence.
In most of the professional theist-atheist debates that I’ve listened to, the atheistic side will grant that there is indeed evidence for a God. They aren’t willing to conclude that God does exist, but they will typically grant that there is evidence in that direction, while simulatenous offering alternate explanations for how to interpret or explain away that evidence.
One could just as easily turn that question around. How can science be useful and attend to man in the same way that religion can?
Quite simply, it cannot. Science and religion serve two entirely different purposes. At times, science may assist religious efforts, such as when Christian hospitals employ scientific techniques in their medical research. Similarly, religious worldviews may influence one’s scientific research or conclusions; for example, Alfred North Whitehead acknowledged that Christianity that Christianity played a key role in the birth of science due to “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God.” Ultimately though, they serve to entirely different realms.
I agree and that’s actually what I said in my above post. I would like to see religion evolve to be much, much less about the structure, the doctrine, the dogma, the rules,
and more about, how do we actually love our neighbor in reality, how do we forgive and yet remain strong? The principles of living together and the way of relating to the our planet and others, that Buddha and Jesus taught. If we could strive for those things we could leave the mysteries of the afterlife for when we get there. {or not} As Ram Dass wisely said, be here now.
First:
Responding to a valid comparison between your style of posting and the rhetoric of two Fundamentalist leaders, you came back with claims the very comparison was an act in the manner of “religious” people actively promoting suppression and imprisonment. You were simply trying to distract from the point that your rhetoric is very much in line with the rhetoric of the two to whom you had been compared. Falwell has not called for you to be censored or imprisoned and neither has Swaggart. They simply declare that people with whom they disagree are damned by their (imaginary?) god while you proclaim that anyone who disagrees with you is damned to ignorance.
Your repeated attempts to inject your claims mark you as their spiritual brother.
Second:
I did not claim that you wished to impose your views on any person. I said that you felt the same right that they did to impose your views on a discussion. Are you going to deny that you have interrupted any nummber of discussions of religion or spirituality with your one-liner snide comments that it is all a waste of time? The open nature of these Fora permits you to do that, but it is your particular fundamentalist atheism that prompts you to do so even in threads where your opinion is worth little more than that of a YEC jumping into a discussion of the merits of rigid gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium to claim “You’re all wrong! God did it in six days.” (This thread would not be an example of such a thread, although your simplistic claims have done nothing to promote a discussion here, either.)
No. This is an example of you confusing the act of being respectful to a person with being respectful of that person’s beliefs. Since you are rsponding to something that I did not actually say, you now find it convenient to make another broad brush accusation against “religious” people that is simply irrelevant to this discussion–and, frankly, is another example of dishonesty.
There are, indeed, people who have posted on this board who feel that speaking disrespectfully of religious beliefs is insulting. I have never held that view. I have not insisted that you treat any belief with respect. I simply note that your views are so tinged with (dare I say it?) irrational hatred that you do not seem to be able to talk about the topic without being insulting of the people involved.
Here you use the word* less* and I agree with your statement as it stands. When you make your ridiculous assertions you aren’t this accurate or rational. I’ll add to this the fact that when you say evidence you are reffering to a kind of evidence that can be demonstrated to everybody in some scientific fashion. That may be the only evidence you consider {although I’m sure it isn’t} but it is not the only valid evidence. My own subjective evidence allows me to choose what I believe in those areas where science is inconclusive. Because it is my subjective evidence I don’t try to compel anyone to believe as I do. I simple exchange ideas
Oh, really ? Have I called for the censorship of religious personages and publications ? Have I said they should be banned from this message board ? Have I even said they should be chastised for their opinions, except by me ? No, I have not. I’m not imposing anything on anyone.
This is another example of the double standard of religion; if you’re an atheist, expressing anything but respect for religion is regarded as an act of oppression, while the religious feel no need to respect me or my opinions. Despite the fact that religion is no more plausible than a belief in the reality of cartoon characters, I’m supposed to pretend it’s a view that deserves respect. Well, it’s not, and I’m not going to lie and pretend I regard religion as anything other than utter silliness.
The point being that you pointed out only the negative which clearly demonstrates your irrational and inaccurate bias against religion. {as you have done repeatedly}
Der Trihs I would respond more directly to your comments but since Tom has nailed you {love that pun} so accurately I fear it would be redundant and far less eloquent. Besides, I’m laughing too hard.
And I said it was incorrect. It’s fine by me to say there’s no scientific evidence or reason to believe in the soul. Thats accuate. To go the next step and say science has proved it doesn’t exist is simply false.
Fair enough, but there is a difference between scientific evidence and personal subjective evidence. There is a difference between “science doesn’t really address this issue” and “science has proved souls don’t exist”
Science cannot address the issue of whether a soul exists. If it could, then a soul would be a natural thing, and would cease to have the same meaning that “soul” is supposed to have. Same thing with God. If God is just a part of nature, then he’s an extraterrestrial, not “God”.
It’s proven it as far as the nonexistance of anything can be proved. You’ve yet to explain why the soul is any more plausible than any random absurdity. Cartoon characters being real; a 12 dimensional goat as ruler of the cosmos; that sort of thing.
If believing in things with zero evidence, zero explanatory capacity, and that ignore physical laws isn’t irrational, I can’t think what is. What’s the point of even talking if all beliefs are equal, regardless of evidence or even possibility ? If facts don’t matter, why not just talk to a wall and pretend someone is answering ?
Look: atoms do not exist. Proof: they are not directly observable. Only observable physical objects can be said to exist. Atoms, by their very nature, cannot be directly observed. Ergo: atoms do not exist.
I trust you’ll see a fallacy in this argument.
Now: Tachyons do not exist. Proof: there is no way to observe them, or to detect their effects on matter. Continue as above.
Best results here: We must be agnostic about tachyons, since there is no way to prove whether or not they actually exist.
Hypothesis: an entity which interacts with matter and energy in an apparently volitional way, but is not itself comprised of matter or energy, exists. A variety of evidence has been presented, much in the past but other such by contemporary witnesses. Few if any are trained observers. And, being apparently volitional, the entity does not react to stimuli in a humanly-mandatable manner.
Much of the evidence seems exaggerated, fictive, legendary. Other parts seem to have some concrete referents.
Further, this entity, if it exists, appears to interact with those who give credence to it in a quasi-telepathic manner. Their subjective accounts of what it says and does are of course not subject to objective proof or falsification.
Hardly; it’s the sort of attitude that leads to people arguing that we shouldn’t be judgmental of the Nazis, because their viewpoint in no better or worse than any other. And no, that’s not Godwinizing the thread, that’s personal experience.
First, that whole arguement is quite wrong; there are more things we don’t “directly observe” than things we do. Detection by instruments is just as much evidence as eyesight; often better.
Second, atoms ( and electrons, for that matter ) can be seen by eye with the right equipment. In fact, the technique was invented specifically to counter your agruement by a scientist who found it annoying. IIRC, it involves a Penning trap to hold the particle, a laser to excite it, and an inverted telescope to enlarge the image. The guy even gave the atoms and electrons names, like pets.
No, we should disbelieve in them, since there’s no evidence they exist. Unlike atoms, which we have plenty of evidence for.
As for the rest of your argument, that’s just general superstitious delusion. It should be dismissed out of hand.
Outside of logical contraditcions, yes. You can’t prove a negative, at least not absolutely.
Um…I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say but my initial reaction is wrong…and wrong again. If God and soul are reality then they could be something very natural that is still beyond the ability of science at this time. If your definition of natural is “what we are able to measure and recognize at this time” then I agree with your statement but not your definition of natural.
IIRC, it involves a Penning trap to hold the particle, a laser to excite it, and an inverted telescope to enlarge the image. The guy even gave the atoms and electrons names, like pets.