In what way does science offer anything to look forward to after death?
No way that I know of. I never claimed that it did. What I said was that, as a method for determining the true nature of reality, science is vastly superior to wishful thinking. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.
I really like the way you put that. I always struggle with trying to get this across to people in this type of debate. What happens is that, when discussing what level of evidence is sufficient, they end up raising the bar so high that NOTHING can be proven or disproven. Like you said: “effectively throwing common sense out the window”. When they can’t prove their belief using reason and evidence, they proceed to throw away reason and evidence!
Are you honestly claiming that you don’t believe anything? Do you believe that to be a reasonable statement to make?
With all due respect, it’s evident that you’re playing word games. If you “do accept certain things” as being true, then you clearly believe them, i.e. you believe them to be true. Such belief does not necessarily require proof, but it is belief nonetheless.
Yes, I know that some atheists like to say “I don’t believe in anything!” just as some would say “It is irrational to believe in what’s not proven.” Neither statement holds up under scrutiny though, and they are clearly self-refuting.
Since you ask, I believe only one thing with 100% certainty and that is the fact that I have a perception.
Absolutely.
I most definately am not playing word games. I question EVERYTHING. Just because I accept something as a given, does not mean that I conclude that I could NOT be wrong. This is where I differ from the religious believer who refuses to accept the possibility that their evaluation of their own perception could lead them to make a conclusion about god which was incorrect.
What? I don’t “believe” (read: accept as 100% certain) anything - except that I have a perception. I do accept things as a given based on “evidence”. I determine what is acceptable evidence based on common sense. Every time I sit in a chair it turns out to be there. A reasonable thing to accept as a given is that chairs are really there.
Another reasonable thing to accept as a given is that belief without proof is irrational. You want evidence of this, let’s enter into negotiations, I’ll sell you this bridge, and you believe everything I say. You will end up ripped off. Common sense tells us not to believe everything we are told. It would be irrational.
So I stand by my numbered list. It is irrational to believe without proof or accept without evidence. What is reasonable evidence? That which can be tested and repeated. If it allows you to make accurate predictions about what will happen, then I will begin to give your statements weight. Religion offers no such “evidence”, and therefore absolute certainty is irrational.
Can I prove that believing in things without proof is irrational? Give me a break. Can we please keep common sense as a factor?
I couldn’t agree with you more davidm. I feel your struggle, if I have to prove any more furniture exists I’m going to lose it.
DaLovin’ Dj
In response to the question “Are you honestly claiming that you don’t believe anything?” dalovindj says,
Then in response to the question " Do you believe that to be a reasonable statement to make?" he says,
Sir, you have just disproven your earlier claim. You have just refuted your own claim that you “don’t believe anything” (and the revised version, “The only thing I believe is that I have a perception.”)
It is well and fine to say that one’s worldview may be inaccurate, and may be subject to future revision. This is not the same as saying that you hold no beliefs though – or even that you only have one belief. As long as you keep insisting that you have no beliefs (or just one belief), I don’t think many thinking individuals will take your claims seriously.
Of course. Common sense dictates that your claim is unproven – and thus, self-refuting. If the only defense you can offer is an appeal to “common sense,” then you have declared its truth to be axiomatically self-evident – and therefore unproven. (By definition, all axiomatic statements – including the laws of logic – are commonly accepted but nevertheless unproven.)
What does that mean? Do you pick your beliefs based on whatever offers the most attractive reward? How about if I start a new religion called Blowerism, but my religion promises not only eternal life, but a shiny new car as well. Are you going to convert to Blowerism, since it offers more? Personally, I believe things based on whether I think they are true, not based on how I “would like it to be”.
Well, I won’t bring it up as long people stay away from asking me how I can prove chairs exist. But it is true, whether you like it or not.
And the window breaks as you throw common sense out the window to play your own little word game. Go ahead, believe everything everybody tells you and don’t accept chairs as a given. You really make religion sound rational. :rolleyes:
DaLovin’ Dj
Do you really believe that to be true?
You have just demosntrated the fallacy of the excluded middle. “Believing everything everybody tells you” is NOT the automatic alternative to “having no beliefs.” Can’t you see that there is a broad range of options in between those two extremes?
There lies the rub. You say that religion is irrational because belief without proof is irrational. However, that very statement assumes that proof is necessary for rational belief – a statement which is unproven, and which violates the grand history of science, mathematics, philosophy and symbolic logic. Heck, the mere act of saying “Well, I accept chairs as a given” demonstrates that one can believe assumptions without requiring their proof.
Here’s what’s happening as I see it:
-
They want to prove the validity of their belief.
-
To do this they pick something that is commonsensically obvious, such as the belief in chairs.
-
Their intent is to show that their belief is as valid as a belief in chairs and therefore that anyone who believes in chairs but criticizes their belief is a hypocrite.
-
The only way to make the validity of the two beliefs equivalent is to somehow lower the validity of a belief in chairs. They do this by raising the bar for required evidence to a completely ridiculous level.
So the only way they can justify their belief is by bringing ALL other beliefs into question. “My beliefs are as valid as your’s because all beliefs are equally unprovable”. In their attempt to justify their belief they end up throwing away any coherent picture of reality. They deny a view of the world that they would most likely defend strongly in any non-religious argument.
DavidM
Yep. That about sums it up davidm. It is an intellectually pathetic approach as far as I am concerned.
DaLovin’ Dj
A: God does not equal religion. They are barely even related.
B: I am not myself a believer in “god” per se, nor have I ever belonged to any religion. However…
C: “It is the height of arrogance to presume that the limits of ** your ** perception constitute the limits of what there is to be perceived.” - a favorite quote of mine, paraphrased, and I no longer know who said it, but it sure is true.
stoid
I’m sorry, but I really don’t see this. God and religion are barely even related??? Can you expand on this?
Buddhism is a religion. Many (if not most or all) Buddhists do not believe in God(s).
Taoism is a religion. Many (if not most or all) Taoists do not believe in God(s).
Unitarian Universalism is a religion. Many (if not most) Unitarian Universalists do not believe in God(s).
(I can come up with others with a little research, but these are the first three off the top of my head.)
Pagans do not believe in the Christian God, if you wish to limit the discussion to Him only (it’s hard to tell from the thread).
Many Christians do not believe in Allah, or do not believe that he is the same as their God.
Religion != God
God != Religion
Similarly, I have my reasons for having faith that there is some form of Divine Presence out there, as I have had direct and repeated contact with a face of that Divine. I do not, however, believe it is the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God.
Nor do I dismiss the teachings of Jesus Christ because I don’t have faith in Him as a face of that Divine.
I know the chair is there. What I cannot prove to you is that my Spiritual Guardian is as there as the chair, because she does not exist for you.
That does not make me any less rational. It does mean that I cannot share the experience in any way that will be comprehensible to you. Similarly to the way I cannot share my experience of music with you, except in the simple aural properties of the vibrations sent through the air. I can tell you in words what I experienced, and why, therefore, I believe in the Divine (but, remember, IANAC). Because you cannot be inside me to share the specific emotional and psychological realities that my experience of the Divine entailed, just as you cannot share the specific emotional and psychological realities of my response to Stravinski’s Rite of Spring, you will not accept my statements as “proof.”
I cannot replicate them inside you because you are not me.
Similarly, I cannot myself experience Polycarp’s experience of Jesus Christ, because I am not him.
Nor do I know what Gaudere’s experience of Debussy’s Au Claire du Lune is, because I am not her.
And as far as needing someone to believe me (the previous paragraphs notwithstanding) - I don’t give a rat’s fanny what anyone does or does not believe. All I ask is that you treat me with respect, and not like an automatic candidate for the loony bin just because I happen to have faith that my life has a spiritual element inexplicable to someone else.
I hope the following does not offend you, but after all, this is supposed to be a debate, so I’m a debatin’.
I see your analogy as fundamentally flawed. It’s not hard to provide some pretty compelling proof that “Rite of Spring” exists. In fact, I have a cd of it on my shelf right now. And of course, we have the “vibrations sent through the air” that you mention, which can be measured on an oscilloscope. Then there’s the original score in Stravinsky’s own writing, countless published scores, and probably numerous references in Stravinsky’s personal correspondence, as well as I’m sure thousands of other people who have written about the piece. (I could go on and on, but you get my point). You’re attempting to compare your subjective experience of Rite of Spring with your subjective experience of God. But the fact that you had an emotional reaction to Rite of Spring is not what proves its existence; its existence is already known, and there is objective corroborating evidence. Where is the objective corroborating evidence of God, the “cd”, or “soundwaves”, as it were?
If you really want the analogy to make sense, you should say there is a piece of music that gives you a certain emotional response, yet you don’t know who wrote it, there is no score, you can’t sing any of the melodies, and there are no existing recordings of it.
“And the will therein lieth, which dieth not. Who knoweth the mysteries of the will, with its vigour. For God is but a great will pervading all things by nature of its intentness. Man doth not yield himself to the angels, nor unto death utterly, save only through the weakness of his feeble will.”
I have felt, and tested myself against God’s will, thus growing stronger. It seems lazy to me that anyone would consider themself to be the strongest will in existence, or that the universe they happen to find themself in is the only or the greatest place to be. If you can get over your fears, your hidden inferiority complexes which force you to assert the cosmic superiority of your willpower, then you can interact with God, truly the most powerful will there is. You can then build up your own will, giving you the ability to live on after you die and continue your progress. It is fear and laziness that contribute to disbelief in God. Courage and willpower are necessary to learn more about the infinite than you can detect with the meager resources you start out with.
What definite reason might a man have to believe that a lagoon is beautiful? That’s just personal taste? Perhaps a belief in God is a personal experience.
Perhaps you have not researched the evidence sufficiently. A man might declare claims that quarks exist to be outlandish — at least until he does some thorough research. You fall prey to the very thing you condemn. You base your conclusion on hearsay and testimony without having examined what you see as outlandish claims for historical, social, and theological context.
You shouldn’t. But you should be aware that religion might well be a thing entirely different from faith. It might be that one cannot find God operating within a political machine.
Why, no. This is our first ever discussion of the topic. 
(Just kidding.)
I think it is only fair that a man be held to the same rigors that he imposes on other men.
Kindly prove that A is A. Do not redefine the assertion. Do not restate it some other way. Do not assume it to be true before you argue that it is. Just prove that it is true. (Don’t waste too much time with this; it is a rhetorical challenge to do the impossible.)
But how does this apply to your OP? What has been “proven true” that contradicts a belief in God?
To answer whether there is evidence that God exists, it is of course necessary to define God.
I define Him as the Love Everlasting; the Life Giving Love Who values goodness above all else; Who is composed not of atoms but of spirit; Who exists eternally; for Whom time has already finished, hasn’t yet begun, and is still unfolding — all at once; for Whom the beginning and the end are the same; Who can know all that is knowable; Who can do all that is doable; Who is like us in His essence; Who makes His home in the hearts of those who believe in Him; Who seeks to save men from perdition but not against their will; Who gave each of us a private moral journey, unknown and unknowable to anyone else; Who knows that our experiences in this universe are expressions of our morality; Who knows the difference between the trivial life and death of cellular globs and the significant life and death of our spirit; Whose enemy is evil, i.e., the snuffing out of life; Who doesn’t judge us, but leaves us to judge ourselves by His standard; Who is One with those who love Him.
That is not an exhaustive definition by any means, but it hits the highlights.
Personally, I see more evidence for His existence than I can list here. I see it in my every waking moment, and even in my dreams. I see it even in you — a searcher for truth. It is certainly possible that you are a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat that isn’t there. But man is always searching for that which is the longing of his spirit. And he always finds it eventually.
If you are open to advice, I advise you to learn more about the nature of knowledge and philosophy. Study the fields of epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics. You will find that even science itself is a branch of philosophy, and that the scientific method is based on a principle called “falsifiability”. You will find also that the principle of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable. And much to Gaudere’s chagrin, you will find that all systems of knowledge are equally valid, and that, in the end, you must simply ask yourself whether you are satisfied by what you know.
Your moral journey is an intensely private affair. No one else can experience your consciousness. Only you. Only you can determine whether God lives in there and whether there is room for Him in your heart. Likewise, you cannot know my journey. And whether or not God is manifest in my life has no bearing on yours. If you’re looking for a man in the sky, you can ask the rest of us whether we see him. If you’re looking for a genie, you can ask the rest of us whether we will loan you the bottle. But if you’re seeking the God of Love, you must look inside Mister V.
:rolleyes:
This is the kind of word game garbage that throws common sense out the window, making definitions of words like “rational” useless (read: dumbing down the whole affair). All systems of knowledge are not equally valid.
System of knowledge
A. I know for certain that the true origin of the universe is from inside my toenail. All of life should be lived by the morals dictated by my toenails. I’ve written them down. Any knowledge exept for this is forbidden
B. The Scientific Method
The two are not equally valid systems of knowledge by any damn means. Common sense is a valuable human asset, let’s not pretend we don’t have it. When you engage in self-admitted “rhetorical challenge’s to do the impossible”, you sidetrack otherwise productive conversations into meaningless semantic games.
Your god sounds nice Libertarian, but so does one who promises me a never-ending party with gambling and hookers. How can I decide which is more likely? Look at the evidence. Test reality. There is no experiment that can make everyone feel the same exact god, so to assume there is one exact god that you know to be true is irrational.
If I were to tell you I invented a free-energy machine, you would demand proof. If I wanted to sell you a house, you would want to see the house. This same rigorous standard must be applied to EVERYTHING for it to be rational. It must be a consistant line of reasoning. To change the line of reasoning because of the subject may be personally satisfying, but it is most definately not rational.
DaLovin’ Dj
It’s pretty darn hard to offend me, just FYI.
If I were a Christian (which I remind you, I’m not, but that seems to be the point of view I have to argue here), I would point out to you that we do have the “cd” in the form of the Bible, and the “soundwaves” in the form of the words therein. (Judaism - Talmud, Islam - Koran.) Your response to that cd and those soundwaves will be different than those who follow those religions. To you, they’re just noise.
Perhaps I would have been clearer had I used a piece considered “just noise” by some people and “real music” by others, but Rite of Spring and Au Clair du Lune were the only two I could come up with last night.
(My own personal situation is somewhat more difficult, as there is no holy text, but I’m not looking for validation here.)
But I can sing the melody (in that I can tell you what I experienced), even if I don’t know who wrote it. That doesn’t mean you will understand it as “music,” however. And, as I said, if we’re talking about the J/C/I POV, there are recordings of it.
(Disclaimer – Agnostic Neo-Shamanic Neo-Pagan here. Please do not confuse me with a Christian. Not that there’s anything wrong with Christians. I’m just not one.)
It seems to me that you’re using a rather fluid definition of “belief.” Belief doesn’t necessarily imply 100% certainty. Belief can, in fact, come with varying degrees of confidence.
Of course, the “100% certainty” clause is the only way to make the statement that “Belief without proof is irrational” sound less self-contradictory (and even then, it’s still self-refuting, since “certainty” is not the same thing as “proof”).