As I said before, I’m not going to allow you to equate my assertion that magical fairy beings commanded by an all-powerful bearded man in the sky do not exist with your assertion that they do. My refusal to accept the existence of something for which there is not a shred of evidence is not merely a belief: it’s the logical default setting for any fantastical claim. The burden of proof is on you, and on other believers, to show some kind of evidence for those magical beings’ existence. I won’t allow you to do your little word game: the denial of a belief’s validity is not equivalent to that belief. Fantastical claims, such as the existence of the man in the sky and his fairy beings, require fantastical proof. The burden of proof is on the believer, not on the one who challenges that belief.
So please offer me empirical (actual, logical) proof that God exists, or acknowledge that your beliefs, however strongly you may profess them, are a bunch of silly crap :rolleyes:
To quote Tim Minchin: “Science adjusts its beliefs based on what’s observed/Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” In other words, believers don’t WANT evidence. In fact, they ABHOR it. To acknowledge the lack of evidence for their beliefs would be to acknowledge that said beliefs have no rational basis. This would be painful for them. They would rather destroy their powers of reason instead.
Everything that you said in this paragraph is untrue. Neither Bruno nor Galileo was persecuted for saying that the earth revolved around the sun. As for your claim that until 1994 good Catholics had to profess that the sun revolved around the earth, that’s completely a product of your imagination.
If you want to educated yourself concerning the trial of Galileo, I’d recommend reading njtt’s excellent posts in this thread. Generally, if you want to brag about being smarter than everyone else, you probably shouldn’t also make claims that every educated person knows to be untrue.
Appeals to authority and broad generalizations are not a good way to argue any point, DD, particularly if part of your point is that you consider yourself a reasoning, logical person.
Religious belief falls along points on a scale, much like anything else that involves the entirety of humankind. On one side are people who absolutely reject out of hand the possible existance of any supreme being because it cannot be proven using the scientific method. We’ll call those the Human Reason Trumps All group (HRTA’s). On the other end are those who believe every word of their holy text is literally true, there can be no other interpretation than their’s and that it is true because their holy book says it is. We’ll call those the Word of God Trumps All group (WoGTA’s). In the exact middle are those who keep open the possibility of the existance of a supreme being, but don’t think there is enough evidence either way to know for sure - the How The Hell Should I Know group (HtHSIK’s) . The scale, like a rainbow, blends a little of the details of each side around it as it transitions from one extreme to the other.
Almost every thread on religion turns into HRTA’s hurling flaming arrows at WoGTA’s while they fire their arrows back at you. Both sides ignore the 90+% of the population who fall somewhere in between.
And that is why I don’t debate religion here. I will, however, continue to point out logical fallacies, inconsistencies and word usage errors, 'cause that’s just fun
A religionist calling an atheist’s statement(made with solid evidence to back it up) that the universe goes on after said atheist dies nothing more than “an unprovable belief” has got to be the single biggest example of unmitigated gall I’ve seen in a very long time.
No, you’re wrong about faith. You’re describing blind faith (not the band) which is essentially clinging to some Heavenly Belief beyond all proof to the contrary. Regular Faith, which is akin to Hope, is trusting your instincts based on scanty, conflicting, or inconclusive evidence (e.g. “Leap of Faith”). Sometimes life comes down to a single roll of the dice, or several consecutive dice rolls if you have Luck on your side.
However, regarding Life after Death, nobody has any fucking clue what it is or if it exists. Therefore the best way to preserve your soul is to believe in NOTHING.
The vast majority of religious people on this board and in the daily lives of most people who post here is Christian. No one here doubts personal faith is really a grab bag of whatever the hell someone likes it a holy text, but having to accommodate that means no one outside of that specific person can meaningfully talk about religion then.
You still don’t get it (or maybe you DO get it and try to avoid the logical conclusion.
(just to be clear, I’m not wishing death on you in any way, shape or form)
How would YOU (i.e., the person whose SDMB username is Czarcasm) personally ascertain, prove, explain and/or show the continuing existance of the universe after YOU (not I, not my neighbour, not Putin, not Marie Curie) die.
Since you ride the very, very high horse of “evidence or it doesn’t exist” I’m eager to see how you would endavour to proffer such evidence. Of course, lack of evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but lack of evidence means you can’t prove it does exist. Unprovable things don’t exist, you keep telling me; it works both ways
Maybe you can go to night school and brush up on the scientific method, it might help.
P.S. I’ve got enough gall to write down Wikipedia twice.
I fully and unreservedly acknowledge that absolute, total, and utter lack of any scientific evidence at all for the existence of God, heaven or the Real Prescence. It bothers me not at all.
I understand the motivations that drive people to blot out their reasoning processes (something you have forthrightly described yourself as doing, above). What I don’t understand is how people, possessed of the ability to make the realization that you have, can continue to take any comfort from the delusion.
It must be a very powerful drive in the human mind, to shove aside the truth when the lie feels more comforting. Truth be told, sometimes I wish I could do it. Life would feel so much better if I believed that something better awaited after I died, and that the scales of justice, so unbalanced here on earth, would eventually be balanced.
I’ve given the evidence twice, I’m not giving it again, and I certainly “get it” when it comes to responding to your illogical and hypocritical postings.
When it comes to all the possible deities that might exist(including the ones no one on Earth has even thought of yet), even if atheists are wrong it is certainly safer to put all such unevidenced entities to the side, rather than worshipping a false god. Besides, what if there are two deities, and you happen to be worshipping #2 in the god hierarchy?
But nihilism is the inescapable logical consequence of atheism. Even if atheists work in soup kitchens, it has no lasting effect, and makes ultimately no difference.
If there is no God and therefore no transcendent morality, then it makes no ultimate difference if you serve mankind to your last breath, or engage in mass murder and drowning kittens.
The only recourse the atheist has, is to make something up and believe in it without evidence or logic behind it. Just because that’s what they want to believe. Which is called “faith”- exactly the thing they claim to reject.
Again, always nice to see a Christian admit that they only reason they don’t drown kittens (they must have already raped all the available babies) is because they anticipate an afterlife.
Not at all. If you think meaning can only come from a god, that’s fine, but obviously not everyone thinks that way.
Yes, it has a lasting effect - for the life of the people helped, and those affected by that person, and so on down the chain. Consequences don’t have to be eternal to have value; again, perhaps your personal belief, but not a consequence of atheist.
I’d wager that you do plenty that’s totally unrelated to eternal life after death: buy a nicer TV, try to use correct grammer, keep the lawn mowed. Why do you do those things, when they won’t save or damn your soul?
It makes a difference to other people, who are the ultimate source of morality and meaning.
Atheists don’t categorically reject faith, they reject (or don’t adhere to) belief in gods.
Don’t bother arguing, folks-some people depend on the despair(real or imagined) of others to make themselves feel better, and no small number of those are willing to jump through just about any illogical hoop to do it. The best thing to do is just nod and say “You’re right-I secretly believe that the universe will end the second I die, and that everything I have done and everything I will do means absolutely nothing”, see the joy in their eyes, and know that you made someone happy.
Since the universe has seen billions of human deaths without ending, and by all available evidence Czarcasm is a person like any other, surely the null hypothesis would be that the universe doesn’t end when people die? Assuming otherwise would require a completely unsubstantiated belief that Czarcasm was somehow linked to the universe in a way no one else is. Any evidence for that?
Your medical care would be second-to-none, but naturally you’ve have to live in a protective bubble at the Mayo Clinic at all times. Can’t have you getting creamed by a truck while crossing the road and ending the universe!
