An appeal for the logic of religious belief

[Rioku]

Well I am one peer that is laughing. Silly wabbit. Surely you understand the impossibility of arguing against illusions, but, for what it is worth, you aren't doing too badly. You do understand that in the context of the discussion that your sentiments are not wanted. Correct? You are being used to further ludicrous thinking and by entertaining responses to ludicrous thinking you lend unnecessary support TO that ludicrous thinking. You do understand that, right?
Don't get me too wrong, as I am on your side of this equation.

I guess I am a little more optimistic then that.

Hmmm. You have made a logical faux pas here, my friend. It is NOT true to say there is no evidence for divine experiences. If scientists could trot around Jesus, Buddha or Krsna, they might well be presented with things that they cannot explain. IF you had stated that in MOST cases where "divinity" is invoked, one could analyze the data and conclude that the person was in fact indulging their "warm 'n' fuzzy" ideals, I would wholeheartedly agree. It is unwise to make a categoric statement however even if the odds are stacked in your favor.

I fail to see logic in this, you are stating that it is wrong to say there is no evidence when there might be evidence. Most of your posts tend to be solid but I am having a hard time seeing what you are trying to get at. My (subjective) experience provides me with the conclusion that there is no evidence for divine experiences. This does not mean I will change that mindset when evidence is presented to me. And it also is a conclusion based on years of debating religion. I do not intend to promote a argument of authority, rather I am trying to state that after extended period of time no evidence has ever surfaced for god or divine experiences. So after so much time the conclusion that there is no evidence is a fair conclusion.

 

[Smoke]

An apology to yossarian22 for any possible insult that I may have given, but I thought this was worth arguing about.

It is, but not everybody is worth arguing with.

 

[Rioku]

No, actually, I meant what I asked. You had implied that "people who kill in the name of god" were subject to their personal beliefs, just as you have expressed yourself to be.

I am confused, maybe the way i presented an idea was interpreted by you in a way I did not expect. Do you mind elaborating on what you are thinking.

 

[Rioku]

Which is entirely irrelevant in cases like mine, where the experience shattered my pet theory, which at the time was atheism. Indeed, I think such cases by their very existence contradict the assumption that such experiences are illusory, which was unfounded to begin with.

What are you talking about? It is completely relevant. The fact that you think you are an exception is the exact point we are trying to make. You should be suspect of what you believe, because research shows how erroneous your mind is.

 

[Rioku]

as you seem to have me confused with Rioku. He's the one claiming irrefutable evidence, I'm saying no such thing exists for either side.

You should really go back and read the conversation.

 

[Willamena]

I am confused, maybe the way i presented an idea was interpreted by you in a way I did not expect. Do you mind elaborating on what you are thinking.

In post #242 you said "for some reason because they believe is the socially accepting God it is ok to act without thinking. There is no difference between someone who believes in god and someone who kills in the name of god, they are both adamant about their beliefs and are convinced that their personal experience is justifiable."

Yet in the same post you express adament beliefs and seem very convinced that your personal experience (with such people) is justifiable.

 

[Rioku]

In post #242 you said "for some reason because they believe is the socially accepting God it is ok to act without thinking. There is no difference between someone who believes in god and someone who kills in the name of god, they are both adamant about their beliefs and are convinced that their personal experience is justifiable."

Yet in the same post you express adament beliefs and seem very convinced that your personal experience (with such people) is justifiable.

I see where I got confused. First I did add an edit to the post to make it more clear. There is no difference between the validity of beliefs of someone who believes in god and someone who kills in the name of god, they are both adamant about their beliefs and are convinced that their personal experience is justifiable.

So the statement has no personal bias attached to it, relative to the point at hand. The simple point I was trying to make is that there is no difference in validity between two things that there is no evidence for. And I used the example of killing to make a stronger point, that people do kill in the name of god and they are as adament about the validity of their beliefs as everyone else.

 

[Popeyesays]

have we all finished making ad hominem attaqcks?

If so:

If gravity existed as an unseen and unknown force in the existence of the physical universe, can we assume that gravity's effects on the universwe, even when we had no comprehension of "gravity"; ca n we then assume that God might exert such an unseen and unknown force upon society?

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

have we all finished making ad hominem attaqcks?

If so:

If gravity existed as an unseen and unknown force in the existence of the physical universe, can we assume that gravity's effects on the universwe, even when we had no comprehension of "gravity"; ca n we then assume that God might exert such an unseen and unknown force upon society?

Regards,
Scott

That comparison implies that God is testable and ultimately knowable. Do you agree with that?

 

[YmirGF]

If gravity existed as an unseen and unknown force in the existence of the physical universe, can we assume that gravity's effects on the universwe, even when we had no comprehension of "gravity"; ca n we then assume that God might exert such an unseen and unknown force upon society?

It is dangerous to assume anything Scott. If "god" exerts an unseen and unknown force upon society there would be no possible way to discern such an effect. Therefore the conjecture is simply without merit.

"Gravity" can be measured and is the result of mass on surrounding objects. Even a pebble has "gravity", you do, and planets and galaxies do. We can prove the existence of gravity by observation.

Aside from this, there is no possible way to prove the existence of "god", let alone any imagined "force" that "he" might project. It is sort of like suggesting that the Flying Spagetti Monster leaves glops of sauce hither and yon. We have no evidence of either, so conjecture is moot.

 

[Super Universe]

It is dangerous to assume anything Scott. If "god" exerts an unseen and unknown force upon society there would be no possible way to discern such an effect. Therefore the conjecture is simply without merit.

"Gravity" can be measured and is the result of mass on surrounding objects. Even a pebble has "gravity", you do, and planets and galaxies do. We can prove the existence of gravity by observation.

Aside from this, there is no possible way to prove the existence of "god", let alone any imagined "force" that "he" might project. It is sort of like suggesting that the Flying Spagetti Monster leaves glops of sauce hither and yon. We have no evidence of either, so conjecture is moot.

Gravity is not the result of mass on surrounding objects. That is like saying that heat is a part of visible light since the two always seem to go together. It's a premature conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

You can prove the existence of gravity but not God? No, you can't. You have to know at least one thing about God in order to have any evidence that gravity is not a part of Him and likely that one thing won't be enough, really you need to know a great deal to compare and contrast.

There is no possible way to prove the existence of God? Sigh... Baseless, closed minded, and completely illogical. You have chosen to place limits on what you can know, others, including scientists, have not.

 

[YmirGF]

Gravity is not the result of mass on surrounding objects. That is like saying that heat is a part of visible light since the two always seem to go together. It's a premature conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

You can prove the existence of gravity but not God? No, you can't. You have to know at least one thing about God in order to have any evidence that gravity is not a part of Him and likely that one thing won't be enough, really you need to know a great deal to compare and contrast.

There is no possible way to prove the existence of God? Sigh... Baseless, closed minded, and completely illogical. You have chosen to place limits on what you can know, others, including scientists, have not.

Show me a so-called scientist who openly asserts that they can prove the existence of "god" and I will show you a quack. Though greatly simplified, my assertion regarding the nature of gravity is correct. Sorry to break the news to you, but then again, some people would say that you have a penchant for not letting facts get in the way of your thinking. Being a member of RF, in good-standing, I, of course, could never suggest such a thing, but it does make one wonder who is smoking what.

Aside from this, show me a single person who claims to be able to prove the existence of god, let alone his so-called interactions on mankind and I will show you someone that the general population should avoid like the plague. :flirt:

 

[Super Universe]

Show me a so-called scientist who openly asserts that they can prove the existence of "god" and I will show you a quack. Though greatly simplified, my assertion regarding the nature of gravity is correct. Sorry to break the news to you, but then again, some people would say that you have a penchant for not letting facts get in the way of your thinking. Being a member of RF, in good-standing, I, of course, could never suggest such a thing, but it does make one wonder who is smoking what.

Aside from this, show me a single person who claims to be able to prove the existence of god, let alone his so-called interactions on mankind and I will show you someone that the general population should avoid like the plague. :flirt:

Show me a scientist who claims to not be able to know what he doesn't know.

Your facts aren't facts.

Show me one aspect of God that differs from gravity.

 

[YmirGF]

Show me a scientist who claims to not be able to know what he doesn't know.

In theory, anything that can be observed can be "known", Super.

Your facts aren't facts.

Yes, I keep forgetting whom I am speaking to. How silly of me. One would think it more helpful to just spill the beans, as it were, rather than just tell us all that we are wrong. How so? What marvel have you unravelled that has thus far illuded other human animals, by and large?

Show me one aspect of God that differs from gravity.

Why? Why would I bother with aspects of a purported being whose existence cannot be proven, one way or the other? Why bother getting into petty aspects of said beast? Inquiring minds would relish the opportunity to know. I am all ears, but please, grant me the simple courtesy of explaining your assertions, rather than stooping to the general backup position of saying, "Find the answer yourself" or "You are not capable of understanding."

 

[Rioku]

You can prove the existence of gravity but not God? No, you can't. You have to know at least one thing about God in order to have any evidence that gravity is not a part of Him and likely that one thing won't be enough, really you need to know a great deal to compare and contrast.

Blatant ignorance, note to others: he is not worth responding to, considering he can not grasp the simple concept that without evidence there is not need to consider it in an equation.

You have to know at least one thing about God in order to have any evidence that gravity is not a part of Him

This is the same baseless argument theists continue to make in their desperate attempts to defend their beliefs. They go on and on about trying to disprove something where there is no evidence for it in the first place.

 

[Super Universe]

Blatant ignorance, note to others: he is not worth responding to, considering he can not grasp the simple concept that without evidence there is not need to consider it in an equation.



This is the same baseless argument theists continue to make in their desperate attempts to defend their beliefs. They go on and on about trying to disprove something where there is no evidence for it in the first place.

I'm not worth responding to? Aww, the poor little athiests are getting frustrated...

You cannot grasp the concept that the evidence for God is all around you. You're stepping on it! There is more evidence for God than any other thing in existence.

And, to address your tired old "can't prove a negative" argument. You can prove a negative, just eliminate all the other possibilities.

Good luck with that.

 

[Popeyesays]

I'm not worth responding to? Aww, the poor little athiests are getting frustrated...

You cannot grasp the concept that the evidence for God is all around you. You're stepping on it! There is more evidence for God than any other thing in existence.

And, to address your tired old "can't prove a negative" argument. You can prove a negative, just eliminate all the other possibilities.

Good luck with that.

We stand on it. We breath it. We see it, taste it, touch it, hear it and perceive it with our material and spiritual eye all the time.

Every atom of matter or pico-erg of energy that we can perceive is a token of God for us.

To deny it is ridiculous, but some would consider folly a badge of honor.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

"Unto every discerning observer it is evident and manifest that had these people in the days of each of the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth sanctified their eyes, their ears, and their hearts from whatever they
had seen, heard, and felt, they surely would not have been deprived of beholding the beauty of God, nor strayed far from the habitations of glory. But having weighed the testimony of God by the standard of their own knowledge , gleaned from the teachings of the leaders of their faith, and found it at variance with their limited understanding, they arose to perpetrate such unseemly acts. Leaders of religion, in every age, have hindered their people from attaining the shores of eternal salvation, inasmuch as they held the reins of authority in their mighty grasp. Some for the lust of leadership, others through want of knowledge and understanding, have been the cause of the deprivation of the people."

Baha`u'llah, Kitab'i Iqan, pp. 10-11

 

[rojse]

Show me a scientist who claims to not be able to know what he doesn't know.

Scientists often question what they do not know, and even question what they do.

Scientists have never claimed, or tried to claim, that they can prove or disprove the presence of God, for example. Apart from that, currently, they do not believe that they can discuss what occured before the Big Bang. I think those are the only thing that they cannot claim to know. Someone tell me either if I am wrong, or have more to add to that.

Your facts aren't facts.

Show me one aspect of God that differs from gravity.

The difference between God and gravity is that have designed and built a machine that is able to detect the presence of gravity. Should this device not work, then we know that we need to reformulate our current ideas on gravity.

Where is a machine that can detect the presence of God? It doesn't have to be built, you merely specify what materials and equipment you need so that someone can build it should the equipment be available (it does not currently have to, but all of the equipment required needs to have it's own specifications on how to be constructed, at least).

Please do not try to claim that our senses can detect God. I want equipment that is independent of personal psychology to be able to detect this, which allows the proof to be examined by whomever chooses to examine it.

I have said this before in this thread, but never received an adequate response.

 

[rojse]

We stand on it. We breath it. We see it, taste it, touch it, hear it and perceive it with our material and spiritual eye all the time.

Every atom of matter or pico-erg of energy that we can perceive is a token of God for us.

To deny it is ridiculous, but some would consider folly a badge of honor.

Regards,
Scott

If everything is God, why don't you just call God the Universe?

Second, if God is the entire Universe, how can you know that God is present or not, considering that he must be present at every single moment?