Do "Believers" really believe?

[LogDog]

A number of you have asked why I and other atheists won't leave well enough alone, accept the fact that religion "is" and let believers believe. To that I will say it is religions impediment of the unrestrained progression of mankind that will compel some to be vocal in their opposition for its advancement and to question its irrational foundation.

 

[LogDog]

Oh, okay, so we started off with the lack of empirical evidence of God. (post #75) Then in the same post, science disproves the supernatural ( I assume you mean God, and his actions) on a continual basis as we find out more about our world...through empirical evidence...and now it's back to a lack of evidence( post # 85). I wish you would make up your mind whether it's science or not. Science does not deal in lack of evidence to prove anything. Ever. It's not science. Done and done.



Not scientifically. Subjectively, of course.



I believe the burden does lie on you when you claim to have evidence for the non-existence of something. I don't have the burden of proving anything to you. You, If I recall, brought up the subject.




If there is no evidence, there can be no rationality in the conclusion. If one is not given evidence, what is the reason for the conclusion? Did you just guess? Magic 8 Ball?




As well as a perfectly adequate reason to believe in it. If no evidence is given in either direction, either conclusion is just as rational.




Subjective. With no evidence, a percentage of sureness is impossible.



Yaayyy, science! You know through evidence that elephants exist. You know that your room exists. You know the size/destructive ability of an elephant .You can inspect the area of your room and conclude, there is no elephant in my room. Don't see your point.





I will repeat, if there is no evidence for something, it is just as rational to believe or disbelieve in it. Nobody believes in the pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster, because nobody really cares, and if they do, they are just as rational to believe in it as you are to disbelieve it. Sense is subjective.





Which gods? Which ancestors? What culture?

That's a huge long piece of writing, so I suggest you investigate it yourself. And not the cliff notes version . Of course, I suggest that based on if you really care to know the differences or not.





Ah, okay, I guess my summarization was correct.

~matthew.william~

Don't worry. I'm 99.999% sure our discussion hasn't caused anyone to question their faith.

 

[James the Persian]

It's a lack of evidence.

Have you ever heard the old adage 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'? It appears not as it's twice that you have raised this red herring. You claimed first that there was evidence that the supernatural did not exist and then have said that there's no evidence it does exist, which is a different argument, and one which supports those of us who say that you cannot prove it either way and does not support your case. I also have to note that you completely failed to tackle the perfectly valid point raised that by definition there cannot be any empirical evidence as to the existence of that which is not natural.

Look, you choose to view the world through the lens you have every bit as irrationally as any theist. You choose to assume that all there is is material and that there is no God whereas we choose the opposite, but there is no proof either way. These are the axioms of your system of thought and they are every bit as irreducible as the axioms of those of us who believe in a God and the supernatural. You are attempting to explain out of existence the axioms of another system by recourse to your own system based on an entirely diferent set of axioms. It's nothing more than a rather more sophisticatedly worded 'tis, tisn't' argument like I could hear in my son's primary school play ground.

James

 

[LogDog]

Have you ever heard the old adage 'Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'? It appears not as it's twice that you have raised this read herring. You claimed first that there was evidence that the supernatural did not exist and then have said that there's no evidence it does exist, which is a different argument, and one which supports those of us who say that you cannot prove it either way and does not support your case. I also have to note that you completely failed to tackle the perfectly valid point raised that by definition there cannot be any empirical evidence as to the existence of that which is not natural.

Look, you choose to view the world through the lens you have avery bit as irrationally as any theist. You choose to assume that all there is is material and that there is no God whereas we choose the opposite, but there is no proof either way. These are the axioms of your system of thought and they are every bit as irreducible as the axioms of those of us who believe in a God and the supernatural. You are attempting to explain out of existence the axioms of another system by recourse to your own system based on an entirely diferent set of axioms. It's nothing more than a rather more sophisticatedly worded 'tis, tisn't' argument like I could hear in my son's primary school play ground.

James

There's no doubt discussions such as this eventually end in a stalemate but the debate itelf may provide a service to those who are questioning what they believe.

 

[UnTheist]

Have you ever heard the old adage 'Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'? It appears not as it's twice that you have raised this read herring. You claimed first that there was evidence that the supernatural did not exist and then have said that there's no evidence it does exist, which is a different argument, and one which supports those of us who say that you cannot prove it either way and does not support your case. I also have to note that you completely failed to tackle the perfectly valid point raised that by definition there cannot be any empirical evidence as to the existence of that which is not natural.

Look, you choose to view the world through the lens you have avery bit as irrationally as any theist. You choose to assume that all there is is material and that there is no God whereas we choose the opposite, but there is no proof either way. These are the axioms of your system of thought and they are every bit as irreducible as the axioms of those of us who believe in a God and the supernatural. You are attempting to explain out of existence the axioms of another system by recourse to your own system based on an entirely diferent set of axioms. It's nothing more than a rather more sophisticatedly worded 'tis, tisn't' argument like I could hear in my son's primary school play ground.

James

Why would one waste their time believing in something they cannot see or feel? How is that irrational? Is it really a valid reason to believe in something simply because we can't prove it's non-existence?

One could believe in the Invisible pink unicorn and you would think he was crazy, but his argument would be "Try to disprove him. You cant."

 

[matthew.william]

Why would one waste their time believing in something they cannot see or feel? How is that irrational? Is it really a valid reason to believe in something simply because we can't prove it's non-existence?

Just as valid as not believing in it because we can't prove it's existence.

~matthew.william~

 

[UnTheist]

Just as valid as not believing in it because we can't prove it's existence.

~matthew.william~

I don't see it that way, but I respect your view.

Saying 'you can't disprove it' seems, to me, just an excuse to believe in something. I would really like it if God just ended the confusion and showed himself. :angel2:

 

[LogDog]

When presented with the opposing perspectives of theism and atheism, an educated individual with no prior knowledge of the concept of religion would scoff at the theistic assertion. In my opinion, of course.

 

[LogDog]

I don't see it that way, but I respect your view.

Saying 'you can't disprove it' seems, to me, just an excuse to believe in something. I would really like it if God just ended the confusion and showed himself. :angel2:

Any place religion can find a foothold, it'll fill it.

 

[UnTheist]

Any place religion can find a foothold, it'll fill it.

Erm...I don't understand, and I don't know why. Explain

 

[matthew.william]

I don't see it that way, but I respect your view.

Saying 'you can't disprove it' seems, to me, just an excuse to believe in something. I would really like it if God just ended the confusion and showed himself. :angel2:

Well it's not the only reason people believe, I'm just saying, no evidence, all views are equal in rational.

It would be nice if he just ended the confusion that way.

~matthew.william~

 

[UnTheist]

Well it's not the only reason people believe, I'm just saying, no evidence, all views are equal in rational.

~matthew.william~

I still don't agree, but I'll stop here .

 

[James the Persian]

I don't see it that way, but I respect your view.

Saying 'you can't disprove it' seems, to me, just an excuse to believe in something. I would really like it if God just ended the confusion and showed himself. :angel2:

He already did. Some people just choose to ignore that.

James

 

[UnTheist]

He already did. Some people just choose to ignore that.

James

Umm...When?

 

[Ðanisty]

When presented with the opposing perspectives of theism and atheism, an educated individual with no prior knowledge of the concept of religion would scoff at the theistic assertion. In my opinion, of course.

Explain how people become theists after being atheists.

 

[James the Persian]

Umm...When?

I think that my answer to that question will be quite obvious given my faith. Other people of other faiths will answer differently, but the point I was trying to tersely make (and which you clearly seem not to have grasped) is that for millions of people God has indeed revealed Himself and so that common plea on the part of some atheists is ridiculous. The fact is that many of those who call for such a thing wouldn't believe even if they were a witness to, say, the miracles of Christ. I've had them say as much to me. All that particular plea is is a wish that God would reveal Himself to you because you are unwilling to believe things unless you see them with your own eyes, and yet I must ask, if you saw a miracle with your own eyes, would you not instantly try to deny it? If not, may I suggest that you visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre this Pascha?

James

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So is it like those children that seem to be talking to some one whom we can't see? They truly believe their invisible friend pooky is standing right next to them.

If that were the case, how is Pooky non-existent?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Why would one waste their time believing in something they cannot see or feel? How is that irrational? Is it really a valid reason to believe in something simply because we can't prove it's non-existence?

A reasonable excuse for believing in something one cannot see or feel is desire: theists desire that belief.

Can God be felt or seen? God exists at least as an idea, and ideas can be imagined. Imagination does allow us to feel or see something that isn't necessarily experienced by others.

Is something imagined not physically existent? If it is not, then how does it exist?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

When presented with the opposing perspectives of theism and atheism, an educated individual with no prior knowledge of the concept of religion would scoff at the theistic assertion.

I don't know. Since everything is viewed in relation to the Self, viewing the Universe as such is bound to elicit feelings of divinity in some (especially romantics such as myself). Adding a consciousness to that divinity equals a form of god.

Adding a consciousness to the universe is less unreasonable than it seems. As conscious beings who form things from other things (for instance, a statue of a man from clay), it is natural to look at a universe of forms and relate it to a conscious will.

 

[LogDog]

A reasonable excuse for believing in something one cannot see or feel is desire: theists desire that belief.

Can God be felt or seen? God exists at least as an idea, and ideas can be imagined. Imagination does allow us to feel or see something that isn't necessarily experienced by others.

Is something imagined not physically existent? If it is not, then how does it exist?

Was the bible proclaiming that god exists as an idea or an "imagination" in the theatre of the mind? If you are defining existence in terms of what the human mind is able to imagine, then yes, I suppose god does exists. My question is how an "idea" or an "imagination" takes on the ability to create "heaven", earth and life itself? The "idea" of god seems to be a very complicated and a highly unlikely answer to fill the void of our scientific knowledge.