More - what is in my head stays in my head and dies when the body dies. All else is what I make of existence - given the gifts or lack of such I might have.No "mind is meat" in your philosophy .. hence you are free to do as you please.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More - what is in my head stays in my head and dies when the body dies. All else is what I make of existence - given the gifts or lack of such I might have.No "mind is meat" in your philosophy .. hence you are free to do as you please.
Probablity which is a logic subject. Numbers do not prove anything as you know in logic that is a fallacy but they sometimes predict what can be. For instance Sheffield has won six golf tournaments this year. That means it is probable he may win another. The thing is you are not willing to accept the testimony of witnesses as fact but the fact that the witnesses agree tends to lend to their credibility.That's the ad-populum fallacy and it is not logic in my view.
I believe most of the time it is a materialistic view. That was the case with my wife until she encountered a demon through a Ouija board.Welcome everyone
Welcome everyone
What makes a person believe that there is no God? Is it an evasion of responsibility, is it due to cultural and technological progress, or is it scientific progress in general?
My main (though rarely used) argument for a spiritual dimension underlying the material-causal reality is the repeatability of transcendent and immanent experiences through mind-harnessing techniques like meditation or absorptive prayers and the life changing effects thereof (in a positive way). As an instrumentalist of James's bent, I find that to be sufficient to assert these to have truth values associated with them...as James himself did.I have noticed that poll's with this kind of question shows that most in this forum who are active are either Atheists or Agnostics. Actual religious people who believe in a God in a religious forum are the minority. It's not strange.
A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic and it has been discussed for a long long time. Yet, it seems to be ignored and a lot of times the cart is shoved before the horse for whatever anti religious argumentation deemed needed.
Belief in God could stem from logical reasoning. Philosophical argumentation. Religions and scriptures are not absolutely necessary. I believe people should go to fundamentals rather than banking on peripherals to kill God. I think that's exactly what Nietzsche said being an Atheist with nihilistic tendencies.
What do you say??
Good evidence is whatever evidence convinces you of a proposition or claim is true. Good evidence is different for different people because people have different ideas of what good evidence is. I don't think there is good evidence for the existence of god and others do.What do you mean "good evidence"?
That second sentence is an ad populum fallacy and is unrelated to the first one.believe Math is a form of logic and I believe logic is taught as a Math class. So logically speaking the fact that so many people say that God exists makes it more likely that He does exist.
And this is also an ad populum fallacy.The thing is you are not willing to accept the testimony of witnesses as fact but the fact that the witnesses agree tends to lend to their credibility
Maybe-probably is redundant there. This should say "Sheffield has won six golf tournaments this year. He may win another and probably will." You don't need to express uncertainty twice in the same clause. Here, I've put them into two different independent clauses.Sheffield has won six golf tournaments this year. That means it is probable he may win another.
That's not truth. That's a faith-based, unfalsifiable ("not even wrong") belief, and doesn't qualify to be called correct, knowledge, fact, or truth. You're guessing. The atheist is the person who chooses not to do that.I have 100 percent Faith in God. The world is controlled by Satan so it is confused and does not have any knowledge of the truth ... The God I believe in is Jehovah God, The creator of the world and life. The unbeliever is blinded by the god of this age who hid's them from the gospel of Christ so they cannot see the truth. That is Satan. Satan is the god that rules the world till Jehovah God is ready to destroy him and those who do not believe in God. The end is very soon.
What responsibility do you think we have to guess about gods? I would consider that irresponsible, and a logical error - this time, non sequitur: your claim does not follow from any sound argument. There is no sound argument that ends, "therefore God."What makes a person believe that there is no God? Is it an evasion of responsibility,
You know. Anything better explained by positing a god than the naturalistic alternative. The evidence I've seen offered is the world itself and its complexity, scriptural prophecy, and medieval scholastic arguments for gods. None of those make gods more likely. The prophecies are weak and the arguments all successfully refuted. And naturalistic explanations are preferred to supernaturalism (principle of parsimony in hypothesis making) for which there is no evidence, either.What do you mean "good evidence" [for a god]?
You don't know that. It's very possible that souls are a fiction and that we only have the illusion of free will.If we were all soulless robots .. but we are not.
Is this the latest creationist apologetics meme, like "I just can believe in goo to zoo to you." (abiogenesis and evolution)? Very pithy, like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist""mind is meat" in your philosophy
Are you saying this so called "good evidence" is subjective? It's relative?Good evidence is whatever evidence convinces you of a proposition or claim is true. Good evidence is different for different people because people have different ideas of what good evidence is. I don't think there is good evidence for the existence of god and others do.
What is a "naturalistic explanation" in your paradigm?And naturalistic explanations are preferred to supernaturalism
Of course I do .. so do you.You don't know that..
Impossible .. it is a contradiction to suggest that you or I are not responsible for what we post onIt's very possible that souls are a fiction and that we only have the illusion of free will.
Irrelevant how "the machine" operates .. we are all unique individuals.Mind appears to be an epiphenomenon of brain.
I don't need it to .. in fact I would be more than happy to be 'obliterated' forever .. andBut you reject that because you need mind to survive death..
Again, I don't "need it to be" .. if you cannot comprehend, then so be it...just like you need free will to be compatible with omniscience..
Mumble, mumble .. and nothing more than unenlightened boasting.Here's the power of empiricism and the relative weakness of faith-based belief. You know that in your daily life. It's how you learned where to eat to find a meal you will like. If your belief gets you to a good meal, we can say that because it allowed you to anticipate how the evening would go correctly, the idea can becalled knowledge and thatit has practical value.
The English word God was used by the pagans before the Christians. It means to pour/libate. Most people seem to think God is a name for a specific Biblical god, Jehovah. The result is most people don't understand the very simple concept of a god as being anything mighty/venerated. Sticks, stones, flags, statues, the supernatural, mortal men, idols.
You do know this is the year 2024, right?
Reverential capitalization can apply to various deities and rulers, so what is God to one person may only be a god to another person. Charles is a king, not my King, Jehovah is God, not an atheist's god. So, atheists tend to think that God or god means supernatural, creator, sky fairy when it just means anything perceived as particularly mighty and respected (venerated). They think they don't have any gods because they don't go to church or believe in the supernatural. Supernatural just means we don't understand it. Whales and giant squid once were thought to be supernatural like mermaids and leprechauns.
So, atheists tend to think belief and faith is ignorance when it is their own ignorance that may be an issue. For example, that a god or God has to literally exist. The Romans had a word like our god, but they didn't use it much unless in plural form because they used names for gods. So, they would have asked does Zues exist or Saturn exist rather than do gods exist, by definition an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. That is problematic in two ways, 1. Which God and 2. gods don't have to literally exist. You can argue that God, contextually in occidental culture is specific, the most commonly known Biblical God, but you can't argue that the Shinto Amaterasu was thought to literally exist. She was an admittedly invented deity for the training of Japanese youth.
The sacred pole (grove, Asherah, Judges 3:7) of the pagans is the same as a nation's flag, so, the JWs won't pledge allegiance to the flag. People don't understand that a god can be a natural or manmade object. They have that limited application of sky fairy. Who or what are the gods which don't allegedly exist in the definition of atheist? If there is no such thing as God is there such a thing as Lord? God means mighty/venerated. Lord means having authority, often granted. Godfather. Landlord.
Yes. I explained why too.Are you saying this so called "good evidence" is subjective? It's relative?
I cannot list off of the arguments and evidence I have considered. It has been many. If you have evidence to present please present it and I will evaluate it. Epistemology is a big subject. What do you want to know?Anyway, when you say you don't think there is good evidence for the existence of God, what evidence are you talking about? What has been presented to you? What's your epistemology? If you don't that, there is no point speaking about evidence. First you should have your epistemology in place to ask that question. Otherwise it's not a responsible question. That lacks epistemic responsibility.
Yes, this is correct. I am from a mostly Muslim country. I find some Muslims or Muslims from the other Tawaf. I highly doubt they are Muslims because they practice pagan rituals and do strange things that are not found in the Quran or anything related to it. There are also some Christians in this situation, and in the two cases you mentioned, my friend, they do not do what their religion dictates to them. Rather, they do what their beliefs dictate to them, which sometimes contradicts religion, but they claim that it is from the origin of religion, and this exists in many cases, so people are confused as to which of them is right, such as suicide, for example. , For example. In suicide operations, for example, it is forbidden to kill oneself in this or any other way. According to the Qur’an. Even if he killed himself in defense of himself or his country. Whoever kills himself, God will punish him as if he killed someone else. But what the Qur’an does not forbid is death in battle only at the hands of aggressing enemies or those who have committed high treason. Or a person. He wants to kill you or rob you, or he wants to attack your family or someone else. If he is killed in this case, he is a martyr, but he must defend himself, and it is not permissible for him to kill himself for fear of falling into their hands or blowing himself up among them, for example. This is not permissible as stated in the Qur’an, and if they kill him, this is his fate, and he does not have to kill himself. But there are Muslims who do not prohibit killing oneself, even though it is forbidden in Islam. You also find some people exploiting religion just to get money or fame.يبدو أن البعض يتجاهل دينهم الخاص عندما يناسبهم ذلك ـ مثل أن يمتلك ثروة رخيصة أو يستخدم للترويج لمعتقداتهم. وهناك كثيرون يعيشون وفقًا لما يمليه عليهم دينهم على ما يبدو، ولكنهم ببساطة يعيشون في وهم وخطيرة ـ مثل طالبان ـ أو أولئك الذين يوضحون التمييز ضد الآخرين بسبب قضايا جنسية/جنسانية مختلفة، ويمكن لأن نص دينهم الخاص يفرض ذلك عليهم.
الكون هو مجرد شيء غير معروف حقًا، بعيدًا عما يظهره لنا العلم، ولكنه بالتأكيد واسع جدًا - وهو أمر كبير إذا لم توجد حياة في مكان آخر أو إذا كان هناك يزعجنا نحن البشر نظرًا لمواجهة مجرد ذرة من الغبار.
لماذا نضيع الوقت في التفكير في أشياء قد لا نعرفها أبدًا - بدلاً من التفكير في الأشياء التي يمكن معرفتها؟
Do you think someone could develop a scientific test to test the existence of God?Yes. I explained why too.
I cannot list off of the arguments and evidence I have considered. It has been many. If you have evidence to present please present it and I will evaluate it. Epistemology is a big subject. What do you want to know?
We don't have key witnesses such as the Roman soldiers who most probably buried what was left of Jesus in a mass grave in my view, we only have second hand stories by those who disagreed on the details.Probablity which is a logic subject. Numbers do not prove anything as you know in logic that is a fallacy but they sometimes predict what can be. For instance Sheffield has won six golf tournaments this year. That means it is probable he may win another. The thing is you are not willing to accept the testimony of witnesses as fact but the fact that the witnesses agree tends to lend to their credibility.
It's the issue at hand regarding souls and disembodied minds.Now, you might not think that there is "a ghost in the machine", but that is neither here nor there.
That person is that, too - a fleshy individual with a mind.When we speak to somebody, we are addressing the person, and not a piece of meat.
You don't understand the argument against the existence of libertarian free will, but that's deliberate. You can't make a man understand what he has a stake in not understanding.it is a contradiction to suggest that you or I are not responsible for what we post on this site. It is no illusion.
That was a response to, "Mind appears to be an epiphenomenon of brain. But you reject that because you need mind to survive death"I don't need it to .. in fact I would be more than happy to be 'obliterated' forever
Intuition is all you have in support of your religious beliefs.All you have is your intuition that you are right .. no more. Human intuition is no match for logical proof.
That was in response to, "Here's the power of empiricism and the relative weakness of faith-based belief. You know that in your daily life. It's how you learned where to eat to find a meal you will like. If your belief gets you to a good meal, we can say that because it allowed you to anticipate how the evening would go correctly, the idea can becalled knowledge and that it has practical value."Mumble, mumble .. and nothing more than unenlightened boasting.
Maybe, It makes sense to me that if a god interacts with our universe it would be possible to develop a scientific test to detect that god.Do you think someone could develop a scientific test to test the existence of God?
No. Science's axiom is methodological naturalism. So you are making a category error.Maybe, It makes sense to me that if a god interacts with our universe it would be possible to develop a scientific test to detect that god.
The atheist's usual position is that there is not sufficient evidence for believing that God or gods exist apart from social or personal constructs of human mind and civilization.This is me thinking just off the top of my head on the subject of atheism and gods, I am equally if not more critical of the traditional theist perception because it's more theological tradition than Biblical. So, the JW Bible, in my opinion is better than the more traditional "scholarly" translation. You have to ask yourself what school did Moses or Isaiah go to learn Hebrew, or Matthew and John go to learn Greek? Ironically believers alike seem to have their favored scholars, and while the skeptics have disdain for faith, they have an appeal to authority when it comes to credentials so long as the scholars agree with them. Words like credentials and credible come from the Latin word credit which means belief, trust. Faith.
The English word God was used by the pagans before the Christians. It means to pour/libate. Most people seem to think God is a name for a specific Biblical god, Jehovah. The result is most people don't understand the very simple concept of a god as being anything mighty/venerated. Sticks, stones, flags, statues, the supernatural, mortal men, idols.
Reverential capitalization can apply to various deities and rulers, so what is God to one person may only be a god to another person. Charles is a king, not my King, Jehovah is God, not an atheist's god. So, atheists tend to think that God or god means supernatural, creator, sky fairy when it just means anything perceived as particularly mighty and respected (venerated). They think they don't have any gods because they don't go to church or believe in the supernatural. Supernatural just means we don't understand it. Whales and giant squid once were thought to be supernatural like mermaids and leprechauns.
So, atheists tend to think belief and faith is ignorance when it is their own ignorance that may be an issue. For example, that a god or God has to literally exist. The Romans had a word like our god, but they didn't use it much unless in plural form because they used names for gods. So, they would have asked does Zues exist or Saturn exist rather than do gods exist, by definition an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. That is problematic in two ways, 1. Which God and 2. gods don't have to literally exist. You can argue that God, contextually in occidental culture is specific, the most commonly known Biblical God, but you can't argue that the Shinto Amaterasu was thought to literally exist. She was an admittedly invented deity for the training of Japanese youth.
The sacred pole (grove, Asherah, Judges 3:7) of the pagans is the same as a nation's flag, so, the JWs won't pledge allegiance to the flag. People don't understand that a god can be a natural or manmade object. They have that limited application of sky fairy. Who or what are the gods which don't allegedly exist in the definition of atheist? If there is no such thing as God is there such a thing as Lord? God means mighty/venerated. Lord means having authority, often granted. Godfather. Landlord.