Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Heyo]

As a sidenote.... lately you seem to fall back quite frequently on the attitude that says "I don't care that I'm incorrect", especially when face with pointes that tend to be a bit more challenging. Just like you did here again.

I mean, they've basically abandoned any argument that their beliefs are justified and are hedging their bets on the fact that sometimes - rarely, but not never - claims that we just pull out of our butts wind up being coincidentally true even though we had no reason to presume that they would be.

Why do you still argue when it is obvious that you do indeed agree?
One of the questions that arouse from the OP as a side thread was "is belief in the supernatural rational?". You all agree that the answer is "no".
I think that is a great outcome of a debate when there is a conclusion and agreement.

You, @TagliatelliMonster and @9-10ths_Penguin, are now shifting the goalposts to a value judgement "is irrationality a bad thing?" instead of first acknowledging the found common ground.

I can appreciate @Conscious thoughts position which is so rare among believers. He is humble enough to concede that his belief isn't rational and wise enough to know that that is only a problem if one values rationality above spirituality.

 

[Sheldon]

And more importantly, in light of this specific point, an "independent witness" would then have to be someone with no priori knowledge of the religion at all, who then witnesses to something unique of the religion.

But when millions of people get educated in the same religion and they all read the same "holy book" and they all grow up in the same religious culture.... it is hardly surprising that many of them will make similar claims. And that would be the absolute opposite of "independent" off course............

Well I was speaking of court rooms as that was the context of course, but if it is extended to religious claims how can anyone rule out outright chicanery?

The canonisation of that awful and sadistic Albanian nun, known as Mother Teresa, has as many examples of outright chicanery, that religions use to falsify claims for miracles, as anyone could wish for.

The Shroud of Turin, has been properly tested, and found to be a medieval fake, created by nuns. The catholic church alone has sold so much forgery and used such chicanery since they first started selling the bones of saints, and splinters from the cross, one is stunned that anyone takes anything they claim at face value.

Is anyone really so gullible as to accept so called eye witness testimony at face value, without any corroborating empirical evidence? If so I have some magic beans I was planning to make a casserole out of, but I think they are just begging for a new home.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you still argue when it is obvious that you do indeed agree?
One of the questions that arouse from the OP as a side thread was "is belief in the supernatural rational?". You all agree that the answer is "no".
I think that is a great outcome of a debate when there is a conclusion and agreement.

You, @TagliatelliMonster and @9-10ths_Penguin, are now shifting the goalposts to a value judgement "is irrationality a bad thing?" instead of first acknowledging the found common ground.

I can appreciate @Conscious thoughts position which is so rare among believers. He is humble enough to concede that his belief isn't rational and wise enough to know that that is only a problem if one values rationality above spirituality.

Sorry - what are you trying to drag me into?

 

[Heyo]

Sorry - what are you trying to drag me into?

Sorry, should have looked better into the context of your post. Mea culpa, carry on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is anyone really so gullible as to accept so called eye witness testimony at face value, without any corroborating empirical evidence?

Absolutely, I am.
If enough people say that something "odd" is going on, I will investigate further.
I don't expect them to show me G-d. Why should I?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Is anyone really so gullible as to accept so called eye witness testimony at face value, without any corroborating empirical evidence?

Absolutely, I am.
If enough people say that something "odd" is going on, I will investigate further.

You said yes, then contradicted yourself by saying you'd investigate further? Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and that is before we factor in the people's propensity for exaggeration, things like false memories, and of course outright duplicity and chicanery. I don't know why you're still making bare appeals to numbers, since you know they have no relevance to the validity of the claim.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know why you're still making bare appeals to numbers, since you know they have no relevance to the validity of the claim.

I'm not. There is nothing "bare" about what I believe.
Evidence comes in all sizes, shapes and forms..

..whereas your evidence that the Abrahamic G-d doesn't exist
is one of "if you can't show me Go-d"

 

[night912]

Of course they are irrational.

I can prove a negative, "Sheldon didn't put butter in the fridge" by simply opening the fridge and having a look.

Actually, Sheldon did put the butter in the fridge, I took it out right before you went and checked the fridge. Don't worry, I'm giving you another chance to prove that negative again. Round 2, start.

You are claiming that NOWHERE in the UNIVERSE is POSSIBLY a God, which is a statement of eyes big enough to see the whole fridge (omniscience) and is utterly, of course, irrational.

I didn't make that claim. Now please prove that negative.

I'd consider you rational if you were agnostic or just like me, a lover of Jesus Christ, or somewhere between.

Since you already considered me as being rational because I'm an agnostic when it comes to the existence of extraterrestrials, what's point of your rambling?

And I'd consider you to be intellectually honest if you were to address the points and/or claims that people actually said instead of continually repeat strawman aarguments, especially after those people have clarified their points and told you that your assumptions were not what they actually mean. I'm open to reconsidered my position once you start showing some honesty and maintain that honesty.

 

[night912]

Absolutely, I am.
If enough people say that something "odd" is going on, I will investigate further.
I don't expect them to show me G-d. Why should I?

So are you saying that you don't accept, that's why you are going to do further investigation? Or are you saying that you accept their testimony but it's just not sufficient evidence enough to convince you?

Why do further investigation to see if something odd is actually really going on? Didn't you accept their testimony?

Absolutely, I am.
If enough people say that something "odd" is going on, I will investigate further.
I don't expect them to show me G-d. Why should I?

Why, you asked? Aren't you doing further investigations? Perhaps the reason could be that by accomplishing that act, it'll greatly help you with your investigation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or are you saying that you accept their testimony but it's just not sufficient evidence enough to convince you

If somebody claims that a certain phenomena is true, I would seek independent evidence from that person. I would also consider if their claim was feasible etc.

Perhaps the reason could be that by accomplishing that act, it'll greatly help you with your investigation.

I am well aware that it is not an everyday occurance that G-d speaks to us with a loudhailer from the sky, for example.

It is more subtle than that, as G-d has given us a conscience. We are not totally in the dark.
Being "unaware of G-d" is due to our own egos.
That is what I discovered in my "investigations".

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not. There is nothing "bare" about what I believe.

In that post you made a bare appeal to numbers, here it is again then.

↑
Is anyone really so gullible as to accept so called eye witness testimony at face value, without any corroborating empirical evidence?
↑
Absolutely, I am.
If enough people say that something "odd" is going on, I will investigate further.

Evidence comes in all sizes, shapes and forms..

Yet all you have is bare subjective claims.

..whereas your evidence that the Abrahamic G-d doesn't exist
is one of "if you can't show me Go-d"

Is that what you're reduced to, inventing straw man claims I've never made, in order to reverse the burden of proof, and adding emojis at the end..oh dear

 

[Sheldon]

Is anyone really so gullible as to accept so called eye witness testimony at face value, without any corroborating empirical evidence?

Absolutely, I am.

If somebody claims that a certain phenomena is true, I would seek independent evidence from that person.

You said you'd accept eye witness testimony at face value?

 

[night912]

As a sufi it is the inward "spiritual" that is important and one hold as few attachments to the physical world as possible.

Are those physical or mental(spiritual) attachments?

By keeping the physical and spiritual as two separate worlds, one cannot see the aattachments that they are holding on to and why.

Seeing and accepting that there is only one reality, is what helps one to see the clarity in one's life. It's this clarity in my life that made me see that your statement below is meaningless.

you see life as this physical existence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Are those physical or mental(spiritual) attachments?

By keeping the physical and spiritual as two separate worlds, one cannot see the aattachments that they are holding on to and why.

Seeing and accepting that there is only one reality, is what helps one to see the clarity in one's life. It's this clarity in my life that made me see that your statement below is meaningless.

In my life, there are still attachments both to this physical world I am in now, and probably in the wish to only exist in the spiritual world.
But it is a part of the practice to understand how to let go of those attachments. Both in this physical world and in the spiritual one.

It is maybe a meaningless comment to you and that is ok.

 

[night912]

If somebody claims that a certain phenomena is true, I would seek independent evidence from that person. I would also consider if their claim was feasible etc.

So you don't eyewitness testimony at fac ea value?

I am well aware that it is not an everyday occurance that G-d speaks to us with a loudhailer from the sky, for example.

It is more subtle than that, as G-d has given us a conscience. We are not totally in the dark.
Being "unaware of G-d" is due to our own egos.
That is what I discovered in my "investigations".

Not necessarily, because our unawareness of something can be due to ignorance, deception, mistakes and probably more. However, the ego does/will make one see things that are not actually there. And I think that far more dangerous than being unaware. Believing that one's self to be greater than what it really is due to the ego, can hurt you physically and mentally.

 

[night912]

It is maybe a meaningless comment to you and that is ok.

Apparently, you see it to be meaningless as well.

In my life, there are still attachments both to this physical world I am in now, and probably in the wish to only exist in the spiritual world.
But it is a part of the practice to understand how to let go of those attachments. Both in this physical world and in the spiritual one.

And your biggest and strongest attachment is your attachment to your old beliefs. The unwillingness to let go of your attachment to your old wronged beliefs is one of the hardest to let go.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Apparently, you see it to be meaningless as well.


And your biggest and strongest attachment is your attachment to your old beliefs. The unwillingness to let go of your attachment to your old wronged beliefs is one of the hardest to let go.

There are certain attachments that are more difficult to let go of for sure.
I do not let a nonbeliever tell me what I should or should not believe as a sufi. That is a meaningless task from their part.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is that the God you're claiming exists?

No, but that would be one of several hundred logical responses to what you wrote:

"I always find it strange when theists retreat to "yeah, but you can't prove my god doesn't exist!""

You actually CANNOT prove my God doesn't exist . . . without omniscience (for example, your point implied that there may have been a God who was active on the Earth but not now active).

You are either an agnostic or an omniscient atheist, omniscience making you a god, eliminating atheism yet again.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It implies the same about undetectable dragons and graviton fairies.[snip].

Yes, and Shakespeare said it best, "more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Omniscience implies you know there are neither dragons nor gods anywhere, but your omniscience makes you god, so you must be an agnostic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, Sheldon did put the butter in the fridge, I took it out right before you went and checked the fridge. Don't worry, I'm giving you another chance to prove that negative again. Round 2, start.


I didn't make that claim. Now please prove that negative.


Since you already considered me as being rational because I'm an agnostic when it comes to the existence of extraterrestrials, what's point of your rambling?

And I'd consider you to be intellectually honest if you were to address the points and/or claims that people actually said instead of continually repeat strawman aarguments, especially after those people have clarified their points and told you that your assumptions were not what they actually mean. I'm open to reconsidered my position once you start showing some honesty and maintain that honesty.

Can you name something in the universe of knowledge that nearly everyone believes falsely (other than God/metaphysics) or not? It's not only a simple question, it allows you to name anything in the known universe.