I'm pretty sure there's no god now

[Unveiled Artist]

Everyone thinks they follow the true religion.

So far none provide any credible evidence of even being partially correct.

According to who? Each person feel its true because it is our reality. We have our own standards for what correct means.

What objective standards would you use to find evidence youd consider credible?

 

[aoji]

Why a benevolent deity allows this to be a regular thing.

Because there is no "take-out" restaurants for alligators - much less fire, stoves, microwaves or supermarkets. Same goes for any animal other than Man. Even birds eat other birds, fish eat other fish, insects eat other insects, ... Do they have consciousnesses?

Obviously you are sensitive to violence; you find it abhorrent. In such a case Reason will not serve you well. You want the whole world to be Reasonable and Reality proves Reason incorrect (not "wrong," mind you.)

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What objective standards would you use to find evidence youd consider credible?

Predictive power and application.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Because there is no "take-out" restaurants for alligators - much less fire, stoves, microwaves or supermarkets.

Why not? If a benevolent God exists, then maybe he should give crocodiles those things.

I think comments like the one you make severely miss the point. We're talking about the notion of a benevolent, omnipotent creator who can do anything and provide anything. Saying stoves and microwaves don't exist for crocs, doesn't answer my question at all. That's what it is, a question.

It answers my question just fine if we're to assume there's no benevolent, omnipotent, creator. But my question is addressed to those who do believe in one.

I personally don't believe in one, so a lack of natural restaurants, stoves etc... fits in to my world view just fine. But I'm curious how the harshness of nature fits in to the world view of people who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent, creator.

Obviously you are sensitive to violence; you find it abhorrent. In such a case Reason will not serve you well. You want the whole world to be Reasonable and Reality proves Reason incorrect (not "wrong," mind you.)

I'm not sure how being sensitive to violence (particularly gore) makes me unreasonable. Being reasonable and being sensitive to violence aren't conflicting mindsets.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I know what you mean, but it's all relative ..
Who suffers more? An oppressed human being or an animal who dies a natural gruesome death?

I would say the human, as the suffering can be for years, whereas the animal suffers for probably less than a day .. perhaps less than an hour.

True, but pointing out that humans do worst things than what may happen in the wild, doesn't really undermined my point. I never said humans don't do worse things than what happened in the video I posted.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Predictive power and application.

HuH?

 

[Koldo]

Life involves a lot of suffering and pain. Deal with it.

Oh the irony.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Nothing evil about dinner time.

I don't even like the word evil. I prefer not to use it.

That's why I use words like "harshness", "suffering" etc...

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

HuH?

No offense, but the fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about, shows you need to learn a lot more about scientific processes. It explains why you think there's no possible way to objectively find and recognize evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

The fact of the matter is, there's plenty of ways to objectively find evidence. Just because you're unaware of how to do that, doesn't mean it's impossible. Evidence has to be consistent among a body of other evidence. It has to form theories. And the theories have to make predictions. The theories have to have practical application. That's how you objectively determine evidence and see what evidence points too.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No offense, but the fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about, shows you need to learn a lot more about scientific processes. It explains why you think there's no possible way to objectively find and recognize evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

The fact of the matter is, there's plenty of ways to objectively find evidence. Just because you're unaware of how to do that, doesn't mean it's impossible. Evidence has to be consistent among a body of other evidence. It has to form theories. And the theories have to make predictions. The theories have to have practical application. That's how you objectively determine evidence and see what evidence points too.

Back up.

I just asked a simple question. What does @outhouse use to base his our evidence on to judge what others say is credible?

It has nothing to do with you.

I am not a "believer" and dont insult me.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I just asked a simple question. What do you base your objective evidence on to judge what others say is credible?

I base it on consistency, predictive power, and application (what can be put into practice).

If someone's belief lacks evidence, is inconsistent, or makes predictions that turn out untrue (or doesn't make predictions at all), then it's not credible. And if it yields no practical application, then that also suggests it's not credible. That's how science works.

I am not a "believer" and dont insult me.

I never said you were. And I apologize if you feel insulted, but unless you know what those things I mentioned were, then I advice that you learn about them, if you wish to learn know how to find and determine credible evidence.

 

[Yerda]

Oh the irony.

Why is this ironic?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I base it on consistency, predictive power, and application (what can be put into practice).

If someone's belief lacks evidence, is inconsistent, or makes predictions that turn out untrue (or doesn't make predictions at all), then it's not credible. And if it yields no practical application, then that also suggests it's not credible. That's how science works.



I never said you were. And I apologize if you feel insulted, but unless you know what those things I mentioned were, then I advice that you learn about them, if you wish to learn know how to find and determine credible evidence.

I didnt ask you. I asked Outhouse.

I am very simple minded. I know nothing about science. I base some things on "objective" criteria. In religion, you have to base evidence on "subjective" criteria because religion is Not scientific.

You have to look from the other person's point of view. If it does not make sense to science, that does not mean it is wrong "in a religious context".

As long as you keep solving religion like a science or math problem, youd never get the answers you are satisfied with.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh the irony.

How so?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If it does not make sense to science, that does not mean it is wrong "in a religious context".

Of course not, because no religion has any concept of being wrong, apart from whatever notions come from outside that religion. If it's in their scripture, it's right, unquestionably.

As long as you keep solving religion like a science or math problem, youd never get the answers you are satisfied with.

No one here is trying to "solve" religion (not sure what that even means). Rather, we're testing it against reality. The thing is. religion makes claims about the world. That warrants tests for and against it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course not, because no religion has any concept of being wrong, apart from whatever notions come from outside that religion. If it's in their scripture, it's right, unquestionably.



No one here is trying to "solve" religion (not sure what that even means). Rather, we're testing it against reality. The thing is. religion makes claims about the world. That warrants tests for and against it.

It doesnt warrant it. Thats a personal decision to try to find evidence of religious claims. It shouldnt be important because he problem isnt religion, its some of the people. Disproving their religion as if their religion is not based on edit how you view reality is a never ending battle.

Why do it?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It doesnt warrant it. Thats a personal decision to try to find evidence of religious claims. It shouldnt be important because he problem isnt religion, its some of the people. Disproving their religion as if their religion is not based on edit how you view reality is a never ending battle.

Why do it?

I suppose "warrant" isn't the right word. But the burden of proof is whoever makes a claim, including a religious claim.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I suppose "warrant" isn't the right word. But the burden of proof is whoever makes a claim, including a religious claim.

Logical, yes. Reasonable? I guess it depends on the person. I personally don't like trying to figure out if a basic math problem: say 2 + 2 + ___ = X and go around it by puting Orange, Apple, Zebra in the blank spot thinking some day one of these words (tests for evidence something is correct) will magically prove 2 + ___ is X.

In other words, you know Zebra, Orange, etc doesnt fit in that equation.

You know that believers are not going to give you the answer for X. It's, by nature, a mystery.

You know that these words are not even used for mathematic equations and solutions.

So, basically, you are using science (Zebra, Orange, Apple) to compare what believers call evidence X and are not satisified that they keep saying X and you keep using the same criteria for solving their problem.

I just don't get it. They hold the burdon of proof, yes. However, the equation is theirs not yours (unless you are a believer as well)

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I just don't get it. They hold the burdon of proof, yes. However, the equation is theirs not yours (unless you are a believer as well)

I didn't know equations belonged to people. Equations are there for anyone who wants to solve them. What exactly don't you get? Why I'm challenging religion? Being critical of it? That's how I am of any and all things.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I didn't know equations belonged to people. Equations are there for anyone who wants to solve them. What exactly don't you get? Why I'm challenging religion? Being critical of it? That's how I am of any and all things.

Equation is theirs not yours : They hold the burdon of proof.

It get's tiresome watching people ask for evidence for something by definition can't be defined in scientific terms. Annoys me.