Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
There's a difference between having a different opinion and wanting to fight about it. I have a different opinion than you, but I do not want to fight about it.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Only your religion is right. Justification please!?
- Thread starter futureplanet
- Start date
There's a difference between having a different opinion and wanting to fight about it. I have a different opinion than you, but I do not want to fight about it.
futureplanet
Member
I see. This is a religious forum, but you are offended if I try to understand how people maintain religiosity. Maybe I should ask in a cooking forum instead?
Wow... I'd like to say I know your type, very but fortunately I don't meet anyone that cynical and judgemental. (you might want to read up some passages on judgement in the bible)
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
It seemed more to me that you were the one trying to pick the fight. But if that is how you want to debate then that is, of course, your choice.
Last edited:
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
I don't like debating. It gets too adversarial.
JustWondering
Jerk
This does not adress the OP. All you are saying with this is that you are content to ignore the points futureplanet brought up. Then you critizize him for daring to post a thread in a religous debate forum.
JustWondering
Jerk
This thread is in the religious DEBATE forum. FYI
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
So it is.
I don't believe that, and I'm Hindu. Lots of Hindus don't believe that, either. You're describing a Vaishnavite story that not all Vaishnavites believe.
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of the universe. Who knows then whence it has arisen?
Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows - or perhaps he does not know.
-Rig Veda 10:129:6-7
I suggest you take the time to actually study religions.
I don't need to justify my religion being the only one that's right, because I don't believe that.
Whosoever worship Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path.
-Srimad Bhagavad-Gita 4:11
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Not if one considers empirical evidence to be the measuring stick by which we define reality, no. There is no empirical evidence that there is such a thing as a god.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
"I don't like debating."
It can be frustrating, yes; but it is really worth it.
"It gets too adversarial."
I would only suggest that you try not to take it too personally. Head butting is going to happen here, but at the end of the day it is only debate.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Thank you for quoting Nasadiya The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda. I commented on it but I was to lazy to look it up.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I didn't know the existance of God was a scientific question. News to me...
I wonder what all the theistic well to do scientist think about this...
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
There is no emperical evidence there isn't........I know I know....law of silence?Not if one considers empirical evidence to be the measuring stick by which we define reality, no. There is no empirical evidence that there is such a thing as a god.
No serious scientist even ponders over using science to answer such a question. Guys like Victor Stinger, Hitchens, Harris, etc. make arguments against the existence of God.......but has nothing to do with science and how emperical evidence is normally used.
Alceste
Vagabond
For a non-believer you're awfully specific and insistent about what it means to believe. Maybe you don't know anything about it, and if you would like to understand how a believer's mind works you should listen and learn rather than explain to the rest of us how it has to be.
Alceste
Vagabond
stephenw, much like the vast majority of the world's theists, is not an idolator of the Bible or any other book. So, your question is not very relevant when it comes to his beliefs.
Alceste
Vagabond
Not if one considers empirical evidence to be the measuring stick by which we define reality, no. There is no empirical evidence that there is such a thing as a god.
Theistic belief is experiential and emotional: you either have religious experiences that theism helps you to explain or you don't. Empiricism doesn't enter into it any more than it enters into the equation when you fall in love or enjoy a piece of art.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
That is because the concept of god in for instance the Bible is an unfalsifiable proposition and not because they wouldn't be willing to.
Actually it has everything with how science and empirical evidence is used.
In science one relies on empirical evidence to know what is, and if something, say, Faeries, does not have positive evidence of their existence, one logically assumes that no such creature exists until said evidence surfaces.
God, in this respect, is a Faerie.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Well, now you know.
There are certainly theistic scientists out there and while I don't presume to know how each and every one of them feel about this issue, I get the impression that they keep the two separate, if for no other reason then due to the fact that the proposition of whether there is a god or not is unfalsifiable.
It might be fitting thought to ask them how, exactly, they reconcile these two aspects of their lives, seeing as they are based in two diametrically opposed ways of thinking.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I am merely following the textbook definitions of what belief is. I think, if we are to discuss a subject, we should at least agree on what the terms we use actually mean.
The problem is that theism doesn't so much explain various phenomena as it tells you. And what it usually tells you is "god did it" which isn't much of an explanation.
Empiricism enters into everything that in any shape or form influences the physical world, and since I, until evidence to the contrary surfaces, hold that the physical world is all there is, then logically empiricism enters into everything.
The mechanisms of what we call love as well as why we find certain things appealing or not is also being empirically researched and empirical evidence is building up.
So yes, even love, despite how we romantizise it, can be empirically explained.
blackout
Violet.
And yet so many of us do NOT subscribe to the same,
or even remotely similar definitions.
So why must we all agree to your "terms"?
You can put limitations on your conversation if you like,
force only certain definitions,
but then do not use that conversation
to draw "blanket" conclusions about the subject at large.
If you narrow the conversation,
you must also narrow your conclusions.
If you want to broaden the conversation,
to include varrying viewpoints
you will then also have to broaden your conclusions.
It is intellectually dishonest to box in a conversation
and then draw broad and sweeping conclusions.
It is intellectually dishonest
to force and limit definition
in order to "prove" your own position.