• 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!

To the Anti-Religious

T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
DarkSun said:
But such a claim, by its very nature, is based on absolutely zero empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
Absence of evidence is evidence. The reason we dismiss ideas of fairies, bigfoot, leprechauns, etc. is because the lack of any evidence for them is sufficient evidence to dismiss them.

It is an assumption made about reality based on one's individual perception. Sure, there is a lack of evidence for God's existence, but there is also a lack of evidence against it. So it remains an assumption.
Click to expand...
I see the world and do not see any god concept within it. I have also examined numerous claims of evidence and argumentation presented for all sorts of god concepts and none have held up. Seems reasonable to conclude none of those god concepts exist. Calling this an assumption is a little disingenuous on your part given how much you have to debase what the word ‘assumption’ means.

What I am against, however, is the absolute refusal to admit that belief in God is equally justified by the available empirical evidence (or rather, the lack thereof).
Click to expand...
And yet this same logic applies to my computer example – but you will still turn your computer on despite it being equally justified (using your logic) to believe it will explode. You don’t believe your own logic here.

To claim that all theists are using inferior logic to atheists in believing in God, when both perceptions of the world are in fact equally logical (scientifically), is arrogance at its worst. It reaks of bigotry.
Click to expand...
You don’t believe your own logic when it is applied to your computer – so does that make you a bigot too? Or does it just mean that you recognise, on some level, that there is a problem with the logic?

So forgive me for not replying, but the alternative is repeating myself, which would frustrate both of us. So let's just not go there.
Click to expand...
I’m happy to take your continued posting as evidence that you see the problem when the same logic is applied to your computer.

Here is that example in case you forgot:
1) You have no proof that your computer won’t explode the next time you post here.
2) Since you require faith to believe your computer will not explode it is equally justified to believe that your computer will explode.
3) Assuming you are rational, you would not commit and act that has a 50% chance of you getting seriously injured/
Click to expand...
 
Commoner

Commoner

Headache
Madhuri said:
As a theist I freely admit that I have no real scientific evidence for the existence of Divinity. I do not wish to make absolute claims that God does exist because I can admit that I may be wrong. In truth, all I have is subjective feelings and perspective. For me, love and life and consciousness is what draws me to God concept. Those are the things that are of greatest mystery and wonder to everyone. So as far as defining God, I see Him as those three things. But I would not claim that I understand what God is.

So what I have is this: a yearning for something greater than random nothingness and a yearning to discover it. So I lead my life with the assumption that such a 'greater' exists because for me it must. Even if I am wrong, I have made this the meaning in my life and the purpose.

I do not think that anyone should make absolute statements either way and I do not think that any person should be kept from a life that has become their meaning and purpose. Science and subjective perception cannot always collaborate and i do not think that scientists can really tap that perception. Neither do I think it always should.
Click to expand...

On this subject, there is only one difference between us as far as I can see. I have the same feelings and emotions, the same wants and needs, the same seemingly inexplicable experiences. The difference is, once I've realized that I can't explain them, I don't feel any need to label them as "god". I make no assumptions about them, I simply try my best to find explanations and when I can't - I can live with the uncertainty. I think that once you label things as "god" you stop looking for explanations and can be made to accept a lot nonsense that does not really follow from your experiences. I wonder what the person who first claimed god to be omnipotent could have really experienced to have claimed that. Did that really follow from the experience? I think there are a lot of examples like this and that's why I dislike the concept of god that seems to mean completely different things to different people, yet everybody uses it as if it meant the same thing - it doesn't.

I don't agree completely with your statement that no person should be kept from a life that has become their meaning and purpose. I would add a bit of small print: as long as it does not negatively affect others.
 
Last edited:
Madhuri

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Commoner said:
I don't agree completely with your statement that no person should be kept from a life that has become their meaning and purpose. I would add a bit of small print: as long as it does not negatively affect others.
Click to expand...

I must have edited out that but because I did originally write that! I completely agree.

I also partially agree about using the term 'God' because it generally had conotations to Abrahamic conception. But I do still use it because I am still refering to that thing from which everything originates. But I do not wish to define what that thing is because I cannot possibly know.
 
OmarKhayyam

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
"But I do not wish to define what that thing is because I cannot possibly know."

Can you explain the difference between something that cannot BE known and something that is non-existent?
 
Madhuri

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
OmarKhayyam said:
"But I do not wish to define what that thing is because I cannot possibly know."

Can you explain the difference between something that cannot BE known and something that is non-existent?
Click to expand...

When I say that I cannot possibly know I mean that I cannot in my current power be able to fully understand the nature of God, not that God in unknowable. I rely on the possiblity of discovering God but right now I cannot know and so I cannot make claims of define.
 
OmarKhayyam

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
Madhuri said:
When I say that I cannot possibly know I mean that I cannot in my current power be able to fully understand the nature of God, not that God in unknowable. I rely on the possiblity of discovering God but right now I cannot know and so I cannot make claims of define.
Click to expand...

DWOD

Or in the immortal words of Don Rumsfeld, "We don't know what we don't know.";)
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Commoner said:
I was arguing the point that if there was no evidence at all for either position - either for the existance or the "inexistance" of something (as stated by DarkSun) - then it is not equally justified to believe (or rather, it's more justified to believe in the "inexistance"). Not that, if you can't prove it to me - you shouldn't believe it; and not that theists have no evidence - that wasn't my claim.

Look back at what DarkSun has been saying and you'll see what I meant.
Click to expand...
Your claim is still illogical. If there is no evidence, then there is no basis upon which to draw any conclusions. You can't get around that. And if you reach a conclusion, anyway, you have done so on faith, because you have no evidence.
 
Commoner

Commoner

Headache
PureX said:
Your claim is still illogical. If there is no evidence, then there is no basis upon which to draw any conclusions. You can't get around that. And if you reach a conclusion, anyway, you have done so on faith, because you have no evidence.
Click to expand...

It's not a conclusion - it's a rejection of any and all specific conclusions - on principle. I didn't say it was logical or conclusive, I said it was resonable - I was only arguing it on practical terms. The premise itself - that atheists claim to know that there is no god - is false anyway. So is the premise that theists think that there is no evidence for god - take yourself, for example. But anyway,

of course, even someone without any evidence and without any reason to pick a specific event could have made a lucky guess. Would you say it's equally resonable - in the dice case - to claim that it was a six or to claim it wasn't a six? What if there were a hundred possibilities instead of six? A million?

If you do think it's equally (un)resonable, I'd love to play some poker with you sometimes. :)
 
Last edited:
Just_me_Mike

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Would you claim that everything that exists is knowable?
Click to expand...
Not to everyone.
For example, it may be impossible for some to know the answer exist to this problem
the solution of ax2+bx+c=0 is


So we find here we live in a world where many things exist that are not knowable to everybody, but to others it can be known.
 
O

Onkara

Well-Known Member
itwillend said:
Not to everyone.
For example, it may be impossible for some to know the answer exist to this problem
the solution of ax2+bx+c=0 is


So we find here we live in a world where many things exist that are not knowable to everybody, but to others it can be known.
Click to expand...

Good question, good point.
Yes, everything is knowable at the absolute level.
At the relative level we still need to learn how to know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top