Why do you say" you have to prove your personal faith and beliefs"

[mikkel_the_dane]

So are you claiming that there are a variety of gods and true religions?

No, you have to understand that they words mean something other that they do to you.
You are in effect a physicalist. But not all humans think like that.

 

[KWED]

Well, the question"prove it" does come up every day in RF, a bit tired of it

You do realise what religious debate forums are designed for? They are not ideological echo chambers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s indeed a two way street, and in most civilised societies people who meet in the street don’t barge each other out of the way because they are coming from opposite directions.

Neither do they constantly walk on eggshells because someone might take offense for what are essentially harmless things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There's a difference between feeling offended by a comment and a comment being made with the purpose to offend.

If someone expresses a belief that isn't based on evidence and I then point out that it's irrational to believe things without evidence, then perhaps you may take offense.
Perhaps that is your problem and not mine.

Evidence that it is irrational to believe things without evidence. You have made a normative claim and not stated a fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So are you claiming that there are a variety of gods and true religions?

He has never claimed truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neither do they constantly walk on eggshells because someone might take offense for what are essentially harmless things.

That is subjective and not science and without evidence. Live up to your own standard.

 

[KWED]

Most of the time that question comes up is when God and God existence is mention, you don't often use those words, as far as I know

If people say thinks like "I don't know if a god exists" or "A god may or may not exist", they are unlikely to find anyone asking them to prove it.
However, if they publicly claim that a god does exist, people are going to want some sort of evidence, especially if a person claims that there is evidence.
It's a pretty straightforward concept.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If people say thinks like "I don't know if a god exists" or "A god may or may not exist", they are unlikely to find anyone asking them to prove it.
However, if they publicly claim that a god does exist, people are going to want some sort of evidence, especially if a person claims that there is evidence.
It's a pretty straightforward concept.

But he hasn't claimed that.

 

[KWED]

He has never claimed truth.

Excellent. Because I never claimed he did.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, if you read up on logic, you will learn that the world can't be explained in strong positive logical terms. In other words you get paradox and contradiction.

I've been reading a little about Logical Positivism vs Scientific Realism, in Adam Becker's excellent history of quantum physics, entitled "What is Real?"

Each of these competing philosophies of science inevitably ran up against the paradox of perception, and the impossibility of neutrally observing external reality as it exists, independently of the process of observation.

It follows that any fully objective perspective of the natural world must, by definition, be supernatural. A God's eye view, as it were, a consciousness capable of knowing the true nature of the universe from within and without. Does such a consciousness exist? Millennia ago, the writers of Vedic scripture certainly thought so.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Neither do they constantly walk on eggshells because someone might take offense for what are essentially harmless things.

No, they hopefully negotiate a middle path, based on mutual respect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is what I say yes.
Braking the physical law could be done if a person develop what sometimes are known as extraordinary abilities, clairvoyant and so on.

First off: this sounds like a testable claim.

Second: if you were right, then those physical laws wouldn't be laws at all.

Physical laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. They're inferred from observation about how the world behaves.

Effectively, you've said that you have evidence showing that supposed physical laws have been violated. If that were true, then we would need to rewrite our descriptions of those laws, because you have shown that they're inaccurate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The more I see that categorization aporoach, the less I like it.

It's so monotheistic-centric (even with the little tacked-on "(s)"). And I really wish that whoever decided to make a neologism meaning "the opposite of 'agnostic'" used a word that didn't already have its own meaning.

It also perpetrates the myth that there's no middle ground between "lack of belief with no knowledge claims" and "asserting that there's proof that God does not exist."

The whole thing's a dog's breakfast, honestly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Excellent. Because I never claimed he did.

So are you claiming that there are a variety of gods and true religions?

Yeah, failed at basic English.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've been reading a little about Logical Positivism vs Scientific Realism, in Adam Becker's excellent history of quantum physics, entitled "What is Real?"

Each of these competing philosophies of science inevitably ran up against the paradox of perception, and the impossibility of neutrally observing external reality as it exists, independently of the process of observation.

It follows that any fully objective perspective of the natural world must, by definition, be supernatural. A God's eye view, as it were, a consciousness capable of knowing the true nature of the universe from within and without. Does such a consciousness exist? Millennia ago, the writers of Vedic scripture certainly thought so.

Well, yes, the only theoretical being capable of being fully objective is God. From there doesn't follow that God exists or not, but rather that such objectivity is an idea and not a fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If people say thinks like "I don't know if a god exists" or "A god may or may not exist", they are unlikely to find anyone asking them to prove it.
However, if they publicly claim that a god does exist, people are going to want some sort of evidence, especially if a person claims that there is evidence.
It's a pretty straightforward concept.

In my experience - at least outside RF - people tend to just nod along and accept it uncritically when someone says that the Christian god - or a deity that Christians identify with - exists, or that there's justification for belief in that god.

OTOH, any sort of non-acceptance of that god tends to be met with challenges for justification... even if the non-believer is just saying "I'm not convinced" without asserting any claims of their own.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Bedrock? There are no absolute statements, so the test is, does it work?

An area in which reasoned skeptical enquiry excels. But Ssh! Don't tell @mikkel_the_dane.

Absolutely.

“Does it work?” is perhaps a more useful question than “is it right?” or “is it real?”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my experience - at least outside RF - people tend to just nod along and accept it uncritically when someone says that the Christian god - or a deity that Christians identify with - exists, or that there's justification for belief in that god.

OTOH, any sort of non-acceptance of that god tends to be met with challenges for justification... even if the non-believer is just saying "I'm not convinced" without asserting any claims of their own.

Well, the problem of the post you answered is that it didn't happen in this thread by the thread starter.
All you got out of it was a non-religious person claiming that was wrong to even believe in a god. Of course that is not science, but rather a sort of moral or normative claim. But that doesn't matter, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely.

“Does it work?” is perhaps a more useful question than “is it right?” or “is it real?”

Yeah, I am pragmatist of sorts as a global skeptic. I have beliefs that apparently work. But that is not allowed according to the believers in facts and all that jazz.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When I write a new OP, in my mind i asking believers, waiting mostly for their answer and thoughts, that some few non-believers chose to come with a a attack or silly coment, that is their choice, does not seem like those few non-believers are interested in any form for dialog, only to make fun of believers.

Sometimes I feel that the believer wants with all their heart to assume that a nonbeliever's comment is just "silly" - when in reality it is meant to (and often does) shed light on a flawed way of thinking that renders many believers' "points" about their beliefs or what they feel is some form of "profound truth" moot and meaningless. But again, the believer wishes to just hand-wave it away and assume that the nonbeliever "just doesn't understand." This is, at least, what I often see.