Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That conversation, of course, will just boil down to Nah Nah, MY book is RIGHT and YOURS is WRONG.
And THAT, Ladies and Gents, is religion in a nutshell.
No religion ever devised has any more claim to "The Truth" than any other, but people will bicker and even war with each other over groundless, infantile supernatural nonsense.
And THAT, Ladies and Gents, is religion in a nutshell.
No religion ever devised has any more claim to "The Truth" than any other, but people will bicker and even war with each other over groundless, infantile supernatural nonsense.
In the meantime, atheists will continue to boast their baseless claims of nonsense.
In the meantime, atheists will continue to boast their baseless claims of nonsense.
And those "baseless claims of nonsense" consist of not believing in gods because there is no evidence of their existence.
How outlandish!
Meanwhile, your completely rational and informed claim is that a god named Yahweh who was one of the patron dieties of some sects of ancient Hebrews magically poofed the universe into existence in under a week's time a few thousand years ago and anyone who disagrees with you is being misled by demonic forces.
And those "baseless claims of nonsense" consist of not believing in gods because there is no evidence of their existence.
How outlandish!
Meanwhile, your completely rational and informed claim is that a god named Yahweh who was one of the patron dieties of some sects of ancient Hebrews magically poofed the universe into existence in under a week's time a few thousand years ago and anyone who disagrees with you is being misled by demonic forces.
Right on!
1. Science has limitations. It can not be used to prove everything. So just because science can not prove a spiritual world doesn't equate to proof that God does not exist.
2. There are countless anedotal evidences out there. If that's not good enough for you, that's your problem, not mine.
3. Lack of evidence does not equal proof of non-existence. If your non-belief is merely opinion, that's fine. Once you start claiming it is fact then the burden is on you.
1. Science has limitations. It can not be used to prove everything. So just because science can not prove a spiritual world doesn't equate to proof that God does not exist.
We have no idea if science can and cannot prove everything. Scientists continue to learn and make new discoveries. You are correct that they cannot prove that God does not exist.
I have long stated that atheism takes as much faith as any other belief system because we simply do not know. That may change at some point but at the moment we cannot know.
1. Science has limitations. It can not be used to prove everything. So just because science can not prove a spiritual world doesn't equate to proof that God does not exist.
2. There are countless anedotal evidences out there. If that's not good enough for you, that's your problem, not mine.
3. Lack of evidence does not equal proof of non-existence. If your non-belief is merely opinion, that's fine. Once you start claiming it is fact then the burden is on you.
Yep, science does have limitations. It accepts the limitations and does not really try to prove that anything (much less god) does not exist.
Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence for anything. Look at the fact that in science anecdotal evidence often indicates things are true that are untrue when you look at the statistical evidence.
Types of anecdotal evidence include claiming non-factual information based on the experiences of a few people, stories that would seem to contradict factual information, and word of mouth recommendations. This type of information isn’t always poorly intended or untrue, and we base a lot of decisions on anecdotes. For instance, you might want to find the best dry cleaner in town and ask a few friends to recommend someone. You usually don’t have time to perform true scientific testing on this by looking at a range of data.
Quote:
Where anecdotal evidence gets very problematic, though, is when people make decisions that may affect their health or well-being based solely on it. For instance, there are many herbal medications and alternative medical theories and treatments that people decide to use largely based on anecdote. Now sometimes a preponderance of this evidence may suggest that there’s a good reason to try different things, but unfortunately many of these alternative treatments and therapies are not just there for the health and happiness of humans. People who offer them are profit motivated too.
The problem is that anecdotal evidence often seems much more compelling than dry statistics. Man seems to have a tendency to impart information in the form of a story. This is often known as the availability heuristic and leads to arguments like "Smoking's not dangerous. My mother smoked 40 cigarettes a day and lived to 90."
As to the last part, atheists do not claim that lack of evidence is equal to proof of non-existence. We do, however, require that you give us positive (non-personal, non-anecdotal) evidence that supports your belief.
We have no idea if science can and cannot prove everything. Scientists continue to learn and make new discoveries. You are correct that they cannot prove that God does not exist.
I have long stated that atheism takes as much faith as any other belief system because we simply do not know. That may change at some point but at the moment we cannot know.
First time I've ever had common ground with you!
How does "not knowing" require faith? Do you require faith to conclude that 2 + 2 = 4? No. Simply evaluating facts is not considered faith. Therefore one needn't have faith to be an atheist.
How does "not knowing" require faith? Do you require faith to conclude that 2 + 2 = 4? No. Simply evaluating facts is not considered faith. Therefore one needn't have faith to be an atheist.
Agreed. Faith, by definition, is believing something without supporting evidence. Unbelief, on the other hand, is declining to believe something without supporting evidence (where "supporting evidence" is something more than anecdotes or quotes from holy books or imagining how something you really wish were true could be true).
It gets tiresome to keep explaining that declining to believe due to insufficient evidence is not the same as claiming that what is on offer to be believed is untrue. Certainly if you disbelieve in something you don't think it very likely, but neither are you claiming omniscience or omnipresence, and your'e certainly still open to new data. My standards for new data are too high for many theists, but probably not rigorous enough for most scientists. But I do not have any faith based beliefs about god because I am not a theist.
1. Science has limitations. It can not be used to prove everything. So just because science can not prove a spiritual world doesn't equate to proof that God does not exist.
I've said this many times.
Quote:
2. There are countless anedotal evidences out there.
Such as what? People claiming they hear God? People who are sick getting better? What is this evidence of which you speak?
Quote:
3. Lack of evidence does not equal proof of non-existence.
I've said this many times.
Quote:
If your non-belief is merely opinion, that's fine. Once you start claiming it is fact then the burden is on you.
I've never claimed it is a fact. What I've claimed is a fact (and my claim that this is, in fact, a fact, is completely accurate) is that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god or gods. Not now, nor has there ever been. Much less is there any evidence that some specific god (such as Yahweh, or Ra, or Shiva, or Odin) is "real." That's nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
Yep, science does have limitations. It accepts the limitations and does not really try to prove that anything (much less god) does not exist.
Precisely.
How would science, or a scientist utilizing the scientific method even begin to try to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a god or gods? (Or anything else for which there is no evidence, nothing to observe, etc.)
Can you imagine a scientist stating "I am going to set out to prove that there is no galactic-sized purple alien with the head of Elvis Presley and the body of a lobster hiding in the malfaxidicious dimension 37 controlling our destinies." ???
It makes no sense. Science proceeds from observable phenomenon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
