U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-19-2017, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Arcadia area of Phoenix
249 posts, read 138,245 times
Reputation: 351

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
There is physical evidence all around you. And that is the beauty of the creation. Just look at how many variations there are of the human face. Probably thousands. Yet every other animal species all pretty much look exactly like their kind. Give me a room of chimps and they all pretty much look the same. Same hair, same nose, same lips etc...

Until science can create life from non-life then atheists live by even more faith.

Wait a minute.
You're saying human beings are the result of divine creation because of all the variations, but animal species aren't the result of creation because they all look the same?
That makes absolutely no sense. If you believe in creation then who or what created dogs, cats, horses, elephants, monkeys, reptiles, all the various bird species and sea life?
You still haven't provided physical proof or any facts that a so-called god exists. This god you believe in has never once proven he or she or it exists either.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2017, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,931 posts, read 8,394,310 times
Reputation: 15515
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Are you saying you DO know that there is no after life?
No, but without ANY evidence, why would you believe in an afterlife?

If you have a positive belief in something, you should have some reason for having this belief. You seem to imply that lacking belief also requires a reason.

That makes no sense at all. Do you believe in the giant pink vampire bunny in your closet? Whupy not? Are you saying that you KNOW there isn't a giant pink vampire bunny?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 06:40 PM
 
4,410 posts, read 1,639,451 times
Reputation: 1528
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
No, but without ANY evidence, why would you believe in an afterlife?

If you have a positive belief in something, you should have some reason for having this belief. You seem to imply that lacking belief also requires a reason.

That makes no sense at all. Do you believe in the giant pink vampire bunny in your closet? Whupy not? Are you saying that you KNOW there isn't a giant pink vampire bunny?
Again, are you saying you DO have an evidence that there is no after life?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,931 posts, read 8,394,310 times
Reputation: 15515
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Again, are you saying you DO have an evidence that there is no after life?
Read the very first word in the very first sentence of my post.

Care to respond to my point?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 07:00 PM
 
4,410 posts, read 1,639,451 times
Reputation: 1528
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
Read the very first word in the very first sentence of my post.

Care to respond to my point?
I did.

You seem to ask me why do I believe in something without evidence?

And I am asking you the same.
You said you do not have an evidence yet you believe that there is no after life.

Why do you believe without evidence that there is no after life?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 07:00 PM
 
13,473 posts, read 4,982,321 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
I think this is where you either purposely or unconsciously come out as blind folded from one side. Why don't you see the flip side of the coin?

There are MANY believers who have spent their entire lives working for the benefit of fellow human beings.

Lots of charity work, donations, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, orphan houses, shelter for homeless, building of hospitals, animal shelters, volunteer work in disastrous areas, providing free education and free medical care to needy, and quite a few things.

Why don't you be generous enough to give credit where due to all those religious people and believers who have stepped up and did their part of doing what's good and beneficial for others?

I think its "human nature".

Be it a group of religious people, a bunch of politicians, a group of doctors, a group of Atheists, a group of teachers, policemen, social workers, Asians, Americans, European, Japanese, blacks, whites, Browns ...,,,, no matter what group you look at, you will ALWAYS find good and bad people.

So it's not only what religion brings to you, but also it's what YOU bring to religion. And this philosophy can be applied to any group.

We have a human nature that has the capacity of doing a lot of good, and also doing a lot of bad.

It's then up to each individual as to which route he wants to take regardless of whether he comes up as a religious person or an Atheists, or a doctor, or a policeman, or Japanese or whatever.
yes, this is a different topic for me. I am not anti-religion because when i do a risk vs benefit the numbers just don't jive for me to be anti-religious. The control component, charity component, and the hope component are good stuff. Those good components are abused, that's true enough, but overall not enough to swing anti-organized group of people sharing the same experience.

For me, small religion is fine so I can't be anti-religion. I am anti-big religion. But I am anti big companies too. I mean real big, not tri state stuff.

My problem is with people that do not understand that blind faith rules out commonsense. I don't trust people that tell others to use blind faith and follow me. I am more of a "this is the data we have, what does it look like to you" type. commonsense based faith is fine.

The issue for me is using base facts to form a solid foundation axiom from which you build a reasonable belief system. The belief and axiom must be flexible enough to change when new information arises that warrant that change.

I don't see that in the leaders of many belief statement based groups.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 07:03 PM
 
10,519 posts, read 12,730,813 times
Reputation: 3864
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I still don't buy it. Though I could be wrong, of course. The way thinking is now, the books of law (Numbers, Deuteronomy, Leviticus) were first and certainly setting out rules and procedures required by authorities. It is suggested it was Omri and his priestly advisors, produced the Laws. Then we get the historical polemics of Kings and Samuel. These are histories written to prove, really, that Israel's god was the only one that mattered and was rooting for he Tribe of Hebrews -when he wasn't punishing them.

Then after he had punished them by obliterating the two northern states and exiling the Judeans, the creation and Exodus were written to show how the Hebrews were really the Urtext, and by implication leaders and rulers, of all mankind.

All this was reflecting a political agenda as much (or more than) as one person writing History, like a Greek or Roman, or being inspired to set down God's truth.

The Bible we have has two agendas (1) the OT says that God favours the Jews. (2)the NT says 'Not any more -he favours the gentiles'.
I do think that the "laws" in those books, or some form of them, must have been the oldest part. But even those books have narratives about Moses and his gang interwoven. So the laws were compiled into the larger story about their origins coming from Moses. Or else *similar* laws were written in that might have been a parody of the original laws.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 07:11 PM
 
13,473 posts, read 4,982,321 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Are you saying you DO know that there is no after life?
No, neither do you. So whats the next step?

How about we list the reasons we feel our conclusions are valid, or more valid?

my belief of "no more me" is because nobody has ever can back and there is no "coherent group of interactions" that has been seen that represents past people.

Your belief is based on "we don't know so I believe in afterlife."

what one is a more reasonable conclusion?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,931 posts, read 8,394,310 times
Reputation: 15515
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
I did.

You seem to ask me why do I believe in something without evidence?

And I am asking you the same.
You said you do not have an evidence yet you believe that there is no after life.

Why do you believe without evidence that there is no after life?
You are the person making a positive claim, therefore you have the burden of proof.

Put another way, we have every reason to believe that there is no afterlife. We haven't seen it. We haven't measured it. We don't have any proof that it exists. Therefore not believing in something that we haven't seen or experienced makes sense.

Yon the other hand, you have belief in something that you haven't seen, and have no evidence for. That simply makes no sense.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2017, 07:33 PM
 
39,028 posts, read 10,819,276 times
Reputation: 5081
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
I did.

You seem to ask me why do I believe in something without evidence?

And I am asking you the same.
You said you do not have an evidence yet you believe that there is no after life.

Why do you believe without evidence that there is no after life?
The logic is: if you have no evidence of a particular claim (there is an apple in the box, your wife is cheating on you, there is an afterlife) you do not believe the claim until you have some good evidence that it is true.
You believe your car will probably start -because it usually does. Though one cannot be 100% sure. You don't believe your house will fall down as generally they don't, unless a very alarming builders' report is evidence that it could do so.

That's the way it works, and believing something without convincing evidence as likely - never mind reliable, life-changing Fact - as true until there is certain evidence that it isn't. is not how it works -not in any other aspect of life, and it shouldn't be as regards the god -claim or afterlifes.

Somene who regarded his wife's infidelity as a fact until disproven would be regarded as obsessed, irrational and bloody danngerous to society.
Quick reply to this message
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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top