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.
By way of background, I was born Catholic, but in my 20's walked away from all forms of religion and became a non-believer. Why? I just couldn't swallow such fantastic flights of fantasy, and so many disconnects in logic and rationality without at least some substantive, verifiable evidence. I don't believe in Santa Claus, BTW, for the same reasons I don't believe in any god or creator etc., or a "life" after death, re-birth, reincarnation etc., of any type. There simply isn't, in my experience, any evidence whatsoever.
However, I am open to new information, and would ask if anyone has any direct evidence, please present it.
Two basic standards apply:
1. It has to be verifiably true
2. It has to have direct evidentiary value. IOW, it has to speak directly and substantively to the premise that there is, in fact, a god.
BTW, no dogma-as-evidence or anecdotal submissions - only real "stuff" that can be verified.
You ask for direct evidence of life after death but you place heavy restrictions on it. Well, there is no direct evidence but there is some suggestive evidence. Only enough to warrant further investigation though. I have had my own 'experiences' that have made me wonder.
I researched the internet and came away with 'not enough evidence' and I'm not talking about God but simply about the continued existence of consciousness after death. I suspect that you are not going to find any evidence for the existence of any god. The only 'evidence' I found for any god are quotations from a book - the same book we are trying to prove. That just doesn't work for me.
Joseph Campbell was once at a pool at a Catholic college, and he was talking to a man who was also wearing just swim trunks. The man said he was a priest at a nearby church and that he also taught literature at the college. He asked Campbell if he was a priest, and Campbell said "no Father, I am not a priest." The priest asked Campbell if he was Catholic, and Campbell replied "no Father, I am not a Catholic." The priest then asked Campbell if he believed in a personal God. Campbell was impressed that someone FINALLY asked that question the right way and gave a qualifier for the nebulous word "God." Campbell said "No Father, I do not believe in a personal God."
The priest smiled and said "and I suppose you believe there is no evidence for a personal God?" At which point the great Joseph Campbell said "Father, think about it. If there was any evidence, than what would be the value of Faith?"
It is faith, not evidence, that powers most religions. If you don't believe in faith as a philosophical concept, than obviously you will reject religion. But I never understand that to be a cohesive argument, as everyone has faith, unless you are solipsist and a moral relativist, but most atheists nowadays don't seem to be (I miss the Nietzsche style atheists, at least they were fun and consistent)
or
2) It wasn't meant to be taken literally, and most of us religious folks don't take all the Myths literally.
Either one of those replies, or a mixture of both. That is why I believe. Don't agree? I don't care because I don't believe in converting "the evvvvvvilllllll" none believers to my religion. I honestly don't care what other people believe as long as they don't impose it on anyone. Just stating my own reasons.
Joseph Campbell was once at a pool at a Catholic college, and he was talking to a man who was also wearing just swim trunks. The man said he was a priest at a nearby church and that he also taught literature at the college. He asked Campbell if he was a priest, and Campbell said "no Father, I am not a priest." The priest asked Campbell if he was Catholic, and Campbell replied "no Father, I am not a Catholic." The priest then asked Campbell if he believed in a personal God. Campbell was impressed that someone FINALLY asked that question the right way and gave a qualifier for the nebulous word "God." Campbell said "No Father, I do not believe in a personal God."
The priest smiled and said "and I suppose you believe there is no evidence for a personal God?" At which point the great Joseph Campbell said "Father, think about it. If there was any evidence, than what would be the value of Faith?"
It is faith, not evidence, that powers most religions. If you don't believe in faith as a philosophical concept, than obviously you will reject religion. But I never understand that to be a cohesive argument, as everyone has faith, unless you are solipsist and a moral relativist, but most atheists nowadays don't seem to be (I miss the Nietzsche style atheists, at least they were fun and consistent)
or
2) It wasn't meant to be taken literally, and most of us religious folks don't take all the Myths literally.
Either one of those replies, or a mixture of both. That is why I believe. Don't agree? I don't care because I don't believe in converting "the evvvvvvilllllll" none believers to my religion. I honestly don't care what other people believe as long as they don't impose it on anyone. Just stating my own reasons.
Joseph Campbell was once at a pool at a Catholic college, and he was talking to a man who was also wearing just swim trunks. The man said he was a priest at a nearby church and that he also taught literature at the college. He asked Campbell if he was a priest, and Campbell said "no Father, I am not a priest." The priest asked Campbell if he was Catholic, and Campbell replied "no Father, I am not a Catholic." The priest then asked Campbell if he believed in a personal God. Campbell was impressed that someone FINALLY asked that question the right way and gave a qualifier for the nebulous word "God." Campbell said "No Father, I do not believe in a personal God."
The priest smiled and said "and I suppose you believe there is no evidence for a personal God?" At which point the great Joseph Campbell said "Father, think about it. If there was any evidence, than what would be the value of Faith?"
It is faith, not evidence, that powers most religions. If you don't believe in faith as a philosophical concept, than obviously you will reject religion. But I never understand that to be a cohesive argument, as everyone has faith, unless you are solipsist and a moral relativist, but most atheists nowadays don't seem to be (I miss the Nietzsche style atheists, at least they were fun and consistent)
or
2) It wasn't meant to be taken literally, and most of us religious folks don't take all the Myths literally.
Either one of those replies, or a mixture of both. That is why I believe. Don't agree? I don't care because I don't believe in converting "the evvvvvvilllllll" none believers to my religion. I honestly don't care what other people believe as long as they don't impose it on anyone. Just stating my own reasons.
I am not so much inquiring about religions, per se, but the existence of a god, creator etc. Personally, I find no value (except negative) in believing Lies as Truth, Fiction as Fact and Fantasy as Reality. I do, however, find that many of the lessons of Christianity to be of value - often great value. I just don't see how people want to spend ETERNITY in a world built by the same creep who supposedly built this one.
By way of background, I was born Catholic, but in my 20's walked away from all forms of religion and became a non-believer. Why? I just couldn't swallow such fantastic flights of fantasy, and so many disconnects in logic and rationality without at least some substantive, verifiable evidence. I don't believe in Santa Claus, BTW, for the same reasons I don't believe in any god or creator etc., or a "life" after death, re-birth, reincarnation etc., of any type. There simply isn't, in my experience, any evidence whatsoever.
However, I am open to new information, and would ask if anyone has any direct evidence, please present it.
Two basic standards apply:
1. It has to be verifiably true
2. It has to have direct evidentiary value. IOW, it has to speak directly and substantively to the premise that there is, in fact, a god.
BTW, no dogma-as-evidence or anecdotal submissions - only real "stuff" that can be verified.
The God I perceive is verifiably true. There is direct evidence for the existence of the God I perceive.
NOTE: "G-O-D" is not limited to just Religious Deities.
Again, "evidence" in what sense? And if there is "no evidence" than the question becomes, as I stated, if there was "evidence", what would be the value of faith? Faith with evidence is, by its nature, not faith.
Pointing to "no scientific evidence" as a "gotcha!" for religion is like pointing to a lack of water as a "gotcha!" for the existence of a desert. The fact that there is no concrete evidence is the point.
And you can, as I said, make the argument that it is philosophically wrong to believe something without evidence, but I have yet to see that argument carry much cohesion.
And so it begins....
An analogy: when Carlos Gracie studied martial arts, he wanted to find a way to adapt his small, short frame for fighting. And he figured it out: there were a lot of great standup fighters, but when the fight was taken to the mat, the rules were different and none of those boxers or karate fighters could match him. And thus Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu was born.
In a debate on theology, philosophy is the mat and "New Atheism" is the helpless boxer. Just as an ability to jab or cross wont help you on ground, "scientific evidence" and "data" are of no help when it gets down to philosophy.
Yes there is no evidence....AND THAT IS WHY IT IS AWESOME.
I am not so much inquiring about religions, per se, but the existence of a god, creator etc. Personally, I find no value (except negative) in believing Lies as Truth, Fiction as Fact and Fantasy as Reality.
Define reality.
Quote:
I do, however, find that many of the lessons of Christianity to be of value - often great value. I just don't see how people want to spend ETERNITY in a world built by the same creep who supposedly built this one.
Well, Gnostics like myself are not fans of said creep. Granted, we don't take it literally, but still, there is that.
And the lessons, for some, like myself, make themselves true by their value. It doesn't have to have actually happened to make the lesson any less valid.
For example: go back to kindergarden. You may have been told "Tommy has three apples. He eats two. How many apples does Tommy have now?" Does the fact that "Tommy" may never have existed in any way invalidate the lesson of the story, that 3-2=1?
All religious myths are lessons. And for me the factual nature of the narratives are irrelevant.
I am not so much inquiring about religions, per se, but the existence of a god, creator etc. Personally, I find no value (except negative) in believing Lies as Truth, Fiction as Fact and Fantasy as Reality. I do, however, find that many of the lessons of Christianity to be of value - often great value. I just don't see how people want to spend ETERNITY in a world built by the same creep who supposedly built this one.
I assume that you are of the opinion that the tools of science are capable of dealing with your questions. You are an empiricist and think that what we can measure and investigate scientifically is all there is to reality. That is why you fail to understand God. Our science is limited to investigating less than 5% of our entire reality. The remaining 95+% is comprised of unmeasurable dark energy and dark matter, meaning we don't have a clue what they actually are but there is a lot of it. I would suggest that you be a little less certain of the composition of our reality and allow for the existence of God. That does not necessarily mean the Bible God as usually described.
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.
