There is no evidence for GOD...but I believe anyway. (belief, behavior)
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.
Old mate, Your arguments have been debunked and yet you keep pounding the same arguments until you are - as you say - blue in the facr. They are still going to be nothing new, nothing but debunked, nothing but nothing.
Oh yes - the latest Ploy seems to be claiming that crap evidence is still evidence and (as you say) bad arguments are still 'arguments' and that it is a "lie" to say there is no evidence and no atguments. Pardon me, but that is on the shortlist of top 10 utterly dishonest theistic rhetorical tricks.
And as if it needed any further comment, a remark from the site you link as though it supported your case.
"Now, none of these arguments make a definitive case for the existence of God, and many of them are (fairly) easily debunked or problematized (as I'll try to show). But at the very least, they offer considerable food for thought. "
And you can save the conversion stories - C.S Lewis. Do me a favour? Do you think atheism doesn't have a whole slew of of deconverts from Christianity?
Certainly there are arguments, Gaps and a case for an original creator of some kind, but that is the best you got, and pretty much all you got, never mind much of the rest being evidence against. But that best is little more than a possibility, gap or unknown and unexplained as yet. It doesn't even come close to 'Evidence".
And that remains the situation so far no matter how blue in the face you get claiming that it is Evidence, Proof or even support for the god-claim. So I suggest you accept the situation and stop putting a strain on your face.
Not you again.
Show me this "debunking."
Because I have seen over and over again, that what actually happens is someone like you declares it "debunked". Heated discussion over whether it actually is debunked complete with non-arguments on both sides. Little or no proof that the thing which is said to be debunked, actually is debunked. Someone actually comes up with something that might be unassailable. The thread mysteriously closes.
One good evidence. One proof that all of this is in fact garbage evidence. Or in fact, because it is still evidence, even if garbage... prove this evidence here does not exist. I'm waiting.
Or shush.
"People may say I can't sing, but no one can ever say I didn't sing." -Florence Foster Jenkins
You cannot disprove it. So your refuge is to deny that it has validity. And then to declare invalid proofs somehow nonexistent. It's there, it happened. And it can happen again.
No, it simply made absolutely no sense. I've read and written countless papers on religion, mythology, and philosophy. I have never encountered anything as incoherent as that rant.
Quote:
But at least you admit that your Faith is irrational. In which case, why on earth are you posting to complain about us not sharing it?
If there was a person with no faith on anything, i.e., a human robot, I would have no issue. However, when someone says something tantamount to "it's absurd to believe in something with no scientific evidence, just as my beloved wife says" I have to point out the obvious hypocrisy. Why? Because the belief that one's wife is "beloved" is also based not on scientific data.
Again, every human being has irrational, non-scientific beliefs. Most people are willing to admit that. But the fedora-boys refuse to admit as such.
Quote:
Even if the often -seen claim that negative evidence doesn't count as evidence was valid, the logic is that an irrational claim (ass you admit) isn't worthy of belief. So why should we believe it? And more importantly, why to we get attacked and criticized for not believing it?
First, I am actually saying that it is fine to have irrational beliefs. Just as long as one admits it. The statement "we should only believe what is scientifically verifiable" is hypocritical and philosophically unattainable. Why? Because that statement is itself not scientifically verifiable.
I look at it like this: I am 100% fine with gay people. But while I am fine with my gay friends, neighbors, and co-workers, I am disgusted by people like Ted Haggard who rail against homosexuality, but themselves practice it behind closed doors. Does that mean I am angry at his homosexuality? No. Just the absolute hypocrisy of the man.
Likewise, if someone has irrational, non-scientific beliefs, like myself and 99.9% of humans, I'm fine with it. It's when people rail against my own irrational beliefs while at the same time having deeply help irrational beliefs themselves (like that science is great or that we should believe what science teaches only) that's when I get flustered.
Quote:
But presumably nobody explained that your reasoning is irrelevant. Belief in a god and belief in a god that talks to them are as different as belief in Atlantis and belief in alien technology built the pyramids. While it is a nice little basis for a college paper on where they differ or connect or even become part of the same belief system, it makes no difference to the fact that both are equally without credibility.
First, many historians believe that there was some real place that was the basis of the Atlantis myth, like the ancient Minoans. It is a big, BIG leap to go from their being an island city that inspired a myth to a belief that aliens landed and built a city here for some reason.
And likewise, there is a difference between believing that there is a creator and/or power greater than humanity that has some metaphysical attributes vs the notion that a man in the sky speaks to us in a language we can understand.
Saying the different between a deistic and/or pantheistic conceptualization of GOD is irrelevant is like saying the difference between nuclear physics and jet propulsion is irrelevant (ah, they both work with things that go boom! Close enough!)
Quote:
And you can save yourself explaining your irrelevant point about belief in one faith implying respect for the others. This only works if you believe in a sorta -god without connection to any particular religion. And, if you can get people to think like that instead of rival creeds and sects, splendid.
Okay, no insult intended, but you may want to familiarize yourself with some concepts found within the religions of the world before you say things like this.
The idea that all religions should be respected is something that is ingrained in many of the religions. It is called "universalism". It is found in most religions to one extent or another.
Second, I am not even really talking about universalism, but rather simply respect for the justification of a belief. If I have my faith in GOD and someone else has Faith in another religion, I respect that we both got to our conclusions via the same method: faith. I do not have to agree with the conclusion, but I o respect the process that brought us both there.
Quote:
Atheists and irreligious theists ought to be on the same side. It is a tragedy that the 'agnostics' are so bitter towards those who don't see why they should believe an irrational (your words) god -belief.
Yes it is irrational...and your point? Can you prove that "rational" is synonymous with "good"?
But Cardinal's point "If "God speaks to me" results in actions involving any other human being, animals, environment and general welfare of the planet, then it should be filtered through the law of the land." is very pertinent. It touches on the atheist view that morality comes through human reasoning and not from holy books or divine revelation, and it debunks the idea that human law should be set aside where it conflicts with the religious convictions of the faithful.
Yes and those arguments fall to pieces when confronted with one fact: that people have been massacred for completely rational, scientific reasons as well.
For example, the 10,000lb elephant in the room that I have yet to have someone on the "religion is fer de dumz!" camp refute: The Tuskegee Experiment.
A number of innocent men were allowed to die. Why? Because scientific data needed to be collected. Rationally, it was the right thing to do. After all, those men were just uneducated laborers who were completely expendable. Their lives were of less utilitarian value than the data gathered from the study. There is really no rational, scientific reason why that study, and others like it, were wrong.
However, I am not a "rationalist" and hence I am of the irrational opinion that every human life is sacred and can only be forcefully extinguished under a handful of circumstances, all of which involve imminent threat to other human lives by the human(s) who are to be killed.
That basic ethic, to not kill, is irrational, illogical, and has no scientific basis whatsoever. That's one of the reasons why it's so awesome.
2) Should one respect the faith that drives one to kill an entire race in gas chambers?
Should one respect the faith that wants to kill homosexuals?
Should one respect the faith that the West is the devil and should be exterminated"
Should one respect the faith that says all should live under the rules that their faith requires?
I may have been unclear, and if so the fault lies with me, when I used the word "faith." I mean "faith" in the sense of "belief held without reason," and not "religion" in and of itself.
And "faith" in the way I'm talking about it is only the internal belief. What one does with it is another story.
And no, we should punish ACTIONS no matter what the justification. If a university hospital found a man with a liver that regenerated at a superhuman rate and the faculty killed him to study it, would that be a problem with the medical field? Or, would it be a problem with the people who carried it out? And likewise, would putting them in jail involve saying "no" to respect for medical science?
Likewise, having respect for people's faith does not mean we have to respect the actions they undertake because of their faith. And obviously, committing atrocities against others shows they have no respect for the faith of others, so correction is warranted.
Quote:
As one who understands, admits, and justifies belief in your God is irrational, are there other irrational beliefs you proudly hold and consciously act upon? Is irrational belief something you desire?
We all have irrational belies. Again, there is no rational reason why I should sit on the rooftop of my apartment building and enjoy a pre-rolled joint while watching the sunset over the mountains. It is not rational behavior...but I do it anyway. The belief that my cat is the prettiest kitty in the world is also baseless and cannot be proven via the scientific method...but I believe that anyway. And the chemical composition of Junior's New York Cheesecake is almost exactly the same as what passes for cheesecake here in the North West, and yet I have the irrational belief that Junior's is better.
I support any individual having and acting on any belief that brings them closer to existential authenticity, just as long as their actions do not impede on the ability of others to achieve existential authenticity.
I never ask God of anything and if you ask anyone they would tell you that I KNOW that I don't have the Holy spirit.
Even so, the Earth loves me and the Earth hears my voice whether God does or not.
You choose, and we shall see if I am a prophet or not, whether I am or I am not is really irrelevant, and whether God hears me or not is irrelevant, he can do what he wills.
If the test is to prove that Hannibal is a false prophet, there would be no need for a test. I am not only a false prophet, I am THEFALSE PROPHET and as SUCH, I will go into my secret place and burn incense to have a conversation tonight, and 36 hours from now, I will hear your request.
I will go and speak to he who owns this body, I am but a revenant.
This is not my body, but where there were mere soldiers as guiding spirits, I demanded Generals and what I have inside of me is an officer in much rank above what is inside of you, and he shall tell you what to ask for.
Ask what you will in 36 hours.
Be forewarned what you ask of the Earth, ask what you will because the Earth loves me.
Last edited by Hannibal Flavius; 04-15-2017 at 05:29 PM..
Because I have seen over and over again, that what actually happens is someone like you declares it "debunked". Heated discussion over whether it actually is debunked complete with non-arguments on both sides. Little or no proof that the thing which is said to be debunked, actually is debunked. Someone actually comes up with something that might be unassailable. The thread mysteriously closes.
One good evidence. One proof that all of this is in fact garbage evidence. Or in fact, because it is still evidence, even if garbage... prove this evidence here does not exist. I'm waiting.
Or shush.
"People may say I can't sing, but no one can ever say I didn't sing." -Florence Foster Jenkins
You cannot disprove it. So your refuge is to deny that it has validity. And then to declare invalid proofs somehow nonexistent. It's there, it happened. And it can happen again.
Pretty much you debunk it yourself above, but simply there is no valid realism to postulate a god. The best you have is that there is no convincing explanation for how the universe (pre -big bang) started. That is all you got.
N...t have to agree with the conclusion, but I o respect the process that brought us both there.
Yes it is irrational...and your point? Can you prove that "rational" is synonymous with "good"?
Thank you. The only relevant matter here is what is supported by valid evidence, and how we assess evidence is a matter of rationality. Rationality by and large and arguably is better that the irrational, but if neither here nor there, what's the argument? That we should believe an irrational claim because it's good for us?
There is too much evidence that it's either bad or indifferent. I'll leave the ethics to others. I'm talking what is believable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Yes and those arguments fall to pieces when confronted with one fact: that people have been massacred for completely rational, scientific reasons as well.
For example, the 10,000lb elephant in the room that I have yet to have someone on the "religion is fer de dumz!" camp refute: The Tuskegee Experiment.
A number of innocent men were allowed to die. Why? Because scientific data needed to be collected. Rationally, it was the right thing to do. After all, those men were just uneducated laborers who were completely expendable. Their lives were of less utilitarian value than the data gathered from the study. There is really no rational, scientific reason why that study, and others like it, were wrong.
However, I am not a "rationalist" and hence I am of the irrational opinion that every human life is sacred and can only be forcefully extinguished under a handful of circumstances, all of which involve imminent threat to other human lives by the human(s) who are to be killed.
That basic ethic, to not kill, is irrational, illogical, and has no scientific basis whatsoever. That's one of the reasons why it's so awesome.
What has that to do with whether there is a god or not? It seems simply trying to pin one matter - the god -claim on some debatable irrelevance.
So that experiment may have been unethical. What has that to do with the factuality of science? What has it to do with the validity of the god-claim?
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.
