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.
This is the statement that usually makes the loud scientifically minded anti-theist either A) shrug and say "as long as you aren't forcing that view on me, cool, at least you're honest" or B) (insert circular argument and stream of verbal diarrhea here)
Yes, there is no evidence for GOD. Yes, there is no scientific evidence that GOD created the Universe and yes, there is no evidence that any of my Myths are true.
And I don't care. I believe anyway.
And no, it isn't "brainwashing" as I'm a Gnostic Christian and we aren't exactly indoctrinating the world and I wasn't raised to believe anything at all. I just stumbled upon Gnosticism as an adult, read about it, found others who are into it and here I am. I choose it because it felt right.
That's it. It felt right. No reason, no logic, no science, no evidence. Just pure emotion and intuition. It felt right, so I went with it. An absolutely irrational decision. And?
I do not claim to say I can prove any of my Myths. I do not claim any science will ever prove the existence of Satan, GOD, angels or anything else. All I will say is that once you remove literal understandings of creation Myths there really isn't much there science can test anyway, and I never believed that the Bible literally tells the story of creation anyway.
The thing is, asking for scientific evidence is advocating for a philosophical school of thought: Positivism. I am not a Positivist and hence do not care really what science says or doesn't say. For me, science is not the be all, end all. I'm an existentialist, and I go with myself first and foremost and if ANY external issue gets into my way, including "evidence", I ignore it.
Where is the scientific evidence that a scientific worldview is the best? Can science prove itself? Once you step out of the bubble of scientific thought you see there are indeed other ways of approaching an issue besides "what does the data say?"
And before I get the inevitable "what if someone believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I will give an answer that usually makes the person who asked it very frustrated: A religion based on a Flying Spaghetti Monster, if its believers are sincere, is just as valid as my own or anyone else's.
All I would ask is proof that someone believed fully in a doctrine, as in what have they sacrificed in their life for that belief, to prove if it is valid for them. That's it. No religion, no matter how absurd it may be to some, is invalid because of its age, number of adherents, who founded it, its Myths, etc. As long as there are those who BELIEVE, that is enough.
We all have our own beliefs and systems to live by. As long as they do not hurt anyone, let people find their own path. And as long as a believer does not try to force their belief on anyone else, who cares what they do or do not believe?
So why believe in God? Simple: Because I chose to. It's fun and it works for me. I need no other justification besides that. And THAT is why they call it "FAITH"
(but I guarantee you somebody will reply with a long tirade about "muh scientific evidence", and completely miss the point)
The demand of an "evidence" or "proof" of God in itself is an oxymoronic approach.
With our limited knowledge we cannot define what would be considered as an evidence or proof of God because we don't have the knowledge to know how are we going to validate the "evidence" or "proof" of God.
Are we going to take God to a lab and have a blood test done? Or may be a full body xray or an MRI? How are you going to verify that it's God? You can't! Our knowledge is very limited.
Believing in God is faith. And faith is not based on evidence or proof.
The demand of an "evidence" or "proof" of God in itself is an oxymoronic approach.
With our limited knowledge we cannot define what would be considered as an evidence or proof of God because we don't have the knowledge to know how are we going to validate the "evidence" or "proof" of God.
Are we going to take God to a lab and have a blood test done? Or may be a full body xray or MRI?
Believing in God is faith. And faith is not based on evidence or proof.
Which is why it is worthless and is not a good reason for supposing something to be true, let alone a life -changing fact.
And my offer to give you give you three evidences that I would accept - including one that - if you can produce it -will make me a Christian (it is wel within the ambit of everyday Christian claims) still stands, and has gone without response. I think that is your answer to both of us, isn't it?
The demand of an "evidence" or "proof" of God in itself is an oxymoronic approach.
With our limited knowledge we cannot define what would be considered as an evidence or proof of God because we don't have the knowledge to know how are we going to validate the "evidence" or "proof" of God.
Are we going to take God to a lab and have a blood test done? Or may be a full body xray or an MRI? How are you going to verify that it's God? You can't! Our knowledge is very limited.
Believing in God is faith. And faith is not based on evidence or proof.
Is there anything that one cannot legitimately believe based on faith then? Like God told them to fly planes into buildings, or that God told them to drown their own children, or that the Earth is flat?
IMO, it is foolish to believe so many unverifiable supernatural claims and accept so many immoral absurdities based solely of faith.
If there really is a super being, and it truly wanted my admiration and companionship, it would know exactly how to reveal itself to me. Until then, I will use reason and rationale to guide my beliefs and morals.
Is there anything that one cannot legitimately believe based on faith then? Like God told them to fly planes into buildings, or that God told them to drown their own children, or that the Earth is flat?
G W Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. This indicident killed millions, and also destroyed the families and lives on an astronomical level. Don't you wonder how and where God would've told him to so?
Which is why it is worthless and is not a good reason for supposing something to be true, let alone a life -changing fact.
And my offer to give you give you three evidences that I would accept - including one that - if you can produce it -will make me a Christian (it is wel within the ambit of everyday Christian claims) still stands, and has gone without response. I think that is your answer to both of us, isn't it?
Plz refer to the post. I must have overlooked your response in some other thread. You already know I don't ignore you.
If you are going to make music, use a musical instrument - or a synthesizer, if you must and not a mathematical table.
If you are going to do mathematics use mathematical tables.
If you are going to argue for religion, use Faith
If you are going to argue for fact, use science.
If you are going to argue for faith using science, fudge it with a mix of selectivity, deprecation of science where it doesn't support the faith and holding it up as gospel truth if it supports faith -even if it is misrepresented science.
We have seen it here all the time. And philosophy is a very ripe ground for pretending that the science we rely every day of our lives is worthless, just as Quantum and indeterminacy are waved about to somehow pretend that science is wrong, unless it supports the faith.
I haven't time to watch a talk on the philosophy of science - I have seen talks of the rationale of the science-method, much less irrelevant videos on sci -fi characters.
If you have a point to make, make it. The absurd attempt to make science -based conclusions about ecology and the like presented in poetic appeals that dress up 'we shouldn't trash our own home' in emotional termslook as though science is faith -based dalls so laughably flat that I'm amazed you even tried it.
P.s what was the subject again? Yes! No evidence, but believe anyway.
So the P.s of what I suspect (I may be wrong) was the Borg idea is on topic. Science marching soulless robots insisting on conformity. Science bad.
Godfaith, beauty, humanity and frreedom. Godfaith good.
Which you refute yourself by a post about science talking about the wonder and beauty of nature and how we should value it. Science not Borg.
Religion - Obey! Believe! Accept! Religion Borg.
But you know that very well as do many god-believers, which is why they scrap organized religion and opt for what the call agnosticism - which is merely irreligious god-faith.
That would be fine, if they just say 'I have no evidence - but I believe anyway". We atheists are ok with that, even if they won't recognize the damage organized religion does or help to roll it back, even in they do. We simply have no real qurrel.
So it was surprising that some of the bitterest hate and attacks on atheism (fielding the same sort of accusations about science Borg-ness, being a religion with Darwinism as the Dogma and of course the accusations of 'fundamentalism') came from agnostic irreligious theists, with who we have no quarrel at all.
I have a theory....I'll go get the icon later.... there..that the religious have the evidence of the Bible and the basis of Church to fall back on. They can argue for the reliability of the Bible (sorta) and the Good the Church does.
"Agnostics" (irreligious God -believers) have given up that support, and now have nothing but various kinds of First -cause and I/D arguments. I won't mention any names but threads started to validate First -cause claims became as bitter and abusive as anything I have seen. And the debate is academic!
But it's faith -based, that's the point. The irreligious theist has FAITH in this sorta-god and Faith is all he has. Trouts knows, that's no real cause for quarrel, but Faith seem to mean that the existence of those who don't believe is a challenge, affront and threat to godfaith, even of the irreligious kind.
It explains why this pointless battle is being fought at all. It explains why agnostic theists are stuck in a bad alliance with the religious, not to mentions creationists. It explains why the venom and hate pops up so quickly in first-cause debates with "Agnostics". It explains everything.
Okay, that very large word salad amounted to basically this: you agree that it is impossible for someone to base their every thought on the rational alone.
Which is exactly what I am saying. My believe in GOD is irrational. I admit that. After all, everyone, including yourself, engages in activity that is not 100% rational 100% of the time.
That's my point. The only difference is that those of us with faith admit as such, while the Fedora-boys will deny it with their dying breath.
Is there anything that one cannot legitimately believe based on faith then? Like God told them to fly planes into buildings, or that God told them to drown their own children, or that the Earth is flat?
This would be a great reply if not for two little details:
1) "Belief in GOD" and "the belief one may have that GOD talks to them," are two completely different things that are not necessarily mutually inclusive and
2) I already addressed this "point" several times in this thread. Respect for one's own faith should logically lead to respect for faith as a whole, and not killing people when one does not need to is indeed a part of respecting another's justification for their beliefs, i.e., their faith.
I would go into greater detail, but I've already explained this several times.
IMO, it is foolish to believe so many unverifiable supernatural claims and accept so many immoral absurdities based solely of faith.
If there really is a super being, and it truly wanted my admiration and companionship, it would know exactly how to reveal itself to me. Until then, I will use reason and rationale to guide my beliefs and morals.
I don't have any problem with this approach.
The only thing that both Atheists and theists, need to acknowledge is that "reason and logic" is subjective. It varies from person to person.
Something that's logical and reasonable to you, may not be logical and reasonable to someone else.
If both parties understand and acknowledge this then the next step is two things.
1 - Avoid demeaning each other's belief or non-belief system, and do not impose our ideas onto others.
2 - Wherever possible, engage in a knowledge sharing dialogue (instead of a hosing down contest) to better understand each other's reason as to why some of us belief and others don't.
I think the challenge is not to find whether God exists or not, but how can we live together in peace and harmony.
Whether God exists or not? Perhaps we will all find out eventually, as there is no escaping from death.
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.
and not a mathematical table.
