Faith without any reason vs Faith without any evidence (Mormons, America, Muslim)
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.
To say that God does not exist is a claim that needs MORE proof and support, since most people throughout history have believed.
The truth and reality of something does not depend on the number of people who think that. After all, two-thirds of the people in the world are NOT christians.
Of course. But both sides are still interpreting the same evidence their own way.
Rather than interpreting same evidence differently, I think people rely on different standards of evidence altogether, so it becomes not so much an issue of interpretation as admissibility and/or permissibility of particular evidential claims.
Science does not have an answer yet when we ponder upon the fundamental question of “what or who started it all?
We only have our limited logic and intelligence (that varies from person to person) to make our assertions to answer this fundamental question.
What was there before universe? The answer is, - Either, “NOTHINGâ€, or “WE DONT KNOWâ€.
If “NOTHINGâ€, then the universe cannot decide to create itself when it did not exist.
It’s ridiculous. You can not decide to create yourself when you don’t exist.
If the answer is “WE DONT KNOW†- then there is always a possibility of God (call it a “force with intelligence). And there is always a possibility of “no Godâ€.
It’s then up to us to base our assertions on logic, intelligence and research to form the faith whether God exists or does not exist.
Science cannot answer yet - so neither side has any evidence to support their faith - be it Atheists or Theists.
I'm curious about something, GoC.
What difference does it make in your life, or in your religious belief, if you don't know how the Universe started? I ask because I can't imagine that it makes any difference at all what a person has for dinner, or how people conduct themselves at a religious ceremony. What difference does it make in anything you do?
Rather than interpreting same evidence differently, I think people rely on different standards of evidence altogether, so it becomes not so much an issue of interpretation as admissibility and/or permissibility of particular evidential claims.
You have a great point here.
Creationists like to create a false equivalency, which I assume they do in order to make their position seem more credible.
In reality, the different interpretations of reality are a science based interpretation which has a rigorous methodology, is falsifiable, and takes all the evidence into account, while the religiously based interpretations is based on a thought that it might have happened this way and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
Not true. I have faith in a creator, tho I haven’t seen such physically. I believe the evidence points to a creator, therefore I have faith there is one.
Creationists like to create a false equivalency, which I assume they do in order to make their position seem more credible.
In reality, the different interpretations of reality are a science based interpretation which has a rigorous methodology, is falsifiable, and takes all the evidence into account, while the religiously based interpretations is based on a thought that it might have happened this way and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
Hi there, and thanks for picking up on my post. I'm still finding my feet here so appreciate your response and this opportunity to get back to you.
Although I get what you're saying, I think, we are looking at it from two different angles. I really don't think it has much to do with interpretation.
Have you ever noticed, when speaking to a devout believer, how they view the world? In their eyes, beauty is as strong an evidence, as any scientifically rigorous test. To Muslims who study the Qur'an its verses contain the most elegant and refined poetry and just stylistically alone they see it as evidence of divinity. When one finds so much meaning in a particular belief every little thing becomes an affirmation of said belief.
Of course, in reality those standards of evidence would not survive any kind of scrutiny but since these beliefs are largely driven by emotional needs and desires, those objections can easily be dismissed.
But even in secular world there are different standards of evidence and proof. Criminal trials differ from civil ones, and they in turn differ from general arbitration and tribunals. Hearsay and eye witness testimony may be a standard in one but dismissed as unreliable in another, and so on. We all have our weaknesses when it comes to certain types of evidence. Just recently, I read on reddit about the study on how people react to gossip that found "a tendency for strong emotional evaluations and person judgments even when they are knowingly based on unclear evidence."* So if even the best of us can succumb to this and our emotions be so easily influenced how can we stand in judgement of those who stake their entire lives on something so profound as a relationship with a personal god?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all speak different language when it comes to evidence and unless an agreement can be reached on a particular fixed definition of the latter and its required standard we'll continue to talk past one another or just resort to semantic tos and fros.
What difference does it make in your life, or in your religious belief, if you don't know how the Universe started? I ask because I can't imagine that it makes any difference at all what a person has for dinner, or how people conduct themselves at a religious ceremony. What difference does it make in anything you do?
I wouldn't presume to answer for GoC, but it made a tremendous difference in my life. It is, for the most part, a very pragmatic question that impacts the context for life itself. The context is either one of meaningless accidental existence or one of purposeful existence toward some goal for existence itself. The implications from the opposing contexts are legion, but if you do not care which context is true then it probably has little impact on those things you asked about. IF it doesn't matter to you, you can establish your own personal criteria and goals for your life without any concern for the actual context.
Resolving this question of context can seem irrelevant when we don't know which context is true. It also can be quite arbitrary even when you think there is a purpose for existence because finding out the purpose is problematic. Human imagination and speculation have created myriad versions of a purpose for existence itself that are flawed and even irrational making any resolution difficult. So in the end, it comes down to how comfortable we are with not knowing the actual context.
Hi there, and thanks for picking up on my post. I'm still finding my feet here so appreciate your response and this opportunity to get back to you.
Although I get what you're saying, I think, we are looking at it from two different angles. I really don't think it has much to do with interpretation.
Have you ever noticed, when speaking to a devout believer, how they view the world? In their eyes, beauty is as strong an evidence, as any scientifically rigorous test. To Muslims who study the Qur'an its verses contain the most elegant and refined poetry and just stylistically alone they see it as evidence of divinity. When one finds so much meaning in a particular belief every little thing becomes an affirmation of said belief.
Of course, in reality those standards of evidence would not survive any kind of scrutiny but since these beliefs are largely driven by emotional needs and desires, those objections can easily be dismissed.
But even in secular world there are different standards of evidence and proof. Criminal trials differ from civil ones, and they in turn differ from general arbitration and tribunals. Hearsay and eye witness testimony may be a standard in one but dismissed as unreliable in another, and so on. We all have our weaknesses when it comes to certain types of evidence. Just recently, I read on reddit about the study on how people react to gossip that found "a tendency for strong emotional evaluations and person judgments even when they are knowingly based on unclear evidence."* So if even the best of us can succumb to this and our emotions be so easily influenced how can we stand in judgement of those who stake their entire lives on something so profound as a relationship with a personal god?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all speak different language when it comes to evidence and unless an agreement can be reached on a particular fixed definition of the latter and its required standard we'll continue to talk past one another or just resort to semantic tos and fros.
As with most areas of human existence, there are multiple answers and explanations. From an objective viewpoint, religion does not have any evidence to stand on, however you are correct, religious individuals look at things like beauty and interpret that as evidence.
That seems to be a bit of a chicken and egg conundrum to me. Are they viewing beauty and proof of god because they relate to the world emotionally, or do they believe in god, realize that intellectual arguments tend to work against them, and look for emotional arguments instead?
It almost doesn't matter. You are correct, atheists and theist often talk past one another, because we are using different types of processes to reach our conclusions. There is no objective evidence proving god, but many theists are emotionally fulfilled by believing.
I am completely ok with this, my main goal is understanding. I want people to understand that atheism, secular humanism, non-theistic lifestyle, whatever you want to characterize it as, is a valid stance. I don't really care if people believe in a god. I only care when they try to influence my life because of their god-belief, which is why I strive to get them to understand that there are good and valid reasons to disagree with them, and we should live and let live.
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.
