Buddhas Hand Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 But without a creator, what would be the purpose to this even? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 What do I gain for your salvation? It is not a scam, in which you should watch how condescending you are, because if said to a Libyan you might have just caused another American citizen to die. If its a scam to tell the truth, then I'm sorry for being honest Do you smoke? Do you know someone whom you love smoke? Do you care if this person is causing damage to his/her health? Would you feel ill if you let those around you perish? You may disagree with Christians, but it's basically it. There is a truth that saves lives. You may not believe it, but we do. So if it's our genuine and honest care that bugs you, the sorry. You have to live with it. We live in a culture that cares for each other, and that's the cost of it. You are pestered by people that care about you. If you don't like it, then you can live in another country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So since the general belief has almost always been that God exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 While religion divides, one thing atheism has going for it is that it unites. Religion: "I believe in this God." "I believe in that God." "I believe in this prophet." "I believe in that prophet." "I must destroy you." "Jesus saves. Nyah-nyah!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 While religion divides, one thing atheism has going for it is that it unites. Religion: Atheism: This is probably why most agnostics tend to lean over to the atheist side. While it's spiritually empty, it's also a lot more calming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Define credible tangible evidence? Does this exclude philosophy, history, anecdotal personal experiences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 My parents taught me to believe in God, but had mixed opinions on the Bible so I wasn't really sure what to believe. (Leaned more to the take it as truth side as a kid). How about yours? And as for now, there are only few parts I believe. Such as the existence of God/a creator, the fact that a guy named Moses had 2 tablets with 10 commandments of them(regardless of where they came from), and that Jesus walked the earth.(Regardless of any miracles or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 If you were on trial in a court setting, would you allow philosophy, history and anecdotal experience to be introduced as 'evidence'? I'm not even talking about a criminal law setting where the requirement for evidence is 'beyond a reasonable' type to judge and come to a decision with, i'm talking about the small claims court type of evidence, in the beginning, based on the 'balance of probabilities' type with which to reason and judge. as a rational, reasonable and logical person. Produce even the latter type of evidence that demonstrates a probability that your God exists versus a probability that it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Says most prominent agnostics. By 'empty', i mean that an atheists' sense of spirituality is based on mumbo-jumbo nonsense. At least religion trys to bring order to that nonsense. However, both sides don't have any real answers. I don't see either side being in the right, but i do see atheists being a lot more at peace with the world. Secular spirituality has it's benefits. But the more you 'believe' in it, the more you are in fact a Buddhist. This is why atheism can be considered a religion itself. At least you can be religious and atheist at the same time. Atheists will of course deny that atheism is a religion. Whatever. Agnosticism goes a bit further than atheism towards the quest for real knowledge regarding this topic. Prominent agnostics have generally sided with atheists because it's easier to find no evidence of a god than it is to find evidence of a god. Still, people like to attach labels to whatever they want. For example Hawkings said there may well be a God, but he just doesn't interfere with the laws of science. Obviously, we'd like to know for sure, wouldn't we? What or who created all things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 If you were on trial in a court setting, would you allow philosophy, history and anecdotal experience to be introduced as 'evidence'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Little thought experiment. Can you prove that anything exists? You believe things exist based on your personal experiences and your theorizing and philosophizing but you can't prove it scientifically. You can't do science to prove anything exists because then you're just using tools that you already presuppose exist to prove existence. So even if you have good reasons (or good evidence) to believe something exists (perhaps other than yourself anyway) you can't prove it 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 The difference is when talking of a deity philosophy, history and personal experiences make up the most of the evidence. Although I would argue that in making a case for a deistic god there is lot's of scientific evidence that can be considered (you just have to mix in a little philosophy since you can't experimentally test a "god"). If you were in a court and there wasn't some hard tangible evidence it probably wouldn't be sufficient to convict anyone but if through philosophy you can establish motive, history you can place him at the scene with no alibi, and witness testimony implicates him, then while this might not be enough to convict him (do to lack of more solid tangible evidence) it would certainly lead you to make a belief (as in I can't say for sure he did it but I think it's likely or unlikely). So back to my point, you might not think the evidence is sufficient (the whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) but you can't say that there is no evidence. That's my two cents on the matter anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So a few points to address what you've expressed. - Because philosophy, history and personal anecdotes aren't things that can always be verified or relied on as credible, basing evidence for what would easily be the most important, remarkable and game-changing being in and out of the entire universe, more than these easily falsifiable and easily corruptible and biased musings and opinions are required in order to be presented as credible evidence. - If there's scientific evidence, then please produce it. I don't know how many times i can ask you to do so, before coming to the conclusion that there isn't any TO produce. Philosophy doesn't add credibility to science, it dilutes the credibility of the scientific process. That's why scientists conduct science in a formal and rigorous way without allowing for personal bias or social acceptance or other shared opinions to get in its way. Philosophy, especially the type you're speaking of(musings.speculations/conjecture) and not the type for example that I've taken scholastically, which teaches you about Formal Logic and such, isn't sufficient in its value to add to 'science' with with to raise the 'truthiness' of a hypothesis or theory(small t). - And finally, with respect to your answer of my question of whether history, philosophy or personal anecdotes are sufficient for small claims court, i'm glad you took on the more serious examination of evidence in that of a criminal trial. You say "it probably wouldn't be sufficient". But do you really believe that if there were only circumstantial evidence, such as, limited to personal anecdotes, historical 3rd party claims without any secondary secular corroborational referencing or support, or philosophical musing/conjecture/speculation, that the case wouldn't simply tossed out for lack of sufficient evidence?? Do you really believe, that there would be even a good 'probability' that the case would even be allowed to be brought to trial, let alone the person convicted if those were what the claim of guilt rested on? I know you're a person of logic and reason, so I have to conclude that you would at the least concede that the probability would be minute, if not nil, rather than the probability being very good, good, equal, or close to being equal. So, logic and sound judgment requires and even forces us to have more than those things you mentioned for even an act of a person we can see, feel and touch, let alone in coming to a conclusion and judgement on the even far more serious subject of the existence of any deity, let alone a personal, ever-watching, ever-present, all powerful, all knowing, timeless, creator-one who is directly responsible for not only the creation of the universe, but the specific and thought-through creator of us, independently from the rest of its creation. Just remember that logic and evidence trumps anecdotes and conjecture, when one is weighing the likelihood or probability of a truth claim. It just doesn't pass the smell test. You and I both know it....though we'd both be open to not conceding any absolutes just yet, because you and I have learned through an education in scientific empiricism that one must avoid absolutes, even if one is 99/9 to the power of infinity sure based on evidence whether something is real or factual or probable or likely, or not. Enter faith......the 'you can pass go and collect $200' card. 'Go' being the rules of logic and reason based on observation and evidence. The $200 being the safety and security of dogma's and your purported diety's blanket. Throw away the blankie Linus and stop at 'Go'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Says most prominent agnostics. By 'empty', i mean that an atheists' sense of spirituality is based on mumbo-jumbo nonsense. At least religion trys to bring order to that nonsense. However, both sides don't have any real answers. I don't see either side being in the right, but i do see atheists being a lot more at peace with the world. Secular spirituality has it's benefits. But the more you 'believe' in it, the more you are in fact a Buddhist. This is why atheism can be considered a religion itself. At least you can be religious and atheist at the same time. Atheists will of course deny that atheism is a religion. Whatever. Agnosticism goes a bit further than atheism towards the quest for real knowledge regarding this topic. Prominent agnostics have generally sided with atheists because it's easier to find no evidence of a god than it is to find evidence of a god. Still, people like to attach labels to whatever they want. For example Hawkings said there may well be a God, but he just doesn't interfere with the laws of science. Obviously, we'd like to know for sure, wouldn't we? What or who created all things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Little thought experiment. Can you prove that anything exists? You believe things exist based on your personal experiences and your theorizing and philosophizing but you can't prove it scientifically. You can't do science to prove anything exists because then you're just using tools that you already presuppose exist to prove existence. So even if you have good reasons (or good evidence) to believe something exists (perhaps other than yourself anyway) you can't prove it 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Got to go write a big exam in like 10 minutes but I enjoy reading your thoughts SS! Very blunt and to the point. Thought provoking anyway adios my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Says most prominent agnostics. By 'empty', i mean that an atheists' sense of spirituality is based on mumbo-jumbo nonsense. At least religion trys to bring order to that nonsense. However, both sides don't have any real answers. I don't see either side being in the right, but i do see atheists being a lot more at peace with the world. Secular spirituality has it's benefits. But the more you 'believe' in it, the more you are in fact a Buddhist. This is why atheism can be considered a religion itself. At least you can be religious and atheist at the same time. Atheists will of course deny that atheism is a religion. Whatever. Agnosticism goes a bit further than atheism towards the quest for real knowledge regarding this topic. Prominent agnostics have generally sided with atheists because it's easier to find no evidence of a god than it is to find evidence of a god. Still, people like to attach labels to whatever they want. For example Hawkings said there may well be a God, but he just doesn't interfere with the laws of science. Obviously, we'd like to know for sure, wouldn't we? What or who created all things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Little thought experiment. Can you prove that anything exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 If you can touch it and feel it and see it then it exists. That pretty much a fact. Unless, of course, you're on acid or shrooms or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.