for atheists:
-
NoShirtNoShoesNoService — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 04:29 PM)
The inconvenient truth for you is that you have no evidence for any god.
Where is your credible evidence that any god exists?
God did not create man in his own image; man created god in his own image. -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 10:55 PM)
What is your evidence that God doesn't exist? To me there are several evidences of God. This whole earth and everything on it is evidence to me that there is a God. However, it is important to note that just because there is no empirical evidence to support something, that doesn't mean that something isn't true.
For example, pretend that there was a planet in another galaxy that has a special kind of elephant that naturally had bright pink skin. There is no way for us to obtain empirical data for something like that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The thing about science is it has to be something testable and potentially falsifiable. Because we have no way of disproving that species of elephant, it does not fall into the realm of science.
Religion is not science because the knowledge and faith obtained in a religion is not obtained through the scientific method. That doesn't make it false, because scientifically it is impossible to really disprove God.
I believe there are different types of knowledge. There is scientific knowledge, there is spiritual knowledge, and I'm sure there are other categories of knowledge we could categorize but right now I want to focus on spiritual knowledge.
Spiritual knowledge is not obtained the same way as scientific knowledge. It does have similarities, like you should study the scriptures and words of the prophets. You should also experiment on those teachings by living after a like manner and seeing how it blesses your life. You can look at those results and make some conclusions. However, spiritual knowledge isn't really testable in a lab and ultimately relies on faith. The answers to questions also come in a different form. They don't come by means of empirical data. They come by means of spiritual impressions as you pray earnestly seeking for spiritual knowledge.
Now if you choose not to believe in God, that is fine. However you cannot dismiss the idea as false because it can't be empirically determined. I would invite you to seek for yourself spiritual knowledge as it has blessed my life tremendously. At the very least, be respectful to those who do believe. -
aaahmemories — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 11:07 PM)
you cannot dismiss the idea as false because it can't be empirically determined
Nice! So that means the fairies at the bottom of my garden are REAL! Thanx for that.
P.S. Did your mother have any children that lived???
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states. -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 11:34 PM)
No that just means you can't really study that scientifically. I realize you are just trying to ridicule me here, because I believe you are the same person who disrespected my thoughts on another post. My point, though, is a knowledge of whether God exists or not cannot come by means of science. It comes by recognizing his influence on your life. I have truly felt and seen his influence in my life in so many ways that I cannot deny his existence and I know we have a loving God who is our Father and wants nothing but the best for us. I have felt that love and have seen his helping hand in my life countless times. As I pray to him, he had answered my prayers every single time. You don't have to believe me, but for your own benefit I do suggest that you pray to know of his existence and seek his influence in your life. I promise if you do so earnestly, you will come to know of God's existence and you will be blessed by his influence in your life. But I will tell you I am always willing to have a sincere discussion, but if you aren't willing to be respectful then I will place you on ignore and I will no longer respond to your posts
-
Isapop — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 04:05 AM)
I have felt that love and have seen his helping hand in my life countless times. As I pray to him, he had answered my prayers every single time.
I expect there are Muslims who would say the same about the God they worship. Are they right to take their own "answered prayers" as proof of existence of the god they worship? -
aaahmemories — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 06:52 AM)
the same person who disrespected my thoughts
Thoughts like that don't merit respect.
I have truly felt and seen his influence in my life
This is commonly known as confirmation bias.
I do suggest that you pray to know of his existence
Which deity would this be? There are so many.
I will place you on ignore
Ah. A coward, too.
I will no longer respond to your posts
But I'll respond to yours. And others will see my responses. But not yours, since you won't have any.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states. -
rizdek — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 09:05 AM)
I have truly felt and seen his influence in my life in so many ways that I cannot deny his existence
What can't this be studied scientifically? If the effects were real, and you were actually able to rule out other plausible causes, then why can't it be studied scientifically.
What do you think "scientifically" means in the broader sense? Scientifically means observing things, attempting to interpret and explain, re-observing/observing further, testing where possible and refining explanations. Now why can't that be applied to whatever you think happened that suggests there is a god? -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 09:30 AM)
while the influence of God in my life is very real. The effects of God in ones life aren't necessarily a tangible piece of evidence that one can study in a lab. In order to study things scientifically, things have to be testable and potentially falsifiable. There is no way to prove one way or another in a lab whether or not God exists. You may be able to use some of the basic principles of the scientific method. However the answers that come from God aren't something that you can retrieve empirical data for
-
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 12:35 PM)
Like I said, the effects of God in my life have been through various experiences of my life. I have had experiences, feelings, etc. that you can't just bottle up and run some tests in the lab. If I had an experience previously, there is no way to falsify whether or not that experience happened in the lab. I can't define exactly what happened, because it is a combination of several countless experience that create my firm belief in God today. Those experiences are sometimes impossible to describe in words, and in some cases are too sacred to even attempt.
-
rizdek — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 05:57 PM)
But why assume there is no way to falsify? How do you know? Did someone tell you it wasn't falsifiable. Have you tried?
Falsification isn't just something folks in white lab coats, we should always seek to check our beliefs to see if they might be false. It's how we make sure we aren't believing nonsense. -
aaahmemories — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 06:38 PM)
It's how we make sure we aren't believing nonsense.
You do realize that's something the religious avoid like the plague. Confronting their beliefs objectively is the last thing they want to do. It would mean either losing their minds or losing their beliefs.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states. -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 08:41 PM)
Obviously you should check if our beliefs to see if they may be false, but that is not something you can do through science. The purpose of science is not to prove or disprove religion. Religion and Science are two separate things that deal with separate questions and deal with different processes to get those answers
-
rizdek — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 02:52 AM)
Why do you keep bringing up scienceperhaps because others keep harping on it? That's ok.
I'm not talking science, at least not in the narrow sense of micrometers and telescopes. I'm talking about life and how we might know that what we "know" is trueor at least giving it our best shot to find out if we are being duped or not. It's probably closer to philosophy than what most think of as science nowadays. But then science was originally (and still should be, IMHO) heavily influenced by philosophy. You know, the "how do we know what we know?" ways of thinking.
I don't think the processes of thinking that help scientists wade through piles of information to figure out how things really are is that much different than how most folks navigate life to figure out what's real and what isn't. It's just that scientists tend to have training, tools, and procedures that formalize this process. Then they, hopefully, get together in open discussions and try to figure out if what someone thought they just figured out is really right (peer review). Then other folks go out and try to figure out ways to falsify itrun test etc. to see if it's right in different situations/conditions.
In real life, we fact check and falsify in less formal ways, but, instinctively (I think), just as effectively. It would seem this approach is essential if the facts we are trying to figure out relate in a tangible way to our survival and thriving.
How do we know, for example, that we can't fly. We could imagine ourselves capable of flight but just never try to falsify that belief. Nothing really bad would happen, AS LONG AS WE DON'T TEST IT.
How do we know we don't have a billion dollars in some bank account. Well, we check the ones we've deposited into and see what the balance is. I don't just assume there is some acct out there with my name on it that has a billion dollars AND that, conveniently and coincidentally, I can't check the balance of. But what if we didassume we had a billion dollars, but in a way that we could never check or directly tap into? No harm right? Just don' try to falsify it.
Why don't most folks go about imagining themselves royalty? Most simply look at their heritage/ancestry and see that they don't have royalty in any recent generation. Most don't go about assuming they are royalty and depending on the "well, I just can't falsify it so I am" line of reasoning.
The thing I notice most often about things folks accept, that they claim they can't falsify, is that it rarely relates to actual survival or thriving. The person who imagines himself a long lost prince from some small mid-European country isn't hurting anyone and he might go about his business working, or whatever, with that thought in the back of his mind"Gee, I'm a prince, isn't that great?" As long as he never tries to act on that claimIOW tries to falsify it, it can be a firm belief. The person who believes in, say, big foot, the Loch Ness monster, or some other fantastic thing, probably doesn't make any survival related decisions based on that illusion (IMHO). So, he continues on safelyeating, breathing and avoiding getting hit by a car etc.
The same goes about most folks who believe in God then claim that belief isn't falsifiable. They never really try to see if it's true. That's ok but in the end, it seems to me to be about as important as believing in any other non-survival related thing that one never really tests. At best it's a psychological boost.
But one CAN decide, one day, that it really might befalsifiable. I'm not advocating it, but IF you do, look out. I think that's what happens to folks who finally come to the conclusions they no longer think there is a god. It occurs to them that believing in god and believing things about god could be, should be, and maybe really is/are, falsifiable. -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 05:44 PM)
First of all, I keep bringing science up because in pretty much every post you have talked a bit about science. You did in this post as well, and so don't be mad if I mention it some more
I don't think the processes of thinking that help scientists wade through piles of information to figure out how things really are is that much different than how most folks navigate life to figure out what's real and what isn't. It's just that scientists tend to have training, tools, and procedures that formalize this process. Then they, hopefully, get together in open discussions and try to figure out if what someone thought they just figured out is really right (peer review). Then other folks go out and try to figure out ways to falsify itrun test etc. to see if it's right in different situations/conditions.
There are a lot of things you can disprove or prove using the scientific method, even if it does not include microscopes, centrifuges, etc. If someone thinks that the next president of the united states is going to be Hillary Clinton, they can look through information online and will be able to conclusively interpret the data as she is not going to be and it is going to be Donald trump. Most of the examples you share fall into this category. Religion, however, is a whole different thing because, while you can use some of the basic principles of the scientific method, the tests to seek truth do not typically yield results that are tangible or observable to our eye. I never said religious beliefs shouldn't be tested, because they should be. However, you can't expect to be able to prove or disprove religious principles by using the scientific approach. The scientific approach requires something that you can test and receive observable data so that you can come to some conclusions. There are some religious beliefs out there that I am sure you can use this approach, but many religious ideas are things you can't really test and retrieve any sort of data to be able to come to some form of conclusion. A example of a religious claim that could be falsified is if someone claimed the world would end tomorrow. You could then wait until tomorrow and if the world doesn't end then you have falsified that particular group. However, most religious claims are about how we are to be saved. If one group says that every person needs to pray 10 times a day to be saved, how do you falsify that? You can't. You can either choose to believe it or not (in case you were wondering that is not one of my beliefs). That is the case with the vast majority of religious claims, there is no way to be able to test it and prove it false. You have to make a choice to believe it or you don't. That is the case with God as well, you either choose to believe or you don't. You can't just perform some test, or just google it and do secular research to see if God is real. The only way you could really be able to prove it one way or the other is if you had the ability to travel to every point in the universe within seconds to see if God is no where to be found. You can't do that, that is not possible. In the case of God, there aren't ways to know with a perfect knowledge if he is there. There are observation you can make that strengthen your belief in him. But ultimately it comes down to faith. It is through various observations in many experiences and through prayer that I became confident he existed. That is why religious beliefs are different. Religious beliefs are founded on faith, other facts are founded on tangible or observable evidence. -
rizdek — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 05:50 PM)
I only mention it when I respond to posts where you mention it. I mentioned it in my first response to your post where YOU mention science. And I do it to try to show that we use the concept of falsification in areas OTHER than just what most think of as science. I even gave some examplesdid you read them?
I think most theists sell themselves short by yapping on and on that this or that of their beliefs are not falsifiable. It's almost as if they have an inferiority complex or something. IF you are aware of things that make you think there is a god, then wouldn't it be the case that if those things didn't exist or if they were different, it would suggest to you there wasn't a god? -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 06:25 PM)
I even gave some examplesdid you read them?
Yes i did read them, and I even talked about your examples. I don't know if you actually read my post, but I talked about why the examples you gave about are not valid comparisons here. Religious claims are things you either believe or you don't. There may be experiences that you have or observations you make that give you greater reason to believe, but most beliefs cannot really be proven false. I talked about why in detail in my previous post and gave examples, did you read them? I think asking questions is never a bad thing and putting things to the test and examining them is a good idea. However, all I am saying is for religious claims those tests and examinations won't yield results that can disprove it typically, because ultimately it comes down to faith. -
NoShirtNoShoesNoService — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 06:51 AM)
What is your evidence that God doesn't exist?
I'm not claiming anything; I'm responding to your positive claim that some (or any) god exists, so the onus is on you to prove, with credible evidence, that such a being exists, not on me or anyone else to disprove.
Where is our credible evidence?
To me there are several evidences of God.
The delusions in your head don't matter - the only thing that does matter is you proving, with credible evidence, that your claim that any god exists valid and therefore justifiable.
Where is your credible evidence?
This whole earth and everything on it is evidence to me that there is a God.
This whole earth and everything on it is evidence only that this whole earth and everything on it exists, not that any god is responsible for that existence. You would need actual credible evidence to prove your claim that any god exists before further claiming any actions of that unproven god.
Where is your credible evidence?
However, it is important to note that just because there is no empirical evidence to support something, that doesn't mean that something isn't true.
You have provided no evidence of any kind for the claim that any god exists, and neither has anyone else in the history of mankind.
To claim that something is true, there necessarily must be credible evidence to prove that claim is valid, justified, ant to be believed.
Because if you believe things (and believe "in" things) with no evidence until and unless they are disproven, that puts you in the awkward position of simultaneously believing in any number of things, many of them contradictory; because, you know, they're all still un-disproven.
Where is your credible evidence?
For example, pretend that there was a planet in another galaxy that has a special kind of elephant that naturally had bright pink skin. There is no way for us to obtain empirical data for something like that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And the default position is still to withhold belief in the existence of such an entity until and/or unless we have any credible evidence for its existence.
The thing about science is it has to be something testable and potentially falsifiable. Because we have no way of disproving that species of elephant, it does not fall into the realm of science.
True; its existence, as well as the existence of any god, both instead fall into the category of blind speculation, because there is equal evidence for both - that is, none.
Where is your credible evidence for any god?
Religion is not science
No, it isn't; it is in fact merely blind superstition, the exact opposite of science, and to be dismissed as such.
because the knowledge and faith obtained in a religion is not obtained through the scientific method
"Faith" (belief in the absence of evidence) is not "obtained in" any religion; this irrational belief system is the basis of religion. Religion is derived from faith, not the other way around. You can't even get your myopically religious delusions straight. no wonder you're so confused
That doesn't make it false, because scientifically it is impossible to really disprove God.
Once again, the burden of proof is not on those who don't believe your unproven deistic claim to disprove that unproven claim; it necessarily is on you and those who claim this deistic existence to prove, with credible evidence - which no one has done yet, including you.
Where is your credible evidence?
I believe there are different types of knowledge. There is scientific knowledge, there is spiritual knowledge, and I'm sure there are other categories of knowledge we could categorize but right now I want to focus on spiritual knowledge.
What you "believe" is irrelevant.
The only type of "knowledge" germane to giving credence to your claim that any god exists is that which is based on credible evidence, of which you have provided none thus far.
Where is your credible evidence?
Spiritual knowledge is not obtained the same way as scientific knowledge
Wrong - scientific knowledge is demonstrable. "Spiritual knowledge" is a non-sequitur; a contradiction in terms; and at best a poor example of poetic oxymoron - like "a deafening silence", "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp" - but far more egregiously used.
It does have similarities,
Wrong; there is actually no "similarity" between actual, demonstrable (i. e., scientific) knowledge and fake, imaginary "religious knowledge"
like you should study the scriptures and words of the prophets.
The atrocious grammar aside, the only context in which these should be "studied" is that of a College-level course in Philosophy or Comparative Mythology, which is where they belong.
You should also experiment on those teachings by living after a like manner and seeing how it blesses your life. You can look at those results and make some conclusions.
Or we could do much better by cutting out the unnecessary Religiosity middle-man and just live our lives espousing completely secular sentiments that by far pre-da
