for atheists:
-
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 -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 04:53 PM)
My point here is evidence for God, although very prevent if you simply look around you, isn't evidence the same way scientific data is. It comes in a different form than scientific evidence and you may not call it evidence because it isn't empirical. The purpose of science is to attempt to explain how the world works. It doesn't attempt to explain why.
For example, science explains how our body works through the biological sciences. Science explains how something falls to earth through law of gravity. It doesn't explain why our brains work the way they do or why gravity exists or why this world was created. Surely the answers to those questions exist, but it didn't fall into the realm of science which is why I don't need to provide "credible evidence" for God's existence, at least not the scientific evidence you are looking for.
However it is extremely ignorant to only believe what science can prove. It is ignorant to say that truth can only come by means of science. Anything that is, is truth. That is true regardless of whether or not science can show that through empirical data. The pink elephant example that I gave earlier, if it truly existed on a distant planet, just because science didn't prove it, that wouldn't make that fact less true. To say so is ignorant. I seek truth wherever I can, and I recognize that truth can be found in many places, not just science. I believe I have found truth with my religion. I have had countless experiences that serve as evidence of God. It may not be scientific evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.
Faith is not just blind belief. Faith is a hope for things which are not seen which are true. There is truth out there that cannot be obtained by means of science. Science is an amazing thing, but it is only a piece of the puzzle that is truth. By only relying on science is depriving you of more truth that is out there. There are questions that science will never be able to even attempt to answer. So you have two choices, live in ignorance, or go to other sources to find additional truth that science cannot obtain. The choice is yours and I will leave it at that. -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 05:22 PM)
Sorry, I must have missed your question. I was just responding the other response. As far as your question goes, there are several religions out there and belief systems. Can all of them be right? Of course not. That is impossible. There is either one religion out there that is true, or they are all wrong altogether. It is up to the individual to seek where truth lies. I believe I have found it in the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints (Mormons). So the answer to your question is I do believe the Muslims are wrong. I don't mean any disrespect. I think many Muslims are actually good people. But I don't believe in their religion though because I do think they are wrong. However, with that said, I do think that there are bits of truth in many religions. However, I don't believe they have the full truth. Anyway sorry if you thought I was ignoring you, that wasn't my intention
-
Isapop — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 06:03 PM)
There is either one religion out there that is true, or they are all wrong altogether.
Then how is there any difference between you, who will say about God, "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", and a Muslim who says the very same thing?
Is it that when HE says it he is deluding himself, but when YOU say it it's true? -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 07:57 PM)
the difference is one of us is right. It's either that or we are both wrong. I wouldn't resort to call him delusional, because that is disrespectful and I really don't think if someone is wrong that they are delusional. They just have their faith misplaced. The only real way for you to know for yourself who is right or if we are all wrong is to study it out for yourself. You can study all about several religions and you can pray to know which is true. We have missionaries in our church whose purpose is to help people who sincerely want to know to investigate our beliefs and help them pray to know if it is true and to help them find the answer. When it comes to things like religion, it ultimately the only way you can know if I'm telling the truth is to try it for yourself. So you are welcome to find the missionaries from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints and investigate for yourself. I don't expect you to take my word for it, in fact I hope you don't. I want you to try for yourself to see what makes us different.
-
aaahmemories — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 08:19 PM)
Can all of them be right? Of course not.
Excuse me? Of course not? This strikes me as a comment by someone with no critical understanding of their own chosen religion, much less of any other.
There is either one religion out there that is true, or they are all wrong altogether.
Again, this merely exhibits a thorough lack of knowledge regarding human thought, never mind human culture. My experience is that all religions are mixtures of enlightenment and nonsense.
What's ignorant is claiming there isn't more truth out there that cannot be obtained through scientific research
Did you even read my comment? Let me repeat it for you since, if you did read it, you apparently didnt bother addressing what it said:
it is NOT ignorant to say truth can only come from observation and evaluation of reality. Truth cannot come from fantasyexcept the truth that fantasy IS fantasy and not truth.
the difference is one of us is right. It's either that or we are both wrong.
See above. There is no one truth, at least when it comes to religious views. The only one truth idea is purely a misunderstanding of how truth actually works.
ultimately the only way you can know if I'm telling the truth is to try it for yourself
Been there, done that. Ive read The Book of Mormon cover to cover several times. I remain unconvinced.
to see what makes us different
I already know what makes you different. Problem is, you dont seem to know it.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states. -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 08:40 PM)
First of all I wasn't responding to you, I have honestly been mostly ignoring you because you seem to continue to be disrespectful. Second of all, you tell me how it is possible that all religions be right? It isn't. Some Christians believe that infant baptism is necessary, and others believe it is an abomination. Those are contradicting beliefs they cannot both be true. Some religions believe in reincarnation, others don't. Both can't be correct. Either reincarnation is correct doctrine or its not. I do think that there are bits of truth to be found in any religion. However, I truly believe there is only one that has the full truth and I believe that to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
it is NOT ignorant to say truth can only come from observation and evaluation of reality. Truth cannot come from fantasyexcept the truth that fantasy IS fantasy and not truth.
I did read it and I disagree. I do think it is ignorant to say truth can only come from science when science can't possibly answer all of the questions out there. I have already said this clearly in some of my other comments, and I don't really feel like repeating it to you, especially since you seem to continue to just call me crazy and delusional.
Been there, done that. Ive read The Book of Mormon cover to cover several times. I remain unconvinced.
Well I'm sorry you weren't able to be convinced. I wish I could help you so I could help you know how you could have a different experience. I also read it cover to cover several times. I've read it probably abut 15-20 times. I had a very different experience. I almost hesitate to share my experience, because I hold it sacred. If all you are going to do is ridicule my experience I won't bother sharing it. If you would really like to know my experience I will share it with you. But I do commend you for reading. I don't know whether or not you were sincerely wanting to know and seeking with real intent as it says in the Book of Mormon. I served as a missionary for 2 years in Japan and I will tell you that every single person that I taught who sincerely read the Book of Mormon, truly seeking truth, and praying with real intent to know if it was true, if they did that they always received their answer that it was true. If you know of any missionaries in your area, I would encourage you to speak to them to see if they can help you have a special experience with the Book of Mormon. But if you really don't have a true desire to know, you won't receive your answer. -
aaahmemories — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 10:28 PM)
you seem to continue to be disrespectful
People arent going to respect your religious beliefs merely because you demand respect for those beliefs. If thats the only form of discourse youll accept, youll spend your life ignoring most everyone. Thats fine with others, not good for you. Your choice, of course.
they cannot both be true
Actually, they canfor those who believe in them. You yourself believe in ideas which the majority of your own self-proclaimed religious sect find risible. Yet theyre truefor you.
I truly believe there is only one that has the full truth
Your belief, unfortunately, is only thatyour belief. Its not truth. Its only your belief in what you deem truth.
I did read it and I disagree.
Your disagreement is a given. What you havent presented is any credible argument against the contention.
you seem to continue to just call me crazy and delusional
Playing the victim to avoid facing hard questions is a feeble position called poisoning the well. If youre comfortable with it, fine. But dont expect anyone to find it intellectually honest, never mind convincing.
I almost hesitate to share my experience, because I hold it sacred.
If it cant stand up to examination, it isnt what you think it is.
I don't know whether or not you were sincerely wanting to know and seeking with real intent
IMO theres no point exposing ones self to anything unless one genuinely wants to learn from such exposure. In the case of the Mormon literature (which also included A Marvelous Work and a Wonder), a close friend of mine, a recent convert to Mormonism, urged me to read them. Both out of respect for him and my own youthful enthusiasm for understanding the world around me, I was avid to do so.
if you really don't have a true desire to know, you won't receive your answer
Im afraid this applies to you as much as to me. You see, youve already decided. I havent. But I must tell you that Mormonism seems no more convincing to me than does Shinto or Buddhism or Islam or Taoism or Catholicism or Protestantism or any of the other religious persuasions known around the world. Nor for that matter are the ancient religions of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, or Norse. And you may be sure Ive been exposed to fervent believers of all those credos.
It isnt that I find any of them without interest or, indeed, particles of truth. Its that all of them fail as credible overall explanations of reality.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states. -
Isapop — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 01:46 AM)
The only real way for you to know for yourself who is right or if we are all wrong is to study it out for yourself. You can study all about several religions and you can pray to know which is true.
Don't you think there are Muslims who have done exactly that? And those who converted to Catholicism? And Seventh Day Adventists? And Jehovah's Witnesses? And Quakers? And plenty of other religions that I haven't listed? Countless people study and pray for the truth, and end up in so many other religions different from yours.
When there are so many people who study and pray for the truth, and have felt God's love and have seen his helping hand in their lives, and have seen answers to their prayers,
but whose faith is
still
misplaced
, then how can you have any confidence that your faith isn't one of the many "misplaced" ones? -
Jeremy12345 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 08:37 AM)
There is no sure way to know if your beliefs are misplaced. Ultimately it does require a tremendous amount of faith. It is through my faith and my experiences that I have had that give me confidence that my faith isn't misguided. And for my faith personally, it ultimately comes down to the Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is often referred to as the keystone of our religion. That is because whether or not our religion is true rests on the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet and translated the Book of Mormon through the power of God, and then he truly saw God and Jesus Christ. If all of that is true, then it is also true that God, through Joseph Smith restored the true church to the earth. So if the Book of Mormon is true then my faith isn't misguided. I know without a shadow of a doubt the Book of Mormon is true, which is what gives me confidence
-
Isapop — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 09:35 AM)
So if the Book of Mormon is true then my faith isn't misguided. I know without a shadow of a doubt the Book of Mormon is true, which is what gives me confidence
All right, then. Instead of that very subjective "evidence" you were offering before ("I have felt that lovehe had answered my prayers"), at least you are pointing to something concrete (The Book Of Mormon) that can be examined objectively.
I certainly won't attempt to do that. But you can't be unaware that a mountain of criticism of the Book of Mormon from many angles and from an array of sources is available on line for anyone to inspect. You said, "It is up to the individual to seek where truth lies." Would you agree that an honest and prayerful search for truth could lead someone to reject the Book of Mormon just as readily as it led you to accept it?