Knowledge vs Faith

Most human problems trace back to the weakness perpetuated by faith based religion.
Knowledge based spirituality, however, has a far more positive effect.
Please visit unusual "Evolutionary Psychology" site.
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/odin11

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

can we not conclude if there was such a man as jesus christ like we believe, that he had Knowledge based spirituality.
is this not so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is this god of yours that's whispering in your ear that its perfectly consice to use 'whoms' without knowing how to in your sentences?
And is this same fool the one that's told you the moonwalk was fake?


You're getting annoying, Brain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well you didn't have to visit a site to tell you that. Religion is just outdated instructions on how to live your life. God is a overrated concept, i think even god himself would be sick of hearing his name by now. Knowledge alone is rather cynical view on life but if you can manage to mix them both (belief in god mixed with knowledge of beyond what is taught to you). That method has worked best for me. Sadly enough in this day and age god is used as a excuse by radicals to carry out their vendetta against their enemies.

 

extremeists.....

 

Baseless and stupid.

Baseless and stupid.

Baseless and stupid.

Baseless and stupid.

Baseless and stupid.

Baseless and stupid.

Baseless and stupid.

Baseless and stupid.

Wow that was easy. Took more time that it was worth though, I'm sure.

 

What is evolutionary psychology?

"The study of the psychological adaptations of humans to
the changing physical and social environment, especially
of changes in brain structure, cognitive mechanisms, and
behavioral differences among individuals."

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary

See also: The (Im)moral Animal

 

Before you can say it is all an illusion, you must bear a burdon of proof. You are making the statement God DOES NOT exist. You must follow through with the burdon of proof, or give up the argument.

 

god has created the universe, because something had to create the universe.

 

What if that's not true? What if the universe simply is because it can be? What if there are infinite universes? Read this months' scientific american edgar... check it on your news stand or at www.sciam.com for a little flavor. Make sure to read the article on 'multiverses'.

EDIT: Here's a link directly to the <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000">article</a>.

 

Why do theists always demand that atheists explain an uncaused first cause but blissfully accept that their god has always existed?

I’ll take scientific rationalism over biblical fairy tales any day.

 

As I said earlier: PROVE God does not exist. If you cannot do that, then you cannot make a case that purely naturalistic forces are all that are at work in the universe. It boils down to the psycological decision of what is more comfortable for you to believe.

 

Brian, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. You're faith is unmatched, and god will lift you from this earth and bring you to him in heaven.


idiot.......

 

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those claiming something exists, not the other way around.


Another example of lack of reasoning.

 

Indeed. You know what they say - GIGO.

Here is another example ...

"god has created the universe, because
something had to create the universe."
-edgar

 

You should read what the 5th element dude (or dudette) said about your post. It's true.

Aithiest says nothing.

Theist says: Hey guess what? God did it!

Aitheist says: That sounds stupid, why would you say that?

Theist says: Because it's true.

Who bears the burden of proof?

 

The Dragon In My Garage

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Source: The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark by Carl Sagan

 

There is still a burdon of proof placed upon those making a negative claim. You are falling back on the argument that if you don't see it for yourself, it can't be real. The Egyptian philosopher Aesop wrote a very good fable on this. I will try to recall it as best as I can.

There was a boy in a small village, who went out one day to watch the crows along the Nile. One day while he was looking, he thought he saw one crow that was white, instead of black. Filled with excitement, he ran back to his parents and exclaimed to them "Mommy! Daddy! I saw a white crow by the river!" His parents both frowned at him and shook their heads. "Son, there is no such thing as a white crow. All crows are black." The child wouldn't budge. "But mom, I SAW a white crow with my own eyes!" Angry at their childs defiance, they punished him and sent him away. The next day, the boy went back to the Nile again, and this time I managed to see the Crow up close, and he spoke to it. "Are you a crow?" he asked, unsure of what he was seeing. "Yes, I am a crow," the bird answered. The boy, now torn between what he sees with his own eyes and what his parents taught him, spoke again. "I thought all crows were black," he said. "I know, " the crow replied, "but I am white. I am the only one like me that I have ever seen." The boy at once ran home, and exclaimed to his parents "Mommy! Daddy! I saw the white Crow again!" His parents, angry that their child did not accept their word, punished him far more severely.

I can offer you no proof God exists accept that God is real to me. You cannot in turn, offer any evidence that God DOES NOT exist, accept that you cannot find any. In science, a lack of evidence has NEVER foreclosed the possiblity of the existance of something. It only states that a conclusion cannot be drawn. By stating that a lack of evidence leads to a conclusion, you aren't following science very well. This is the point I am making when I say that you bear a burdon of proof, and I can indeed turn all the arguments you are useing on me against your own claim.

Seccularist: "God does not exist."
Theist: "Really, why do you think that?"
Seccularist: "Because it is true."

Who bears the burdon of proof here?

 

Would not the burden of proof fall on both parties?

Since, someone who is trying to prove something doesn't exist is trying to prove that the possibility that something does not exist, exists.

Since, someone who is trying to prove something exists, have the burden of proof placed on them, no matter what using, substitution(this is true when you reference this paragraph to the last).

Does this seem reasonable and logical?(or is what I think logical, truly illogical? if so why?)

 

Thantos, that is exactly what I am saying. Scientifically, all the non-believer can say is "I cannot confirm your belief." In turn, the theologian can only say to the non-believer, "I cannot confirm your belief." But, when the seccularist makes the claim that God does not exist, he must show proof that he does not exist. In turn, for the theoligan to state that God exists, he likewise bears a burdon of proof.

Since God is currently defined as a spiritual and not a physical phenomenon, there is no way to validly test the existance of God with science UNLESS one can somehow give examples of natural phenomenon and place them in a context which would show an intelligence at work. For over 2,000 years, since well before the times of Plato and Archemetes, this has been the crux of this very old and very drawn-out argument and it is not an argument which will dissappear any time soon.