Theists live by science and faith. As far as science proves something to be truth (hence positive sentence), no difference with atheists. When it comes to question of God (and those spiritual things that sciences don't provide evidence - hence negative sentence), faith takes role, no evidence could be satisfying enough to judge its truth.
Except when science says something that contradicts faith, as history clearly shows. Then faith gets in the way of scientific inquiry.
I thought we had done this in another thread... maybe not. This is a fundemental philosophical issue, and one on which there are many different views. This is mine: Immediate and direct experience is the most true/real - i.e. You know that the sky looks blue, you are experiencing a pain, you feel angry, or you are seeing a mirage of a fridge full of beer. The experience in each case is real and undeniable. What you make of the experience depends on how you interpret it and the value you give it. Perhaps you decide the beer is 'imaginary', so there's no point trying to drink it. Maybe your anger is judged as unjustified, or dangerous to express, so you repress it. This step involves interpretation of the immediate experience. We bring all our personal and cultural baggage to the task, and our pre-existing perspective, and selection of facts colours the conclusions we draw. Science attempts to eliminate this baggage, by seeing things from the 'objective' absolute viewpoint of an uninvolved observer. This works well for establishing some objective 'facts' on which a consensus can be reached. However even here, because of the difficulties of reaching a consensus on evidence and method, researchers often come up with contradictory results e.g. correlations between HRT and breast cancer in women. For investigating many subjective experiences e.g. cultural norms, ethical values, art, philosophy, religion etc. science is an inadequate tool, as very little consensus can ever be reached over objective criteria of valdity or the selection of evidence. So, religious truth works slightly differently. I think we've done the "direct experience of God" before. I can observe from the outside what effect such an experience has on someone, consider what interpretation I place on it and try to understand it both within their worldview, and also from mine. Not every theist experiences God directly however, and for most theists, their religion is based on 'faith'. This is most like trusting a person. You leave your car with a mechanic, in good faith that he will fix it and not trash it. So, for instance I can read "Come to me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest" in the Bible, and then (as a theist) try it. I will mentally hand over my concerns, trusting that they will be looked after and then observe what happens. And yes, I find I do attain peace of mind, and in most cases also either a new perspective on a problem, the ability to deal with it or a spontaneous resolution. This is not objective evidence, but it is valid subjective evidence that it seems to work (is true/real). I can also check with other theists if they experience the same. So I continue to trust in it some more, and explore a bit further. That is the nature of 'faith' - you have to take the leap of trust, and then you can collect the evidence. This is something you can only do as an individual, and each individual must discover it afresh for themselves. This makes it very different to science where evidence is 'public property'. Confusion between these two leads to much misunderstanding.
:bugeye: why are you getting so touchy? ron is simply using the same arguments against you that you are trying to use against him. you seem to believe that god doesn't exist because he can't be observed scientifically. well, the mind cannot be observed either and that, i think, is what he is saying. you can observe evidence of its presence but not the mind itself. so why then can't we believe there is a god based on the "evidence" of his presence alone. now keep in mind that the evidence of the presence of god is the same evidence that most of those like you would consider merely coincidental or eventual(as in "it would've happened eventually") in nature. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
so you are suggesting not to rise question when your knowledge tells you there would be no answer? Even if the question, somehow sometime, appears in mind? How could people's mind arrive into that question anyway? What triggers it? If mind could arrive into such question, sure it has some curiosity whatsoever, then isn't it limiting possibilities while such question rised? I think, there should be answer to any questions, and answers shouldn't always be public domain (i.e proven to be truth by reproducible evidence), could be just in individual domain (because no reproducible evidence could be presented). If science could not provide such answer, then faith does.
Invalid ones at that. To turn an atheists argument against him doesn't work when the person using your own argument believes in sky fairies. What is your point here? And where did I say that? More to the point, why believe in something so far-fetched and believe it is ok to do so because it can still be true even if it can't be observed. In that case a person can literally believe anything. I believe there is a baby with the body of a spider, I don't care if science hasn't observed it - I WANT it to be true. Again, this is a really SHIT analogy. Stop grasping at straws. I don't even really know where to start, because it is not just the existence of a God you are trying to justify, but I bet if you were to tell me all of your beliefs associate with this God that you would still not be able to hide behind false analogies pretending to be rational. Just because our understanding of the brain is incomplete does not mean there is room for supernatural belief in the nature of how it works. This is just downright naivety which can only be found in the Bible which was written before men understood even the basics of our universe.
I thought you claimed earlier to be a "weak" atheist Kenny? You certainly don't sound like one now... Quote from Wiki on Atheism
Where did I state in my last post that a God does not exist. I am just saying it is highly irrational to actually believe it, and is irrelevant.
it sounds like bad science to me. you assume (have faith) that god is behind something, and then make the evidence fit that assumption. you still have not given any guidelines to tell a person what is valid. lets say you hear a voice in your head that says "I am god, go buy shampoo and give it to the homeless." buy what criteria do you judge whether or not it really is god? what motiveates you to have fait that it is god? lets say the phone rings, you answer it, and a person claiming to be god wants you to do stuff. how do you judge whether or not you should believe it? why have faith? by what criteria do you judge what is worthy of faith? there I asked the question 5 times, maybe you will give me a straight answer. unless, of course, the answer is "it feels right/good." to which I would laugh and point out that things feeling good gives them no more or less truth.
but please!!! but wwaaah!! but when i die, i want to like, not die, and like, go somewhere really nice!!! yes, and it was SANTA who brought you those presents! /end sarcasm
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and why not? most of what you have been saying is your opinion. same as mine. you haven't presented any concrete proof which you seem to require from any theists and offer instead insults and derision. i am irrational because i don't believe what you believe but at least i can discuss it without implying that you're delusional. i'm taking back what i said about you being delusional. someone earlier mentioned subjective proof and, admittedly, that is all i have. i KNOW myself. and i KNOW what i don't feel and what i do feel. and i KNOW - whether you want to believe me or not - that there is SOMEthing more than meets your narrowsighted eyes. i was going thru the same doubts and, at the risk of making you feel righteous, i was a little afraid of my doubts because it has been burned into most of the minds of our society that to deny god is to go to hell. "go straight to jail. do not pass go. do not collect $100". but i took the leap of faith, so feeling like an idiot for doing it. but i was open to whatever might be there. it was more a question of, "if anything is listening let me know"... it let me know. i got a feeling better than any drug known to man. it was like being small and utterly loved by something bigger than you can imagine. it was a complete surprise. and you can be a dick and tease me, try to discredit it or try to explain it away in any way that makes you feel better about it but it doesn't matter. because it wasn't FOR you. it was for me and my own demons. why do we get to pick and choose what unknowns are plausible and which aren't? as far as the bible being written before man understood the basics of the universe. 1) man knew enough back in the day to build ginormous structures in little time and to use these structures to chart the stars and the passage of time 2) has it ever occurred to you that whatever those people were writing makes no sense to us because they didn't have the ability to explain what they didn't understand? shit happens everyday that people don't understand and they explain it the only way they know how. half the time it ends up sounding like a tall tale. i don't even know where to start with you. but i'll say one more thing practically guaranteed to drive you out of your over-analyzing mind... i'll pray for your lost soul. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
exactly right, you cant imply it, because delusion is only on the religious side, well done. nothing, absolutely nothing, can be deemed as proof, if it is subjective. this is why you should wake up from this irrational/delusional dream, you been indoctrinated with,(it's a mind virus). exactly why it's delusional.(no objective evidence.) delusional A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand; A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. exactly and nobody minds you having your own personal demons, as long as they are your own personal demons, and you dont try to force them on others as truth.
what the hell are you trying to do here? you are accusing me of trying to impose my beliefs on you? i have said that it is a possibility that god exists and i have said that he exists for me, but nowhere have i insisted that you believe it or accept it. come ON, people. you are so ready to jump all over me because i don't feel the way you do. That is trying to force what you believe on me. i'm simply trying to add another ingredient to the pot. jeez! i assumed the purpose of this site was to debate, not to be hypocritical bullies. :m:
wow! are you taking things to personally. I feel the preacher was just stating facts, and that last part was a generalisation, as it is exactly what the religious do to every one else, is'nt it.
My proof is rationalism: Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.. You are irrational, not because you have a belief I don't share, but you believe in something far-fetched with no proof. I will speak to you as though you are delusional because that's what you obviously are. Because I believe in a baby with the body of a spider? Why is this delusional and not belief in an intelligent creator, heaven, soul, prayer etc? I'm not surprised to hear of the emotional nature of your belief as it is the only way to believe in the first place. It's also the only reason people could see the Loch Ness monster when it was nothing more than a 6 foot pole sticking out of the water, which was a test carried out for people to see what they want to see. It's also unlike a theist to enduldge in overstating the moment they 'found God'. Better than any drug on Earth? I'm sure you do 'KNOW'. People 'KNOW' lots of things there is no proof for: it's called superstition.
damn, do I have to keep reposting to get an answer? could some theist answer the question please? or are you afraid of looking into a flaw in your logic?
nope. i've had my ass handed to me too many times. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and you guys are right. i did take it personally and that was stupid. i suppose theists do hound you. i know i have been and i must say that it is a very unpleasant experience. i can only offer in explanation that most theists only do it because they want you to have what they believe they will have someday. don't - please - start getting pissy about that. i understand that you don't want it or anything to do with it because you believe it is a dream. i only take offense to being considered unwell for my faith in religion. and yet i am wrong for considering you, say immoral, for your lack of it. i see it as a double-standard. in any case, why don't we all agree to disagree. you believe what you want and retain your righteousness and i will believe what i want and keep my sanity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I genuinely want to know how theists justify their beliefs. DD seems confident that atheism and theism are equally valid, but that would require a way to validate ones theistic beliefs. if one cannot validate ones beliefs, then they are not equal, considering atheism is built around the idea that one must justify things with evidence or logic. you say live and let live. I say let the more valid method be known. one should not deny truth to maintain the status quo.
