Taking Science on Faith

[wmw999 2,575]

Quote

an omnimax god

And what if God isn't, in fact, omnimax? Does that disprove? An omnipotent God is really one belief set's version.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

And while I said that the existence of God cannot be disproven, it's for the same reason that it cannot be proven. So it's not excluded from my argument any more than anything else that we cannot completely confirm (e.g. aliens with glowing green eyes). Things like the Loch Ness monster are a little easier to assume as fictitious simply because their domain is more limited, and we can probably map it completely pretty soon. Hard to do with the universe.

There is a huge difference between "cannot completely confirm" and there is absolutely no shred of evidence at all to even suggest that God exists or that there is life after death. The existence of God is disproven due to a lack of evidence.

[JackC 0]

Quote

And what if God isn't, in fact, omnimax?

Then all bets are off. But you've placed limits on what god is and that makes him decidedly less god-like. Whatever your new demi-god is can then also be logically poked to see what falls out.

[billvon 3,096]

>an omnimax god also can't exist because of mutually contradictory properties

You can easily create your own God and shoot him down. (We could call that the 'straw god' argument.) However, not all people share your definition of God, and thus your belief that _no_ religious belief is valid is unsupported.

[JackC 0]

Quote

You can easily create your own God and shoot him down. (We could call that the 'straw god' argument.)

That's not my definition, it's Biblical. Not everyone is a Biblical literalist of course.

Quote

thus your belief that _no_ religious belief is valid is unsupported.

Who said that was my belief? I am fully aware of where my logic is valid and where it isn't.

I'm strongly atheistic about certain gods and apathetically agnostic about others, but I place no faith in any of them. Although it's more true to say the concept of "god" is so wooly and esoteric that it holds no meaning for me. When pressed, it usually turns out that theists don't have a self-consistent and fully functional definition of what god is either.

[billvon 3,096]

>That's not my definition, it's Biblical. Not everyone is a Biblical literalist of course.

Bingo! Heck, there are some religious people who don't reference the bible at all.

>When pressed, it usually turns out that theists don't have a
>self-consistent and fully functional definition of what god is either.

By your definition of "fully functional" at least.

[JackC 0]

Quote

By your definition of "fully functional" at least.

Yep, but if you want me to beleive "it" you're gonna need to define what "it" is first.

I used to be with "it", but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't it, and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me. ~ Grampa Simpson

[billvon 3,096]

>Yep, but if you want me to beleive "it" you're gonna need to define what "it" is first.

Ah, but see, I have no desire for you to believe anything at all.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Ah, but see, I have no desire for you to believe anything at all.

I have no desire to stop people believing in whatever they want, but I would ask them to justify their position if they want any respect fot it. Especially if those beliefs affect others who do not share them.

[billvon 3,096]

> but I would ask them to justify their position if they want any respect for it.

I guess that's where we differ. I don't think they have to justify their positions, as long as it works for them.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I don't think they have to justify their positions, as long as it works for them.

They don't have to justify anything to anyone. And I don't have to respect unjustified opinions. "Because I said so" isn't something I can get on board with. "Because of A, B and C" is much more likely to peak my interest.

If you take it to extremes, racism is unjustified and I don't respect it. Are you saying that you would, so long as it worked for them?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I've been down this road before with those of the fantical form of the religion of atheism - have fun, they really hate this argument.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

I've been down this road before with those of the fantical form of the religion of atheism - have fun, they really hate this argument.

Pointless ain't it.

[jakee 1,584]

Quote

Quote

I've been down this road before with those of the fantical form of the religion of atheism - have fun, they really hate this argument.

Because it's kinda rubbish.

If we take your argument at face value then you can never say you're sure about anything. Even aluminum. Or green. Or Japan.

And that's just a philosophical cop out.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,096]

>Are you saying that you would, so long as it worked for them?

If you think a personal religious belief is similar to racism, then I guess we're coming from completely different perspectives. Good luck with yours.

[wmw999 2,575]

Yeah, but it was fun

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JackC 0]

Quote

If you think a personal religious belief is similar to racism, then I guess we're coming from completely different perspectives.

I was trying to make a general point that opinions, whatever they may be, should be justified if they are to be respected. In the special case of religion, some beliefs are racist or homophobic or misogynistic, with no real justification, and it looks as though you respect that. Feel free to clarify your position.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Quote

There currently is no evidence of anything other then a decomposing corpse. As far as anyone can tell there is no life after death.

In the gospels there are first hand accounts of a resurrected Christ. A first hand account is considered evidence in a court of law. It is not scientific evidence but a witness account is used for discovery of the truth. So the truth according to the eyewitnesses in the gospels is there is life after death.

Can you please point out these “first hand accounts” and where they appear in the gospels???

Because I think you’re talking rubbish…

Jesus is supposed to have live in the first 3 decades of the 1st century; the first gospel written by Mark mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple during the Siege of Jerusalem, which occurred in the year 70. Therefore the gospels where written after this time, which leaves a huge 4 decade gap between the gospels and the alleged life of Christ..

So basically Jesus lived, everyone forgot... and then everyone remembered!!!

Paul did write about Jesus at around 60 C.E., However If Jesus really had lived as a historical human being, nobody told Paul about it. In all of Paul's epistles, (about 80,000 words), he never mentions a historical Jesus! He never heard of Mary, Joseph, a birth in Bethlehem, King Herod, the miracles, ministry, no trial by Jews, or trial by Pontius Pilate. In other words, the man who invented Christianity had no idea that Jesus walked the earth.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[kallend 2,136]

Quote

> but I would ask them to justify their position if they want any respect for it.

I guess that's where we differ. I don't think they have to justify their positions, as long as it works for them.

He also wrote (and you snipped): "Especially if those beliefs affect others who do not share them."

I have a REAL issue with people who try to affect my behavior on account of their unsubstantiated beliefs in supernatural beings.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,096]

>I have a REAL issue with people who try to affect my behavior on
>account of their unsubstantiated beliefs in supernatural beings.

Yep. If they bug me about it (or try to legislate religion) that bothers me. But in general, I don't care what people believe as long as it works for them. They don't have to justify it to me. Heck, if they believe in the Easter Bunny, and the work they do on his behalf helps dozens of other people, I'm going to have more respect for them than I do for an atheist who does nothing all because he feels there's no reason to.

And as long as they feel the same way about me, and don't try to change _me_ to conform to their view of the universe (whether it includes a god or not) then all is well.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>1) It's hearsay. hearsay is an out-of-court statement, used in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The out of court statement? Jesus ascended and was resurrected. Well, the gospels need to say this IN court.

By a person, which you refer to your following statements.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And while I said that the existence of God cannot be disproven, it's for the same reason that it cannot be proven. So it's not excluded from my argument any more than anything else that we cannot completely confirm (e.g. aliens with glowing green eyes). Things like the Loch Ness monster are a little easier to assume as fictitious simply because their domain is more limited, and we can probably map it completely pretty soon. Hard to do with the universe.

There is a huge difference between "cannot completely confirm" and there is absolutely no shred of evidence at all to even suggest that God exists or that there is life after death. The existence of God is disproven due to a lack of evidence.

No, the lack of evidence doesn't disprove, just fails to prove, so it is inconclusive.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Really. One is an assertion of fact that could be disproven (well, not in the case of God), the other is simply an assertion about one's own belief.

Semantics. And incorrect. Or at the very least, a purported "difference" that in fact - which is to say, in the absence of semantic gymnastics - is no genuine difference at all.

People who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because they believe there is no God. Any other characterization is semantic claptrap.

Atheism is not a belief; it is simply the absence of a particular form of belief. Not believing in God is atheism. "Believing" there is no God is...atheism.

Now here's where people trot out the word "agnosticism". Spare me. Agnosticism doesn't really exist. The word "agnostic", distilled to its essence, is really just a safe harbor some atheists use to label themselves because they're afraid theists will think less of them if they call themselves atheists.

[maadmax 0]

-- Jesus is supposed to have live in the first 3 decades of the 1st century; the first gospel written by Mark mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple during the Siege of Jerusalem, which occurred in the year 70. Therefore the gospels where written after this time, which leaves a huge 4 decade gap between the gospels and the alleged life of Christ.. So basically Jesus lived, everyone forgot... and then everyone remembered!!!


No, "The Way" as the movement was first called grew by leaps and bounds. It was communicated orally initially, then was written as you say in the later part of the 1st century by those who witnessed the events. By 312 CE it was the predominant faith of the Roman Empire.


________________________________________

--Paul did write about Jesus at around 60 C.E., However If Jesus really had lived as a historical human being, nobody told Paul about it. In all of Paul's epistles, (about 80,000 words), he never mentions a historical Jesus! He never heard of Mary, Joseph, a birth in Bethlehem, King Herod, the miracles, ministry, no trial by Jews, or trial by Pontius Pilate. In other words, the man who invented Cristianity had no idea that Jesus walked the earth.

You do know a lot of Biblical facts but on this one you obviously have no idea. Paul wrote about issues he felt were important for the spiritual development of his Churches. And thank God he did.


...

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Really. One is an assertion of fact that could be disproven (well, not in the case of God), the other is simply an assertion about one's own belief.

Semantics. And incorrect. Or at the very least, a purported "difference" that in fact - which is to say, in the absence of semantic gymnastics - is no genuine difference at all.

People who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because they believe there is no God. Any other characterization is semantic claptrap.

Atheism is not a belief; it is simply the absence of a particular form of belief. Not believing in God is atheism. "Believing" there is no God is...atheism.

Now here's where people trot out the word "agnosticism". Spare me. Agnosticism doesn't really exist. The word "agnostic", distilled to its essence, is really just a safe harbor some atheists use to label themselves because they're afraid theists will think less of them if they call themselves atheists.

>>>>>>>>>>>Now here's where people trot out the word "agnosticism". Spare me. Agnosticism doesn't really exist. The word "agnostic", distilled to its essence, is really just a safe harbor some atheists use to label themselves because they're afraid theists will think less of them if they call themselves atheists

I couldn't disagree more. I was formerly an athiest, but then understood a little more aboutt he universe and the scientific model and realized that atheism or absolute believing in a god is ridiculous. I say we answer the easy questions like cancer and AIDS, then we go to origin and destony. To have faith in either evolution as a pathway from ape to man, or in creationsim as a majical creation of people from nothing are both fine, when you claim these are absolutes and there is no other way that is delluded.

So for you to say that people like me are looking for a safe harbor is so far wrong it's inane at the least. What I think of and how I deal with the Gos puchers is to call them Jesus trash, not to say that private believers are that way, just the Jesus trash who aren't ok with me decididng not to believe or put faith is a diety, those are the trash.

Your paragraph acts as tho there's a fear from people like me of the Jesus nuts, so I soft-shoe Atheism into Agnoticism - ridiculous. I call myself an Agnostic due to there not being enough evidence on either side, any side to place enough faith to feel confident that that is the destiny. I lean toward the scientific approach, hence Atheism, but I certainly place no strong faith in it.

My take by you saying that Atheists are afraid of thumpers, is that you are trying to force a decision: THERE IS A GOD OR THERE ISN'T. Tells me which side you're from.