|
No. The action of proving has nothing to do with being atheism. Stop.
|
On May 20 2017 05:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 04:01 Uldridge wrote:No. Agnosticism is believing that you simply can't know if a deity exists or not and are unwilling to lean to either side because there isn't compelling evidence for either. It's a more spiritual approach that puts question marks where the divine being should be. Atheism rejects that notion, because they say that all the current collected accounts on any form of theism, whether those are anecdotal or of a literary source are not proof at all. Therefore it's a lack of belief in a deity until proven otherwise. I have no reason to believe in a God because there's no compelling evidence for it. If, however, proof did come to light, why would I still not accept that? It's proof after all.. Atheists can still be wrong about their current belief system, even if that chance is like 10^-100 or something. Don't confuse my healthy skepticism for leaning towards a wrongly prescribed belief. On May 20 2017 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why I asked the question to begin with--how does someone believe something they deem to be unprovable? Why do you think the existence of God is unprovable. It might be at this current time, but when we've gathered enough knowledge to understand the universe completely I think that's enough data to make some sort of claim about it. It's not because it's a supernatural being that it can't/won't/doesn't underact with the natural space. Proving god is real is an agnostic/theistic goal. Proving god isn't real is an atheistic one. Not really. Just as I have no need to prove I'm innocent. I'm perfectly confident that a couple of millennia without obvious proof of God's existence is sufficient proof of his inexistence.
No one is inherently innocent for the same reason no one is inherently guilty. The state, by their grace, seems its citizens innocent be decree.
FYI, the only reason it's not obvious is because you are not convinced. Many find the data convincing. For the most part, your perspective is purely your own belief system making you discount the experiences and testimonies of others.
Which is the whole point of my bringing up the topic--you "not needing to prove" being a good enough reason for you to believe in something is, kind of strange don't you think?
Logic and science suggests we should have the proof before we have the conclusion, not the other way around.
PS: love chatting with you, this is all in good fun :D
|
On May 20 2017 05:45 Uldridge wrote:
No. The action of proving has nothing to do with being atheism. Stop.
That's literally what my first post was about!
Atheism is the only belief system I know that hinges on not needing proof! As you say, the action of proving has nothing to do with atheism.
The opposite is true with theism where they literally are dogmatically encouraged to reread research and analyze the original data the original sources over and over and over again to try and continue finding more proof of their God's love. Finding proof is at the core of theism.
Only atheism discourages finding proof of their stances.
|
On May 20 2017 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 05:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 04:01 Uldridge wrote:No. Agnosticism is believing that you simply can't know if a deity exists or not and are unwilling to lean to either side because there isn't compelling evidence for either. It's a more spiritual approach that puts question marks where the divine being should be. Atheism rejects that notion, because they say that all the current collected accounts on any form of theism, whether those are anecdotal or of a literary source are not proof at all. Therefore it's a lack of belief in a deity until proven otherwise. I have no reason to believe in a God because there's no compelling evidence for it. If, however, proof did come to light, why would I still not accept that? It's proof after all.. Atheists can still be wrong about their current belief system, even if that chance is like 10^-100 or something. Don't confuse my healthy skepticism for leaning towards a wrongly prescribed belief. On May 20 2017 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why I asked the question to begin with--how does someone believe something they deem to be unprovable? Why do you think the existence of God is unprovable. It might be at this current time, but when we've gathered enough knowledge to understand the universe completely I think that's enough data to make some sort of claim about it. It's not because it's a supernatural being that it can't/won't/doesn't underact with the natural space. Proving god is real is an agnostic/theistic goal. Proving god isn't real is an atheistic one. Not really. Just as I have no need to prove I'm innocent. I'm perfectly confident that a couple of millennia without obvious proof of God's existence is sufficient proof of his inexistence. No one is inherently innocent for the same reason no one is inherently guilty. The state, by their grace, seems its citizens innocent be decree. FYI, the only reason it's not obvious is because you are not convinced. Many find the data convincing. For the most part, your perspective is purely your own belief system making you discount the experiences and testimonies of others. Which is the whole point of my bringing up the topic--you "not needing to prove" being a good enough reason for you to believe in something is, kind of strange don't you think? Logic and science suggests we should have the proof before we have the conclusion, not the other way around. PS: love chatting with you, this is all in good fun :D
And as I said a few posts up: other people find the scriptures are sufficient evidence of their God's existence. I don't think that is so, and encourage those that believe to gather more evidence. Perhaps one day I'll be convinced. Until that day I maintain the null hypothesis: there is no God.
I do have a bit of evidence to back me up: the number of things ascribed to God's direct intervention is generally becoming smaller as we find evidence of other processes (that we know to exist due to plenty of other evidence) being capable of explaining how things came to be. Particularly cosmology and evolutionary biology have caused the religious explanation of genesis to be seen as an allegory rather than a truthful description of creation. A similar pattern is currently happening in sociology, behavioral economics and ethics showing how norms can emerge in society without divinity needing to pass them down to us. God is increasingly an invisible puppet master rather than front and center in how we understand our world to be. As a theory of how the world works, religion has failed.
But if you're happy with religion being "exiled" to an invisible hand that we cannot see by it's very design, then there's plenty of miracles and stories of the afterlife to keep you engaged.
|
On May 20 2017 07:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 05:45 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 05:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 04:01 Uldridge wrote:No. Agnosticism is believing that you simply can't know if a deity exists or not and are unwilling to lean to either side because there isn't compelling evidence for either. It's a more spiritual approach that puts question marks where the divine being should be. Atheism rejects that notion, because they say that all the current collected accounts on any form of theism, whether those are anecdotal or of a literary source are not proof at all. Therefore it's a lack of belief in a deity until proven otherwise. I have no reason to believe in a God because there's no compelling evidence for it. If, however, proof did come to light, why would I still not accept that? It's proof after all.. Atheists can still be wrong about their current belief system, even if that chance is like 10^-100 or something. Don't confuse my healthy skepticism for leaning towards a wrongly prescribed belief. On May 20 2017 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is why I asked the question to begin with--how does someone believe something they deem to be unprovable? Why do you think the existence of God is unprovable. It might be at this current time, but when we've gathered enough knowledge to understand the universe completely I think that's enough data to make some sort of claim about it. It's not because it's a supernatural being that it can't/won't/doesn't underact with the natural space. Proving god is real is an agnostic/theistic goal. Proving god isn't real is an atheistic one. Not really. Just as I have no need to prove I'm innocent. I'm perfectly confident that a couple of millennia without obvious proof of God's existence is sufficient proof of his inexistence. No one is inherently innocent for the same reason no one is inherently guilty. The state, by their grace, seems its citizens innocent be decree. FYI, the only reason it's not obvious is because you are not convinced. Many find the data convincing. For the most part, your perspective is purely your own belief system making you discount the experiences and testimonies of others. Which is the whole point of my bringing up the topic--you "not needing to prove" being a good enough reason for you to believe in something is, kind of strange don't you think? Logic and science suggests we should have the proof before we have the conclusion, not the other way around. PS: love chatting with you, this is all in good fun :D And as I said a few posts up: other people find the scriptures are sufficient evidence of their God's existence. I don't think that is so, and encourage those that believe to gather more evidence. Perhaps one day I'll be convinced. Until that day I maintain the null hypothesis: there is no God. I do have a bit of evidence to back me up: the number of things ascribed to God's direct intervention is generally becoming smaller as we find evidence of other processes (that we know to exist due to plenty of other evidence) being capable of explaining how things came to be. Particularly cosmology and evolutionary biology have caused the religious explanation of genesis to be seen as an allegory rather than a truthful description of creation. A similar pattern is currently happening in sociology, behavioral economics and ethics showing how norms can emerge in society without divinity needing to pass them down to us. God is increasingly an invisible puppet master rather than front and center in how we understand our world to be. As a theory of how the world works, religion has failed. But if you're happy with religion being "exiled" to an invisible hand that we cannot see by it's very design, then there's plenty of miracles and stories of the afterlife to keep you engaged.
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right?
|
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane?
|
On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane?
I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it.
I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists.
For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact.
Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts.
Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does.
As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion.
If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus.
If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof.
When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in.
But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept.
Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling.
When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it.
When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me.
|
On May 20 2017 03:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 01:26 Yoav wrote:On May 19 2017 17:02 xM(Z wrote:On May 19 2017 14:59 Yoav wrote:On May 19 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Debates between atheists and believers are as old as religion itself. There is nothing inherently insulting about the debate in the abstract. However, the internet has given rise to a sort of pro-wrestling style of debate that is more about scoring points that enlightenment or simply enjoying the back and forth with another person. This could be due to the lack of social cues on the internet or simply that people enjoy winning argument. But even those debates did not really poison the well until social media and the rise of aggressive atheists communities that revel in “owning” religious people. And these communities have become louder and very much dominated the discussion of religion online.
This is the current social context around an atheists explain religion to a believer, especially on public forums like this one. It can and does leave a sour taste in some peoples mouth due to the connotations of that asshole atheists talk down religious people a lot on the internet.
Yeah. To put it in the simplest terms, debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Christianity is not an even playing field. You are not debating Atheism on which the Atheist can speak from experience. "Christianity" isn't a thing... the individual beliefs of Christians real though and collectively make up Christianity. So an Atheist can't tell me what Christianity is "really about" any more than I can tell you whether you like eggs. What the debate ought to be about is the Atheist seeking to understand the Christian's faith and, if they see holes, poking at them. If you say "Christianity is wrong because it says gay people go to hell" and I say "that's not what mainline Christians believe" you don't get to say "they're not true scotsmen." You can't insist on defining the beliefs of your opponents as those of the least reasonable people who share their label. my mistake was extendint Incidentally, this applies to any ideological debate, not just religion. You don't get to pretend your strawmen are the "true interpretation" of something you don't believe has a true interpretation. that last part ... are you serious ... for years i've been dragged to church and i've also read the bible. i remember being stuck in the woman side in the church(yes, the church was split between men side and women side and the children would go with the women) and during sermons some random words from the priest would trigger a painful memory in a woman and she'll start crying. not long after, they were all crying because that shit was contagions; it used to get me and i'd start crying for no reason. i hated it. i've listen to sermons and i remember what the priests were saying about Adam and Eve sins. i've been to baptisms, i've seen parents sigh with relief after their kids were baptized and i've seen parents feign in church while begging priests for a postmortem baptism for their dead child just so he wouldn't go to hell; that baptism never came and there were no priests at the burial reading last rites. devastated parents, believers, with a kid in hell(because yea, belief ...) were in church the next day praying to fucking Jesus for their child, in hopes that maybe, just maybe he will give them a pass. what else could they have done?... i tried to meet you half way but you, talking to me about metaphysical happenings and whatnot is an assholery. I am serious that I think you should try to approach any ideology from the point of view of its reasonable adherents, not the nutcase fringe. I am furthermore serious that you don't get to say what the true interpretation is of something you don't believe has a true interpretation because you ultimately think it's bullshit. That said, I think the important thing to say in response to this is that I'm really sorry you had to go through that shit. It's awful. It's heretical, and it's contrary to the gospel. I understand that that experience has turned you personally off from Christianity and that's fair; but I do ask that you don't lump us all in with that group or think they are more "right" than we are (as surely you don't). I'll go into details, but please remember that my fundamental thought is that I'm really sorry all that crap happened, and that I'm physically angry about it. + Show Spoiler +As an FYI, I'm currently a seminarian at one of the top seminaries in the country, studying under some of the most respected (and most published) scholars in religion out there. I'm not some liberal talking out my ass because I'm a softie... I'm not a softie and there's plenty of stuff I'm hard as nails on, but I try to have it be the kind of abusive crap that got Jesus riled up, like the shit you described.
The men and women's side? Yeah all the evidence is that Jesus taught to mixed gendered groups, and that this was unusual at the time (it may have been part of why he taught outdoors or at residences, but rarely at synagogues). The earliest churches were often led by women.
The whole salvific baptism thing is insane. Yeah baptism is a wonderful sign of being accepted into the community of believers... but that's a community in and of this world. The idea that God only saves people we bothered to dip in water is profoundly insulting to the divinity. Incidentally, even though I believe that, I've been taught that the correct thing to do if a parent asks you to baptise their stillborn is to do it... not because it does anything for the child (heck, I'm a Protestant; we don't even pray for the dead because we trust God with them). It's a way of showing kindness to parents going through some rough shit.
Anyway, I'll leave it there if you wish. Thanks for sharing and I am deeply sympathetic; fundamentalism does some genuine damage and I'm really sorry for all you've witnessed. i initially thought that all Christians are in the same boat on the whole original sin/sins of our fathers thing. when you said they weren't, i believed you(when i said i'll meet you half way) but you still didn't believe me, my side of things, about the eastern church. i gave links showing that the baptism requirement is a church dogma and i exemplified with things i've actually experienced. if you want more, at the latest (2015) meeting between some Jewish and Orthodox Christian clerics, in Greece, the jewish side asked for something like "the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate, the historic document rejecting the charge of collective Jewish guilt for the killing of Jesus" and the orthodox clerics gave them the finger(more or less). so the Eastern Church's 'official' dogma is that since a jew killed Jesus, all jews share a collective guilt of sorts. Show nested quote +Deciding to finally address the “elephant in the room” in his closing remarks, the head of the Jewish delegation, Rabbi David Rosen, called for the Orthodox Christian leaders to issue a statement on the status of the Jewish people. “A doctrinal repudiation that the Jewish people had been rejected by God could have enormous consequences,” said Rosen, the international director of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish Committee. Rosen’s request was met with silence, raised eyebrows and the occasional shake of the head by the Christian delegates. In concluding remarks, the head of the Orthodox delegation, Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, did not directly address the Jewish request, speaking only about the need for greater people-to-people contacts and his desire to include youth in the next round of talks. What Rosen and several other Jewish participants were calling for was a grand gesture similar to the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate, the historic document rejecting the charge of collective Jewish guilt for the killing of Jesus. That document, which had its 50th anniversary marked last month, went a long way toward paving the way for improved Jewish-Catholic relations, and the Jewish participants in the Athens dialogue were hoping for something similar from their Orthodox interlocutors. Rosen was careful to note that unlike the Catholic Church, Orthodox churches do not have a hierarchy with a single leader like the pope, and that “there had never been an institutional charge of deicide against the Jews from the Orthodox Church.” Nevertheless, Rosen said that such a statement from Orthodox leaders would go a long way toward eliminating “traditional prejudice” toward Jews. The talks were part of a series of events commemorating 25 years of full diplomatic relations between Israel and Greece. The Orthodox Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, is the second largest stream in Christianity, mainly centered in Russia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East . this collective guilt thing is a reality in the eastern church. my mistake as i've said, was to extend that view over the whole christianity but you vehemently dismissed my side of things and took it as a direct attack on your belief. i still have no idea if you believe it's a church thing or an isolated incident, a nutcase fringe(event) as you put it. in the last years it might have gotten better, less practiced by priests, even if at an official level things are kept purposely muddy. i never tried taking a jab at you, your faith, your belief etc, or at least that wasn't my intention. i started with my reality then switched to playing with phrases, words, meanings and their obfuscated logic without attaching to them any faith shattering, belief bending, life changing meanings. if you believe in things then more power to you; i see no point in trying to convert you/anyone to ... nothing or to the lack of something.
Yeah I think we may have mutually misread intentions... I was responding entirely to the generalized idea that "religion" is responsible for the idea of parents bearing the guilt of their parents, and arguing that this is not really a common belief. I thought of the Adam/Eve thing as a semi-exception verging on a technicality... guilt that applies to all humankind obviously doesn't have any political ramifications as long as we don't run into another sentient species.
As for your experience, while I admit to being substantially less familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy than the forms of Christianity (and indeed Judaism) in the West, I think it's fair to say what you're describing is clearly anomalous within the Christian faith as a whole... as you observed, this puts them out of step with the Catholics (and I'd add Protestants) in a significant way. While I wouldn't be surprised if there's some fundamentalists who divide men and women in church, I've personally never observed it nor am I aware of any instance of Protestants or Catholics doing that (in Judaism, segregation by gender is standard among the Orthodox).
That said, it's your experience and obviously both very real and utterly terrible. I had no intention to discount it and I believe I was bounding the argument in error by focusing on the original question as I did.
|
|
|
On May 20 2017 08:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Can't 100% of human population prove gravity by jumping and then coming back to earth? OR by simply dropping something? Edit: I get what point you were trying to prove, just saying that is a pretty easy one to prove. Maybe go with earth is round or something.
Dropping things simply prove that things reach the ground. It doesn't prove gravity.
If I dropped an apple on the ground, have I shown them that there is a force that can accelerate them across the cosmos?
If I drop an apple on the ground have I proved the relational forces between mass, weak forces, and it's relation to magnetism?
Or have I simply shown that apples reach the ground for some reason.
|
On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right?
On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric.
|
On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric.
Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence.
|
On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Also this whole post is a load of rubbish. In essence you are arguing 2 points.
1) If a person does not believe an object exists because it is fantastical and supernatural and contrary to all physical reality experienced and no prove exists, he is insane.
2) You cannot understand Athiests, therefore they are crazy to you.
|
On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word.
|
On May 20 2017 08:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Also this whole post is a load of rubbish. In essence you are arguing 2 points. 1) If a person does not believe an object exists because it is fantastical and supernatural and contrary to all physical reality experienced and no prove exists, he is insane. 2) You cannot understand Athiests, therefore they are crazy to you.
I'm just understanding the logic.
Everyone else can point to the specific reasons why they are believing it. With Atheism it's always "would you believe ___" and not the actual answer to the question "why do you believe in atheism"
I can agree or disagree with other people's proof of their hypothesis to the truth of the universe. Much like I can read papers and reports on things like gravity. I can find and look at the proofs for those points, those statements.
But Atheism is the only one that gets up in arms the moment proof is asked of them. They don't need proof they say. Can't prove non-existence. It's not like they don't know this--they do, and yet they keep going believing something they know has no proof.
|
You cannot beleive in Atheism. You seem to lack any understanding of that. It is a lack of belief. As for you whole " Atheism is the only one that gets up in arms the moment proof is asked of them", I haven't seen that phenemenon before. But it would be true that you don't need proof for a lack of belief in the supernatural or fantastical. Afterall, you don't ask for proof the lack of existence of unicorns do you? Or proof for the lack of existance of an infinite number of objects or concepts. You seem to be arguing at something that exists in your own mind. Anyhow I am off.
|
On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word.
Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case.
Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion.
Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come.
Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable.
|
On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable.
That's like defining a Christian by the lack of belief in Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.
Which is technically true.
Atheism is just taking that lack of belief one religion further.
|
On May 20 2017 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. That's like defining a Christian by the lack of belief in Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. Which is technically true. Atheism is just taking that lack of belief one religion further.
Christianity has something it points to (the Bible) a starting point of proof from which you can understand where their belief begins. You can disbelieve it, you can disagree with it, but you know exactly where their stance is.
Atheism takes the stance of knowing God isn't real, but without proof he is real, and continually saying that they don't need proof to make the stance they make. That's strange isn't it? It's super anti-scientific method.
|
TOPIC CHANGE
How many peer reviews do laymen have to read on a subject before they are comfortable that research results were not falsified?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
